After fifteen months of assiduous reading, study, observation, and research, I have come to some conclusions about what is called COVID-19. I would like to emphasize that I have done this work obsessively since it seemed so important. I have consulted information and arguments across all media, corporate and alternative, academic, medical, books, etc. I have consulted with researchers around the world. I have read the websites of the CDC, the World Health Organization, and government and non-government health organizations. In other words, I have left no stone unturned, despite the overt or covert political leanings of the sources. I have done this as a sociologist and writer, not as a medical doctor, although many of my sources have been medical doctors and medical studies.
My succinct conclusions follow without links to sources since I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything but just stating for the public record what I have concluded. Life is short. I am going to say it now.
I know that vast numbers of people have been hypnotized by fear, threats, and bribes to accept the corporate mainstream media’s version of COVID-19. I have concluded that many millions are moving in a trance state and do not know this. They have been induced into this state by a well-organized, very sophisticated propaganda campaign that has drawn on the human fear of death and disease. Those behind this have no doubt studied the high incidence of hypochondriasis in the general population and the fear of an invisible “virus” in societies where belief in God and the spiritual invisible has been replaced by faith in science. Knowing their audience well, they have concocted a campaign of fear and confusion to induce obedience.
I do not know but suspect that those who have been so hypnotized tend to be mainly members of the middle to the upper classes, those who have invested so much belief in the system. This includes the highly schooled.
I know that to lockdown hundreds of millions of healthy people, to insist they wear useless masks, to tell them to avoid human contacts, to destroy the economic lives of regular people have created vast suffering that was meant to teach people a lesson about who was in control and that they better revise their understanding of human relations to adjust to the new digital unreality that the producers of this masquerade are trying to put in place of flesh and blood, face to face human reality.
I know that the PCR test invented by Kary Mullis cannot test for the alleged virus or any virus and therefore all the numbers of cases and deaths are based on nothing. They are conjured out of thin air in a massive act of magic. I know that the belief that it can so test began with the unscientific PCR Corona protocol created by Christian Drosten in Germany in January 2020 that became the standard method for testing for SARS-CoV-2 worldwide. I am sure this was preplanned and part of a high-level conspiracy. This protocol set the cycle threshold (amplification) at 45 which could only result in false positive results. These were then called cases: An act of fraud on a massive scale.
I do not know if the alleged virus has ever been isolated in the sense of being purified or detached from everything else aside from being cultured in a lab. Therefore I do not know if the virus exists.
I know that the experimental mRNA “vaccines” that are being pushed on everyone are not traditional vaccines but dangerous experiments whose long-term consequences are unknown. And I know that Moderna says its messenger RNA (mRNA) non-vaccine “vaccine” functions “like an operating system on a computer” and that Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, says that the lipid nanoparticles from the injections travel throughout the body and settle in large quantities in multiple organs where the spike protein, being biologically active, can cause massive damage and that the FDA has known this. Additionally, I know that tens of thousands of people have suffered adverse effects from these injections and many thousands have died from them and that these figures are greatly underestimated due to the reporting systems. I know that with this number of casualties in the past these experimental shots would have been stopped long ago or never started. That they have not, therefore, convinces me that a radically evil agenda is under way whose goal is harm not health because those in charge know what I know and much more.
I do not know where this alleged virus originated, if it exists.
I know that from the start of this crisis, there was a concerted effort across the world to deny access to proven effective treatments such as hydroxychloroquine, steroids, ivermectin in a planned effort to vaccinate as many people as possible. This alone reveals an agenda centered not on health but on getting as many people as possible to submit to being vaccinated and controlled. Social control is the name of this deadly game.
I know that those pushing these vaccines – The World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, etc. – have a long history of wanting to drastically reduce the world’s population and that their promotion of eugenics under various names is very well known. I am convinced that the totally untested mRNA-type “gene therapy” is the key to their plan for population reduction.
I do not know if they will succeed.
I know they must be resisted.
I do not know why so many good people cannot see through this evil. I can only attribute it to having been seduced by a massive hypnotic propaganda campaign that has appealed to their deepest fears and will result in those fears being realized because they thought they were free. It is a great tragedy.
I know that all the statistics about cases and deaths “from” COVID-19 have been manipulated to create a fake pandemic. One of the most obvious proofs of this is the alleged disappearance of the flu and deaths from influenza. Only someone in a trance could fail to understand the absurd logic in the argument that this was the result of mask wearing when at the same time the air-born COVID-19 spread like wildfire until that stopped precipitously in January 2021 when a tiny number of people had been vaccinated.
I know there has been barely any excess mortality throughout all this.
I do not know where it will all end but hope against hope the growing opposition to this fraud will grow and defeat it despite the organized censorship that is underway against dissenting opinions. I know that when organized censorship on this scale takes place those behind it are afraid of the revelation of the truth. A simple understanding of history confirms this.
I know that the temporary reprieve the authorities have granted to their subjects will be followed by further restrictions on fundamental freedoms, the corona virus lockdowns will likely return, “vaccine” boosters will be promoted, and the World Economic Forum’s push for a Great Reset with a Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to the marriage of artificial intelligence, cyborgs, digital technology, and biology with the USA and other countries continuing to slip into a new form of fascist control unless people across the world stand up and resist in great numbers. I am heartened by signs that this resistance is growing.
Finally, I know if the authoritarian forces win the immediate battle, someone will write a book with a title like that of Milton Mayer’s classic, They Thought They Were Free. It will be censored. Perhaps it will first be shared via samizdat. But in the end, after much suffering and death, the truth about this evil agenda will prevail and there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
We are in a spiritual war for the soul of the world.
VAERS data released today by the CDC showed a total of 358,379 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 11, 2021.
This week’s number of reported adverse events among all age groups following COVID vaccines surpassed 350,000, according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Data released today show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 11, 2021, a total of 358,379 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 5,993 deaths — an increase of 105 deaths over the previous week. There were 29,871 serious injury reports, up 1,430 compared with last week.
In the U.S., 306.5 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of June 11. This includes 128 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 167 million doses of Pfizer and 11 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.
The most recent reported deaths include a 15-year-old male (VAERS I.D. 1383620) who reportedly died one day after receiving his second Pfizer dose, a 15-year-old male (VAERS I.D. 1382906) who received Pfizer and a 16-year-old male (VAERS I.D. 1386841) who reportedly suffered a hemorrhage and died four days after receiving a Pfizer vaccine. An autopsy is pending.
Other deaths include two 15-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 1187918 and 1242573), a 16-year-old (VAERS I.D. 1225942) and one 17-year-old (VAERS I.D. 1199455).
974 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to17-year-olds with 98% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine, 1.4% to Moderna and 0.2% (or two cases) to J&J.
59 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 58 attributed to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
Of the 3,516 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 54% were reported after Pfizer vaccinations, 42% following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine and 267 cases, or 8%, of Bell’s Palsy cases were reported in conjunction with J&J.
CDC reschedules emergency meeting to discuss reports of young people developing serious heart issues after mRNA vaccines
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) planned to hold an emergency meeting today to discuss the benefit-risk of COVID mRNA vaccines in adolescents and young adults. The agency rescheduled the meeting late Thursday, after Congress officially established Juneteenth National Independence Day (observed today) as a federal holiday.
The meeting will now be held during a regularly scheduled ACIP meeting on June 23 – 25.
The emergency meeting was announced last week after the CDC acknowledged a higher-than-expected number of reports of heart inflammation in young people after they received a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.
The CDC on June 10 said it was aware of a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in patients 30 and younger. The disclosure was made during a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearing to consider what data the agency would need in order to extend Emergency Use Authorization of COVID vaccines for children under 12.
CDC data showed 196 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis among 18- to 24-year-olds through May 31, compared with an expected rate of between eight and 83 cases. Among 16- to 17-year-olds, 79 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported through May 31. The expected rate among people in this age group is between two and 19 cases.
A search of the latest available data in VAERS revealed 1,117 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, among all age groups reported in the U.S following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and June 11, 2021. Of the 900 cases reported, 686 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 391 cases to Moderna and 36 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Parents share horror stories of death, illness after Moderna vaccine
This week, The Defender reported on two cases of young people who developed heart complications after being vaccinated with the Moderna COVID vaccine, including a 19-year-old college freshman who died, and a 21-year-old student who is recovering.
On June 15, The Defender reported that Simone Scott, a 19-year-old freshman at Northwestern University, died of complications from a heart transplant she underwent after developing what her doctors believe was myocarditis following her second dose of the Moderna COVID vaccine.
Scott received the second dose on May 1, and on May 11, visited a doctor on campus because she wasn’t feeling well. On May 16, she texted her father complaining of dizziness and fatigue. He called campus police who, when they checked in on her, had to administer CPR.
After multiple interventions, including hooking Scott to an ECMO machine that mirrors the function of the heart so her own heart could rest, doctors determined she needed a heart replacement. She died June 11.
Scott’s mother told local media, “I still feel like she’s here, even though I know she’s not and it just feels like such a waste.”
Scott’s doctors have not fully confirmed the cause of her death, but they said it appears she suffered from myocarditis.
On June 15, The Defender reported that a 21-year-old New Jersey student suffered severe heart inflammation after receiving his second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine. Justin Harrington, whose school required him to get the vaccine in order to attend classes in the fall, experienced flu-like symptoms followed by heart pain within eight to 12 hours of receiving the vaccine.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Justin’s father, Timothy Harrington, said his son felt different after the second shot. Every time his heart beat it hurt and he felt pressure,” Harrington said. “Then he developed heart pain down both arms.”
Harrington said his son, who has no underlying medical conditions, did not experience heart pain with his first dose of the vaccine. Although Justin has since been released from the hospital, he has to wear a heart monitor and take four different medications for six months, has to sleep propped up, can’t exert himself and he’s missing out on one of the most important times of his life, his father said.
As for Justin’s recovery, Harrington said, “He has minor scarring on his heart and doctors hope they caught it early enough that there will be no other issues — but it’s pure conjecture at this point.”
8 fully vaccinated die of COVID in Maine, as U.S. breakthrough cases rise
Initial data suggest breakthrough cases in Maine are more common in older individuals and people with underlying health conditions — the same populations that, among the unvaccinated, are most at risk of hospitalization or death from the virus. About half of the vaccinated people in Maine who tested positive for COVID had not experienced symptoms when contacted by case investigators, according to the Maine CDC.
On June 3, Napa County California announced a fully vaccinated woman, who was more than a month past her second Moderna shot, died after being hospitalized with COVID. The 65-year-old woman had underlying conditions and tested positive for the Alpha variant.
As of June 9, the California Department of Public Health had identified more than 5,723 breakthrough COVID cases. Of the 5,723 cases, at least 417 people were hospitalized and least 47 died. Approximately 48% of cases were missing hospitalization data. It is not known if the primary cause of hospitalization or death was COVID or if there were other causes.
Other states continue to report breakthrough cases, among them Texas, which recorded more than 768 breakthrough COVID cases through June 1, with 8% (61 cases) resulting in death.
In Washington, the state’s Department of Health reported 1,837 cases of breakthrough infection through June 9. Of those, 10% resulted in hospitalization and 31 people died from COVID-related illness. The majority of cases occurred in the 35 to 49 age group.
Health officials push vaccines, ignore natural immunity
The CDC conservatively estimates more than a third of Americans (at least 114.6 million) have been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
For example, a December 2020 study by Singapore researchers found neutralizing antibodies (one prong of the immune response) remained present in high concentrations for 17 years or more in individuals who recovered from the original SARS-CoV.
Yet health authorities are largely ignoring this fact as they continue to push for everyone to get the vaccine. As the American Institute of Economic Research reported, it appears in order to promote the COVID vaccine agenda, key organizations are not only “downplaying” natural immunity but may be seeking to “erase” it altogether.
New Cleveland Clinic study found people who had COVID were less likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals who never had virus—suggesting vaccine is of no benefit to people who already had COVID.#TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66EdwTnDhttps://t.co/zvQMuYwHaa
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 9, 2021
102 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries
According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”
On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. After repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions, a health communications specialist from the CDC’s Vaccine Task Force contacted us on March 29 — three weeks after our initial inquiry.
The individual received our request for information from VAERS, but said she had never received our list of questions, even though employees we talked to several times said CDC press officers were working through the questions and confirmed the representative had received them. We provided the list of questions again along with a new deadline, but never received a response.
On May 19, a CDC employee said our questions had been reviewed and our inquiry was pending in their system, but would not provide us with a copy of the response. We were told we would be contacted by phone or email with the response.
We’ve contacted the CDC numerous times since and there is no change in the status of our questions, to re-submit our questions or to callback later. It has been 102 days since we sent our first email inquiring into VAERS data and reports and we have yet to receive a response.
Mary Holland and Simon Yanowitz discuss the impending start of the mandatory vaccination program in Israeli schools for 12- to 16-year-olds [recorded June 5, 2021 with vaccination in schools to begin June 6, 2021]
In the article, “Can employers require workers to get the COVID vaccine?”, Bailey Aldridge claims that, given the updated rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “your employer can require you to get a COVID vaccine.” Aldridge even claims that “The EEOC says there are no federal laws that prevent an employer from requiring employees who are physically in the workplace to get the COVID-19 vaccine.”
The EEOC’s guidance, however, does not claim that an employer can legally require an emergency use COVID-19 vaccine. The EEOC guidance merely states that the “federal EEO [Equal Employment Opportunity] laws do not prevent an employer from requiring” an emergency authorized COVID-19 vaccine. That is not surprising because the EEO laws apply only to discrimination based on certain protected classes, such as race, religion and national origin.
Federal law is, of course, far broader than the narrow EEO laws. In recognizing that there are other federal laws that do prohibit an employer from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine, the EEOC’s guidance also states that, “These three vaccines were granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) by the FDA” and that, “It is beyond the EEOC’s jurisdiction to discuss the legal implications of EUA or the FDA approach.”
When one reviews the FDA’s EUA and its approved labeling, a.k.a. “fact sheets,” for eachCOVID-19vaccine, they each clearly provide that: “It is [the vaccine recipient’s] choice to receive or not receive the COVID-19 Vaccine.” The reason each fact sheet includes this language is because the same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant an EUA also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”
That same section of the Act also authorized the Secretary, and only the Secretary, to provide the “consequences” for refusing to receive an EUA product and the EUAs for each COVID-19 vaccine do not include permission to terminate an employee for refusing the vaccine.
ICAN hopes that the Department of Justice will do its job and enforce the federal law prohibiting mandating an EUA vaccine and will continue to push it to enforce this important law.
Simone Scott underwent a heart transplant one month after developing what her doctors believe was myocarditis following her second dose of Moderna. She received the second vaccine May 1 and died June 11.
Simone Scott, a 19-year-old freshman at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., died June 11 of complications from a heart transplant she underwent after developing what her doctors believe was myocarditis following her second dose of the Moderna COVID vaccine.
Scott received her second dose of Moderna on May 1, WLWT 5 reported. When the 2020 Mason High School graduate and senior class vice president paid a surprise visit to her parents for Mother’s Day, May 9, her mother said she noticed Scott wasn’t feeling well.
“I did notice she was kind of stuffy so her voice wasn’t exactly the same,” Valerie Kraimer said.
Scott returned to campus on May 11, where even after a visit to the doctor, her condition worsened. Kraimer said multiple tests came back negative including a COVID-19 test.
“On Sunday morning [May 16], she texted her father and said, ‘Dad, I feel so dizzy. I cannot get out of bed’ and that’s when everything really started from there,” Kraimer said.
Scott’s parents were hundreds of miles away so her father called campus police to have someone check in on her.
“We learned that a doctor had to jump on her chest and give her CPR because she was that bad, and then the whole cascade of events happened, Kraimer said. “They had to intubate her and realized she was in heart failure.”
After multiple interventions, including hooking Scott to an ECMO machine that mirrors the function of the heart so her own heart could rest, doctors determined she needed a heart replacement. Her doctors have not fully confirmed the cause of her death, but they said it appears Scott suffered from myocarditis.
Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to researchers at the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”
The university told students Scott died from complications after undergoing a heart transplant. “Scott’s death came weeks after a heart complication in May, which led to a heart transplant,” The Daily Northwestern reported.
Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson said in a thread posted June 14, the Northwestern journalism student “suffered a case of apparent myocarditis-induced heart failure on Sunday, May 16. Despite extraordinary measures to save her, including a heart transplant, she died Friday morning at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago.”
THREAD
19-year-old Simone Scott was excited to get her second dose of @moderna_tx’s #Covid vaccine on May 1.
“Doctors appear to have repeatedly missed signals as Scott’s condition worsened in the two weeks following her second shot — before she abruptly crashed,” Berenson said.
Scott received the COVID vaccine on her own accord, but her university now mandates students be fully vaccinated before returning to campus, The College Fix reported.
“I still feel like she’s here, even though I know that she’s not and it just feels like such a waste,” Kraimer said.
Scott’s parents are still waiting on multiple tests on her heart to come back in the hope they will learn why they lost their daughter so suddenly.
As The Defender reported June 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will convene an emergency meeting of its advisers on June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.
The CDC said during a June 10 meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee the agency had identified 226 reports of heart inflammation that might meet its “working case definition” of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, The Defender reported last week.
According to the CDC, a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger who received an mRNA vaccine. The median age of people with myocarditis or pericarditis following the first dose was 30, and after the second-dose, 24.
The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) revealed 900 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, among all age groups reported in the U.S following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and June 4, 2021. Of the 900 cases reported, 533 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 331 cases to Moderna and 32 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office said during the June 10 FDA hearing there had been a higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation among young people recently vaccinated with their second doses of mRNA vaccine.
CDC data showed 196 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis among 18- to 24-year-olds through May 31, compared with an expected rate of between eight and 83 cases.
Among 16- to 17-year-olds, 79 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported through May 31. The expected rate among people in this age group is between two and 19 cases, Shimabukuro said during his presentation.
Shimabukuro said the CDC’s findings were “mostly consistent” with reports of rare cases of heart inflammation that had been studied in Israel and reported by the U.S. Department of Defense earlier this year.
A New Jersey student whose college, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, requires all students to be fully vaccinated in order to attend classes in the fall became ill within hours of receiving the second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine.
A 21-year-old New Jersey student suffered severe heart inflammation after receiving his second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine. Justin Harrington, whose school required him to get the vaccine in order to attend classes in the fall, experienced flu-like symptoms followed by heart pain within eight to 12 hours of receiving the vaccine.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Justin’s father, Timothy Harrington, said his son felt different after the second shot. “Every time his heart beat it hurt and he felt pressure,” Harrington said. “Then he developed heart pain down both arms.”
Harrington said his son, who has no underlying medical conditions, did not experience heart pain with his first dose of the vaccine.
On May 24, two days after Justin received the second shot, his father took him to the emergency room at Morristown Memorial Hospital because the symptoms had worsened.
“The physicians weren’t connecting it to the vaccine until I informed the doctors my son just got the vaccine, and shared with them the information I had found on myocarditis,” Harrington said. “I didn’t think the doctors were stupid, but physicians sometimes see with blinders on.”
Physicians checked Justin’s blood levels, which showed high protein numbers. Abnormal scans, including an EKG, led to a diagnosis of myocarditis. Justin was hospitalized for three days while doctors attempted to get the condition under control.
Harrington said even though his son has been released, he still has chest pain and his life is not the same.
“He has to wear a heart monitor and take four different medications for six months,” Harrington said. “He has to sleep propped up, can’t exert himself and he’s missing out on one of the most important times of his life.”
Harrington said his son is supposed to be doing internships, “but how can he go out and find a company to work with him when he can’t exert himself? He’s so smart and now he’s side-lined. Doctors want my son to lie around for three to four months.”
As for Justin’s recovery, Harrington said, “He has minor scarring on his heart and doctors hope they caught it early enough that there will be no other issues — but it’s pure conjecture at this point.”
School’s mandate doesn’t allow exceptions for students who already had COVID
After Justin’s diagnosis, doctors recommended Harrington’s 19-year-old son, who received one dose of the Moderna vaccine, not get the second shot.
However, both sons were told they needed to get vaccinated in order to attend school — despite both previously having had COVID, Harrington said.
As The Defender reported last week, a new preprint study by the Cleveland Clinic found people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 were less likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals who never had the virus — suggesting the vaccine is of no benefit to people who already had COVID.
In addition to the vaccine likely providing no benefit to those who already had the virus, studies suggest people who were previously infected with COVID are more at risk of severe adverse reactions.
As The Defender reported earlier this year, some experts say the science to support vaccinating those primed with COVID doesn’t exist and there’s a potential risk of harm, including death, in vaccinating those who’ve already had the disease or who were recently infected.
Still, many colleges and universities — including the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) where Justin is enrolled — are mandating the vaccines for all students, with few or no exceptions.
“Justin’s a rule follower and he was pressured to get it,” Harrington said.
Harrington said when he called the dean of NJIT prior to his son getting vaccinated and asked why the school is forcing young people who are at little risk of serious illness from COVID to get the vaccine, the dean replied that unless his son had a valid medical or religious exemption, it was a requirement.
“I am not ‘anti-vax,’” Harrington said. “I am ‘anti-forced-vaxxed.’ They’re forcing these kids to get a vaccine even though they’re not affected by COVID or have already had it.”
According to Justin, he reported his myocarditis to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), but no one from the agency followed up.
Justin said he would “absolutely not” recommend anyone get vaccinated, as he does not want this to happen to any of his friends. “I’m not here to bash Moderna, but I wouldn’t take it,” he said.
Harrington said he also knows of a girl who had to have a heart transplant after being vaccinated and believes his son’s condition could have been even more severe if he hadn’t reached him in time.
According to WLWT 5 News, 19-year-old Simone Scott underwent a heart transplant one month after suffering a heart complication from her second dose of Moderna and subsequently passed away.
Moderna denies link between vaccine and heart inflammation
As recently as last week, Moderna said it has not found a link between its COVID vaccine and cases of a rare heart inflammation condition reported in young people who have received the shot.
The vaccine maker said in a statement it arrived at this conclusion after “carefully reviewing available safety data to date for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for cases of myocarditis and/or pericarditis.”
The CDC said during a June 10 meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee the agency had identified 226 reports of heart inflammation that might meet its “working case definition” of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, The Defender reported last week.
According to the CDC, a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger who received an mRNA vaccine. The median age of people with myocarditis or pericarditis following the first dose was 30, and after the second-dose, 24.
Moderna said it “will continue to closely monitor these reports and is actively working with public health and regulatory authorities to further assess this issue.”
“We clearly have an imbalance there,” said Dr. Tom Shimabukuro of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office during the June 10 FDA meeting. The committee met to discuss safety issues surrounding the use of COVID vaccines in children as young as 6 months old.
The CDC has scheduled an emergency meeting of its advisers on June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.
CDC announced it will convene emergency meeting of its advisers June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer + Moderna COVID vaccines.
AP, Boston Globe, October 10, 1992, “Birth-control vaccine is reported in India”: “Scientists said yesterday they have created the first birth-control shot for women, effective for an entire year…[after which] a booster shot is needed.”
Dr. Byram Bridle, Associate Professor of Viral Immunology, University of Guelph: “We made a big mistake; we didn’t realize it until right now, we thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew that the spike protein itself was a toxin…and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin, and [for] some people, this gets in the circulation and when that happens in some people, it can cause damage, especially to the cardiovascular system. I have many other legitimate questions about the long-term safety therefore of this vaccine. FOR EXAMPLE, WITH IT ACCUMULATING WITHIN THE OVARIES, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, WILL WE BE RENDERING YOUNG PEOPLE INFERTILE?” (emphasis mine)
In yesterday’s article, I outlined possible parallels between population-reduction vaccines and the current COVID vaccines, which are causing bleeding, irregular menstrual cycles, miscarriages, and pre-term births.
Elite depopulation research, involving vaccines, has a long history, leading up to this day.
The Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation was created at the World Health Organization in 1973. Ute Sprenger, writing in Biotechnology and Development Monitor (December 1995) describes the Task Force:
“…a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D…such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines…”
Sprenger indicates that, as of 1995, there were a number of large groups researching these vaccines. Among them:
WHO/HRP. HRP, the Special Progamme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, is located in Switzerland. It is funded by “the governments of Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Canada, as well as the UNFPA and the World Bank.”
The Population Council, a US group funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Institutes of Health [a US federal agency], and the US Agency for International Development [notorious for its collaborations with the CIA].
National Institute of Immunology. Located in India, “major funders are the Indian government, the Canadian International Development Research Center and the [ubiquitous] Rockefeller Foundation.”
The Center for Population Research operates under the umbrella of the US National Institute of Child Health and Development [!], which is part of the US National Institutes of Health.
Over time, the names of these groups change; their goal remains the same. Depopulation through vaccination. And of course, it doesn’t take long to find the name, Bill Gates, as a funding source.
To provide background on this long-term operation, it’s necessary to understand the vision of arch Globalists and radical environmentalists. (I’m not talking about environmental groups who simply want to combat major corporate polluters.)
If you demonstrated that the most advanced waste incinerators could burn all the organic and inorganic garbage piling up in landfills around the world and in the oceans—including plastics—and the toxic compounds emitted by these incinerators would cause FAR LESS damage than the landfills and the ocean plastic dumps…
And even if you advocated the incinerators as stop-gap solutions, until better answers could be found…
A radical environmentalist would reject your proposal—and any technological fix—out of hand.
He wants to re-forest the entire planet, reduce the human population to a fraction of its current size, and cede police powers for achieving these objectives to a magical global governance body.
Elite Globalists approve of radical environmentalism—but with a twist. They want a technocratic Brave New World, where those humans allowed to survive would be genetically “improved” and controlled, to keep them from exercising a dangerous item called freedom.
The Globalists and the radical environmentalists agree that there are too many people on Earth; and no solution to human problems can be accomplished, given the current (excess) population. Instead of 7 billion people, they want a human race of a billion or five hundred million.
Both groups also agree that the fake science of climate change should be pushed to the limit, in order to impose energy-use quotas on every human. This program would actually lower energy use and production across the world and create massive poverty and a massive die-off.
For decades, elite Globalists have been asking themselves the question: How do you kill billions of people and get away with it?
One of their prime answers has been: pandemics.
Of course, the true pandemic is the response to the fake pandemic: vaccines.
If, in the long-term, vaccines can induce the inability to produce children, the genocide would be invisible.
A combination of truth and lies—issued as ongoing studies and press reports—would “explain” falling birth rates. E.g., climate change, extreme weather, pesticides, women opting out of motherhood for careers, economic downturns, fear of raising children in a world of increasing dangers, etc.
But behind it all—vaccines.
Preliminary animal studies of COVID RNA technology are reporting that the spike protein travels through the body, far beyond expected destinations. Applied to humans, this would mean the immune system is on full-attack mode against the protein. And THAT opens the door to immune-system rejection on a grand scale—the body basically assaults itself and its organs. The targets of assault could very well include tissues of the womb and a developing embryo.
The current claim that ongoing COVID booster shots will be necessary reinforces this scenario.
In medical, psychological, and sociological literature, the nasty direct term, “eugenics,” has been replaced by a softer vaguer one, “family planning.” The new term is designed to hide the true agenda.
For Globalists and radical environmentalists, the unparalleled success of the propaganda operation called COVID assures vaccinations on a scale never achieved before. It also assures the expansion of RNA technology—new vaccines and drugs which are genetic treatments designed to force the body to produce unnatural proteins.
There is no end to the genetic alterations to which humans can be subjected.
It stands to reason, given the history of research on depopulation vaccines, that some of those alterations are, and will be, aimed at cutting off the ability to procreate.
UKMFA have sent a letter of complaint to Prof Sridhar following her claims made on BBC Newsround, which is shown in most UK schools, which made several false or misleading claims including that the Covid-19 vaccines are 100% safe, that children should have the vaccine to protect their parents, and that the benefits to children outweigh any risks.
To present such a simplified and biased message is, in our opinion, deeply irresponsible, amounts to propaganda, and negatively impacts on the process of giving fully informed consent. We have requested that Prof Sridhar immediately retracts the entire message and issues a clear public apology for misrepresenting the facts relating to the safety concerns of Covid-19 vaccines in children.
This is in response to your recent appearance on BBC Newsround, where you made several statements which are entirely unsupported by scientific evidence.
Concerns are mainly related but not limited to the following points:
You state the benefit of the vaccine for children would be that they then “don’t need to worry about Covid-19”. Children are already in a position where they do not have to worry about Covid-19, as the risk to them is close to zero.
You state that another benefit would be that they then are likely to not infect their parents. Children do not play a major role in transmission, and there is also no evidence from the regulatory trials that the vaccines prevent transmission. This is clearly a statement intended to provoke an emotional response of guilt followed by a sense of duty, and as such it is propaganda rather than factual advice.
You state that the main downside of getting the vaccine is that it is “another injection into your arm”. This is a gross misrepresentation of the known and unknown risks of potential serious adverse effectsof the Covid-19 vaccines for children. We are sure you are aware that the CDC in the US is calling an emergency meeting, specifically to discuss the hundreds of cases of myocarditis that have occurred in young people after the vaccine (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9672233/The-Latest-WHO-warns-delta-variant-hold-Europe.html).
Life-threatening effects and deaths have been reported in young adults and children in the US and Israel, which you do not refer to at all.
You will find the relevant references to all those points in our Open letter.
In the current situation, which is fraught with uncertainty and fear, the public is looking to professionals for balanced advice. To present such a simplified and biased message is, in our opinion, deeply irresponsible. When it is targeted specifically at a vulnerable group of children, it is unforgiveable.
We note that the currently accessible version of your statement on Newsround has already been redacted, as you originally claimed 100% safety for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. You must have been aware that declaring any medical intervention 100% safe undermines anyone’s credibility.
Editing a feature after it has already been circulated and viewed by huge numbers of the public and children, without a publicized explanation or apology, is highly irregular. The comment at the end of the written transcript, merely noting a correction, will not reach the majority of the audience who have heard and assimilated your initial claim.
We therefore request that you immediately retract your entire message and issue a clear public apology for misrepresenting the facts relating to the safety concerns of Covid-19 vaccines in children.
We request that your retraction and apology are circulated as widely as your initial message, and specifically to all schools where this material may have been shown to children.
We are expecting a response confirming that you have taken appropriate action, or otherwise justify the reasons why you have not done so.
Rt. Hon. Gavin Williamson – Secretary of State for Education
Rt. Hon. Oliver Dowden – Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Shirley-Anne Somerville – Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills
“…as of Feb. 12, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had already received 111 reports of adverse events experienced by women who were pregnant at the time of their Pfizer or Moderna injection…”
“The first such report was submitted Dec. 22, just 10 days after authorization of the Pfizer vaccine. Nearly a third (31%) of the women had miscarriages or preterm births, which occurred within as little as one day of injection — the majority after a single dose of vaccine.”
“The descriptions of miscarriages and premature births accompanying the VAERS reports are tragic and hair-raising.”
“For example, a 37-year-old who received her first dose of the Moderna vaccine at 28 weeks of pregnancy, just after an ultrasound showed a healthy placenta, was discovered to have ‘significant placenta issues just one week later.’ A repeat ultrasound showed that the placenta had ‘calcified and aged prematurely,’ leading to recommended hospitalization for the duration of her pregnancy.”
“A 35-year-old, also vaccinated at around 29 weeks of pregnancy, ‘noticed decreased motion of the baby’ two days after receiving the Pfizer injection. The following day, ‘the baby was found to not have a heartbeat’.”
“Two Pfizer vaccine recipients in earlier stages of pregnancy (first trimester) had miscarriages after experiencing ‘intolerable’ abdominal pain and uterine bleeding extensive enough, in one case, to require ‘emergency surgery and a blood transfusion’.”
“…the World Health Organization on Jan. 27 issued guidance advising against pregnant women getting Moderna’s COVID vaccine — only to reverse that guidance two days later, as The New York Times reported.”
“Documented risks of vaccination during pregnancy include miscarriage as well as neurodevelopmental problems arising from maternal immune activation (an inflammatory response in the mother that can harm fetal brain development).”
Concerning that last paragraph: Before the experimental RNA COVID vaccines were authorized, RNA technology had experienced failures and serious problems in clinical trials—because the immune system went into overdrive. It is this immune hyper-response that may be responsible for the recent reported miscarriages and pre-term births; the body basically attacks itself.
This RNA effect is documented in studies published before 2019. The vaccine makers and public health agencies are well aware of it.
But this is just the beginning of the story, because what is happening to vaccinated women now may be part of a much larger history, involving extensive research on medically induced birth control—also known as population reduction.
In the vaccine research community, it’s an open secret that the Rockefeller Fund, the UN, and other groups have been backing the development of vaccines that function as agents of population reduction. This work has been going on for decades.
What follows are examples of the evidence. They cite the Third World as the target, but no one should take that as a hideous sign that depopulation efforts are confined to one group of countries. These efforts are universal.
The late well-known journalist, Alexander Cockburn, on the op ed page of the LA Times, on September 8, 1994, in his piece “Real U.S. Policy in Third World: Sterilization: Disregard the ’empowerment’ shoe polish–the goal is to keep the natives from breeding,” [2] reviewed the infamous Kissinger-commissioned 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200, “which addressed population issues”:
“… the true concern of Kissinger analysts [in Memorandum 200] was maintenance of US access to Third World resources. They worried that the ‘political consequences’ of population growth [in the Third World] could produce internal instability … With famine and food riots and the breakdown of social order in such countries, [the Kissinger memo warns that] ‘the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized.’”
In other words, too many people equals disruption for the transnational corporations, who steal nations from those very people. Therefore, reduce the population.
Therefore, develop a vaccine that does that job.
Journalist Cockburn, in his LA Times piece, goes on to say that the writers of the Kissinger memo “favored sterilization over food aid.” He notes that, “By 1977, Reimart Ravenholt, the director of AID’s [US Agency for International Development] population program, was saying that his agency’s goal was to sterilize one-quarter of the world’s women.”
Here is an astonishing journal paper. November, 1993. FASEB Journal, volume 7, pp.1381-1385. Authors—Stephan Dirnhofer et al. Dirnhofer was a member of the Institute for Biomedical Aging Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
A quote from the paper: “Our study provides insights into possible modes of action of the birth control vaccine promoted by the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO (World Health Organization).”
A birth control vaccine? Yes. A vaccine whose purpose is to achieve miscarriages. This particular vaccine was apparently just one of several anti-fertility vaccines the Task Force was promoting.
And yes, there is a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines at the WHO. This journal paper focuses on a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin B (hCG). There is a heading in the FASEB paper (p.1382) called “Ability of antibodies to neutralize the biological activity of hCG.” The authors are trying to discover whether a state of non-fertility can be achieved by blocking the normal activity of hCG.
This hormone helps sustain pregnancy. If the immune system can be trained to attack it, pregnancy will collapse and a miscarriage will occur.
Another journal paper: The British Medical Bulletin, volume 49, 1993. “Contraceptive Vaccines.” [4] The authors—RJ Aitken et al. From the MRC Reproductive Biology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
“Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials, involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered … incorporating tetanus or diptheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides … Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG antibodies…”
The authors are talking about creating an immune response against this female hormone. Training a woman’s body to react against one of its own secreted hormones. The authors state, “The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone that signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system.”
Stop the female body from recognizing a state of pregnancy. Get the body to treat the natural hormone hCG as an intruder, a disease agent, and mobilize the forces of the immune system against it. Create a synthetic effect, an engineered effect, by which the mother’s “maternal endocrine system” does not swing into gear when pregnancy occurs. The result? The embryo in the mother is swept away by her next period—since hGC, which signals the existence of the pregnancy and halts menstruation cycles, is now treated as a disease entity.
The authors put it this way: “In principle, the induction of immunity against hGC should lead to a sequence of normal, or slightly extended, menstrual cycles during which any pregnancies would be terminated…”
Miscarriage would then be the “normal” state of affairs.
“During the next decade the world’s population is set to rise by around 500 million. Moreover, because the rates of population growth in the developing countries of Africa, South America, and Asia will be so much greater than the rest of the world, the distribution of this dramatic population growth will be uneven…”
Two other vaccine methods are described. They “aim to prevent conception by interfering with the intricate cascade of interactive events that characterize the union of male and female gametes at fertilization.”
In a letter to The Lancet, p.1222, Volume 339, May 16, 1992, “Cameroon: Vaccination and politics,” [5] Peter Ndumbe and Emmanuel Yenshu report on their efforts to analyze widespread popular resistance to a tetanus vaccine given in the northwest province of Cameroon.
Two of the reasons women rejected the vaccine: it was given only to “females of childbearing age,” and people heard that a “sterilizing agent” was present in the vaccine.
Indeed, these are the charges leveled against past tetanus vaccine campaigns in Kenya and the Philippines. In Kenya (2014), an intense standoff occurred—with the Catholic Doctors Association and Kenyan Catholic Bishops on one side, and the Kenyan government Health Authority on the other.
Both sides claimed they tested vials of the tetanus vaccine. The Catholic groups’ lab report indicated the vaccine contained hCG; the Health Authority’s report indicated no hCG was present.
“Mass Sterilization: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-Fertility Agent in UN Tetanus Vaccine,” [6] November 8, 2014, by Steve Weatherbe, earth-heal.com: “Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.”
“According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their congregations to refuse the vaccine.”
“’We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,’ Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG’.”
“Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4, ‘This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored’.”
In the present situation, we have COVID vaccines. They’re being injected all over the world. Women are making reports of bleeding, disrupted menstrual cycles, miscarriages, pre-term births.
There is a long history, extending to the present day, of elite groups researching and deploying vaccines designed to terminate pregnancies, for the purpose of depopulation.
The elite groups and players behind the current “pandemic”—the WHO, UN, Bill Gates, Rockefeller Institute, etc.—are the same groups who have been developing depopulation vaccines.
This is called a clue.
It lights up like a giant sign, at the beginning of the trail of investigation into the use of COVID vaccines for depopulation.
“There’s no publication anywhere in the world of authentic SARS‑CoV‑2 in a bottle, or ever been observed, or characterized anywhere in the world — just like with HIV.”
…
“There’s no covid vaccine. These are injections. They are lethal. They are highly toxic.”
…
“Do not take these injections. You will regret it if you do. They are very, very dangerous.”
Josh Sigurdson interviews Dr. David Rasnick during Red Pill Expo, which took place June 5-6 in Rapid City, South Dakota.
Has the COVID virus ever been isolated?
Do viruses even exist?
What are the vaccinations for if they’ve never isolated the virus?
Dr. Rasnick speaks of other deceptions in the history of virology, including HIV and AIDS.
RENOWNED SCIENTIST SPEAKS OUT! – COVID IS A SCAM! – DON’T GET THE JAB! – DO VIRUSES EXIST?
Original video available at World Alternative Media BitChute channel. [As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Brighteon and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
VAERS data released today showed 329,021 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 5,888 deaths and 28,441 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 4, 2021.
This week’s number of reported adverse events among all age groups following COVID vaccines surpassed 329,000, according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Today’s data show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 4, a total of 329,021 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 5,888 deaths — an increase of 723 deaths over the previous week. There were 28,441 serious injury reports, up 3,082 compared with last week.
Among 12- to 17-year-olds, there were 59 reports of heart inflammation and 19 cases of blood clotting disorders.
In the U.S., 299.1 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of June 4. This includes 126 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 162 million doses of Pfizer and 11 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.
Of the 3,211 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 53% were reported after Pfizer vaccinations, 42% following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine and 253 cases, or 8%, of Bell’s Palsy cases were reported in conjunction with J&J.
CDC to hold emergency hearing after identifying 226 cases of heart inflammation in young people
As The Defender reported today, the CDC on Thursday announced plans to convene an emergency meeting of its advisers on June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.
As The Defender reported Thursday, before the announcement, the CDC on June 1 had quietly updated its website to acknowledge a higher-than-expected number of cases of myocarditis among young teens after the second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine.
Based on a May 24 report from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group, the CDC on June 1 added new language to its guidance:
“Data from VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] show that in the 30-day window following dose 2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, there was a higher number of observed than expected myocarditis/pericarditis cases in 16–24-year-olds.”
The updated language differed significantly from the CDC’s statement two weeks earlier, which said rates of myocarditis were not higher among vaccinated people.
During a Thursday meeting of advisors to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDC officials presented data showing a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger following mRNA vaccines.
The CDC identified 226 reports that might meet the agency’s “working case definition” of myocarditis. The majority of those affected have recovered, but 41 had ongoing symptoms, 15 are still hospitalized and three are in the intensive care unit.
On June 10, The Defender reported the Oregon Health Authority said it was aware of at least 11 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis — inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart — in all age groups following COVID vaccination.One of the cases is a 15-year-old teen in Beaverton, Oregon, who was hospitalized for heart inflammation after receiving his second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
“The hallmark symptom of myocarditis and pericarditis is chest pain or shortness of breath,” Jonathan Modie, an Oregon Health Authority spokesperson, said in an email. “In rare cases, it can also present in the form of heart palpitations. Anyone suffering from unexplained chest pain should contact a medical provider or seek immediate emergency care.”
A search of the latest available data in VAERS revealed 900 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, among all age groups reported in the U.S following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and June 4, 2021. Of the 900 cases reported, 533 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 331 cases to Moderna and 32 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Experts tell FDA for kids, benefits of COVID vaccines don’t outweigh the risks
As The Defender reported June 11, an FDA advisory committee held a virtual meeting Thursday to discuss what data would be needed to vaccinate children under 12 against COVID under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or licensure.
Several experts spoke out against the plan, saying the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for young children. Peter Doshi, Ph,D, associate professor University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor of The BMJ, said during the open public hearing session, there is no emergency that would warrant using EUA to authorize COVID vaccines for children.
Kim Witczak, an FDA consumer representative, expressed great concerns over the premature approval of COVID vaccines for children. Witczak said data shows children are neither in danger or dangerous and questioned the timing of last Friday’s CDC announcement of the rise in children being hospitalized with COVID.
Dr. Cody Meissner, director of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts University School of Medicine, said children are at low risk of severe disease from the virus and more study is needed about safety in younger age groups.
Witczak and Doshi were two of 27 researchers and clinicians around the world who launched a citizen’s petition demanding the FDA withhold full approval of COVID vaccines until efficacy and safety measures are met.
The members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee were not asked to provide specific advice or to vote during the meeting.
Moderna, Pfizer push to vaccinate kids as young as 5 by September
Moderna this week asked the FDA to expand emergency use of its COVID vaccine for adolescents aged 12 to 17. The vaccine maker said its COVID vaccine was 100% effective in a study of 3,700 12-to-17-year-olds.
Moderna and Pfizer both this week said they expect to make their vaccines available to children as young as 5 by September.
As The Defender reported this week, Pfizer is advancing late-stage clinical trials of its COVID vaccine, in lower doses, on children ages 5 to 11 years old and expects to apply for approval early this fall. The study will enroll up to 4,500 children at more than 90 clinical sites in the U.S., Finland, Poland and Spain, the company said.
Based on safety, efficacy and tolerability data from the 144 children included in Pfizer’s phase 1 trial, the company will use 10 micrograms of each vaccine dose for kids between the ages of 5 and 11 in phase 2/3 trials, and 3 micrograms of each dose for those 5 and younger.
Moderna said it also expects its COVID vaccine will be available for kids as young as 5 by early fall. CEO Stéphane Bancel said Monday he thinks the data will become available sometime in September.
New Cleveland Clinic study shows vaccine provides no added benefit to those who already had COVID
A new preprint study by the Cleveland Clinic found people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 were less likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals who never had the virus — suggesting the vaccine is of no benefit to people who already had COVID.
As The Defender reported, the study, available on medRxiv, provides insight into how the immune system protects the body once a COVID infection is confirmed.
The clinic studied 52,238 employees. Of those, 49,659 never had the virus and 2,579 had COVID and recovered. Of the 2,579 who previously were infected, 1,359, or 53%, remained unvaccinated, compared with 41%, or 22,777 who were vaccinated.
Of all infections during the study period, 99.3% occurred in participants who were not infected previously and remained unvaccinated. In contrast, 0.7% of infections occurred in participants who were not previously infected but were currently vaccinated. Significantly, not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.
Pfizer skipped critical testing, documents reveal
New documents obtained by TrialSite News suggest routine quality testing issues were overlooked in the rush to authorize use of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, and that U.S. and other governments are conducting a massive vaccination program with an incompletely characterized experimental vaccine.
As The Defender reported June 7, regulatory documents revealed Pfizer didn’t thoroughly examine biodistribution and pharmacokinetics issues relating to its vaccine before submitting the vaccine to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for review.
Pfizer also did not use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) for all of its studies, but instead relied on a “surrogate” mRNA that produced the luciferase protein.
According to TrialSite News, it’s standard practice for the EMA to disclose its assessment of investigational new drug submissions. In the case of Pfizer’s vaccine, the EMA assessment included a summary of the agency’s evaluation of the non-clinical vaccine distribution studies reported to EMA by Pfizer — but the EMA did not disclose the results of Pfizer’s biodistribution studies in its public EMA summary.
95 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries
According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”
On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. After repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions, a health communications specialist from the CDC’s Vaccine Task Force contacted us on March 29 — three weeks after our initial inquiry.
The individual received our request for information from VAERS, but said she had never received our list of questions, even though employees we talked to several times said CDC press officers were working through the questions and confirmed the representative had received them. We provided the list of questions again along with a new deadline, but never received a response.
On May 19, a CDC employee said our questions had been reviewed and our inquiry was pending in their system, but would not provide us with a copy of the response. We were told we would be contacted by phone or email with the response.
On June 4, the CDC employee we contacted said nobody had responded to our inquiries. We were advised to submit our questions again, which we have done numerous times.
It has been 95 days since we sent our first email inquiring into VAERS data and reports and we have yet to receive a response.
Video available at WhatsHerFace Odysee. Rumble (not yet uploaded) or YouTube channels.
In 2017 John Hopkins Center for Health Security published “The SPARS Pandemic”. This document is described in its disclaimer as being “a hypothetical scenario designed to illustrate the public health risk communication challenges that could potentially emerge during a naturally occurring disease outbreak…” and that “The infectious pathogen, medical countermeasures, characters, news media excerpts, social media posts, and government agency responses described herein are entirely fictional.”.
In 2021, four years after “The SPARS Pandemic” publication, it seems to be more of a grim reality than a fictional scenario. Despite the unbelievable similarity this document has to our current global situation, this is nothing we haven’t seen before. In fact, a similar happenstance took place recently with another “fictional” scenario, Event 201, which also was spearheaded by John Hopkins Center for Health Security.
The similarities from these scenarios should not, and cannot be ignored. If Event 201 was the blueprint on how covid19 would begin, then SPARS is the blueprint on how it will end. We should all pay close attention to how these scenarios play out if we are to avoid the fate that is described in these works of “fiction”.
According to the CDC, a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger, but only 226 reports meet the agency’s “working case definition.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced Thursday it will convene an emergency meeting of its advisers on June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines, CBS News reported.
According to the CDC, a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger. The CDC identified 226 reports that might meet the agency’s “working case definition” of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, the agency disclosed Thursday during an FDA hearing.
The majority of those affected have recovered, but 41 had ongoing symptoms, 15 are still hospitalized and three are in the intensive care unit.
Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office said during Thursday’s meeting there had been a higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation among young people recently vaccinated with their second doses of mRNA vaccine.
CDC data showed 196 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis among 18- to 24-year-olds through May 31, compared with an expected rate of between eight and 83 cases.
Among 16- to 17-year-olds, 79 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported through May 31. The expected rate among people in this age group is between two and 19 cases, Shimabukuro said during his presentation.
Shimabukuro said the CDC’s findings were “mostly consistent” with reports of rare cases of heart inflammation that had been studied in Israel and reported by the U.S. Department of Defense earlier this year.
Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to researchers at the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”
A search in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) revealed 900 cases of pericarditis and myocarditis reported in the U.S., among all age groups, following COVID vaccination, between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 4, 2021.
Of the 900 cases reported, 59 cases occurred in the 12- to 17-year-old group –– all but one case was attributed to Pfizer.
On May 10, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the EUA for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to include children aged 12-15 years. On June 10, Moderna asked the FDA to expand emergency use of its COVID vaccine in adolescents ages 12 to 17.
The CDC had previously said it was investigating reports that some teenagers and young adults vaccinated against COVID may have experienced heart problems, according to the agency’s advisory group.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in a statement said reports of myocarditis to date seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination. Most cases appeared to be “mild” and follow-up is ongoing.
The CDC’s Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group originally said its monitoring systems had not found more cases of myocarditis than would be expected in the population, but members of the committee on vaccinations said healthcare providers should be made aware of the reports of the “potential adverse event.”
But as The Defender reported June 10, the CDC subsequently acknowledged — in guidance updated on its website June 1 — a higher-than-expected number of cases of myocarditis among young teens after the second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine. It wasn’t until Thursday’s FDA meeting that the agency publicly discussed the higher rate and followed up by announcing plans to hold an emergency meeting.
EU and Israel investigate reports of heart inflammation
On June 2, Israeli health officials found a “probable” link between Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — which the country has relied on almost exclusively in its vaccination drive — and dozens of cases of heart inflammation in young men following the second dose.
In a statement, Pfizer said there is still no indication the cases are due to its vaccine. Myocarditis is often caused by viral infections, and COVID infections have been reported to cause the condition, the drugmaker said.
Pfizer’s partner, BioNTech, said more than 300 million doses of the COVID vaccine have been administered globally and the “benefit-risk profile” of the vaccine remains positive.
On May 7, EU regulators called on Pfizer and Moderna to provide additional data related to the companies’ COVID vaccines and a potential link to heart inflammation, after the agency completed a safety review of all four COVID vaccines authorized for emergency use in the EU.
A report issued by European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) disclosed its members were aware of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following Pfizer vaccination. Regulators said they didn’t see an indication the vaccine caused these cases, but as a prevention, PRAC requested Pfizer provide further data, including an analysis of events according to age and gender in its next pandemic summary safety report and will consider if any other regulatory action is needed.
Houston – On Monday afternoon, employees of the Houston Methodist hospital system were joined by supporters from around the Houston area as they were suspended without pay for saying no to COVID-19 injections. The employees are now suing Houston Methodist in an effort to fight against COVID19 mandates.
The Houston Methodist hospital operates eight hospitals with more than 26,000 employees. On March 31, Methodist CEO Dr. Marc Boom announced that the shots – which have not received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration – would be mandatory for all employees. Houston Methodist hospital employees were told to take the shots by June 7th or lose their jobs. Methodist also required hospital managers to have at least one COVID shot by April 15th. Those who chose not to receive the treatments by Monday now have 2 final weeks before they will officially be fired.
“Mandating the vaccine was not a decision we made lightly. … Because science has proven that the Covid-19 vaccines are not only safe, but extremely effective, it became an easier decision to make,” Boom wrote in a letter to staff in April.
Jennifer Bridges is one of the nurses leading the charge. In recent months she has become the public face of the hospital employees’ fight against mandates they see as unconstitutional. On Monday evening, Bridges walked out of the Baytown Methodist hospital to a crowd of cheering supporters. “I am sad, I am happy, I am proud,” Jennifer said as she exited the parking lot for the final time.
Bridges stated that the hospital attempted to “bribe” employees with cash and required those receiving the injection to sign a waiver stating they would not hold Methodist hospital liable if they were to experience an adverse reaction. She says that nurses who treated COVID-19 patients in 2020 are now treating patients who have had reactions to the shots.
“We’ve already had nurses who took the vaccine – whether they wanted to or were forced – and so many have come down with adverse reactions. I’ve already heard from nurses who have had miscarriages,” Bridges stated during an interview with Free Thinker Radio.
Bridges was joined by nurses and doctors from the Houston area, including fellow employees from the various Houston Methodist campuses. One such Methodist nurse was Lacey Guedry. “I don’t think a mandated vaccine is ethical. At the very least I think it violates our basic liberties and freedoms, especially with institutions claiming to be practicing evidence based medicine,” said Guedry. “The WHO recently went on record saying that natural infection provides superior or equal protection that the vaccine does. So if we are going to follow “science” why are we neglecting this information?”
Although the lawsuit was filed in Texas state court it was recently transferred to a Houston federal court, a move that has been called unusual by the plaintiffs attorneys. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes denied a temporary restraining order which would have prevented the Houston hospital system from firing the employees until the case is worked out.“The plaintiffs are not just jeopardizing their own health; they are jeopardizing the health of doctors, nurses, support staff, patients and their families,” Hughes wrote.
Courthouse News reports that Judge Hughes “appears ready to dispose of the lawsuit” after he authorized Houston Methodist to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. A hearing is scheduled for Friday June 11.
In the lawsuit Bridges and the other plaintiffs argue that, “There were 4,434 death reports and over 12,619 serious injuries reported to the CDC’s VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] database from Covid-19 vaccines through May 10, 2021”, which has since risen to 5,165 deaths and 25,359 serious injuries through May 28, 2021. The plaintiffs argue that they are protected by a 1985 Texas Supreme Court decision in the case Sabine Pilot Service Inc. v. Hauck. In that case the court found that employees could sue if the only reason they were fired was for refusing to do an illegal act. They also argue that the hospitals mandate violates federal laws on authorizing medical products in emergencies.
Bridges and the other plaintiffs accuse Houston Methodist of arbitrarily denying vaccine exemption requests, despite having a policy for medical and religious exemptions. “Methodist claims that they offer religious and medical exemptions, but it (the exemption request) goes against a panel of judges and they have denied 80-85% of them,” she stated.
I spoke with a nurse at Houston Methodist whose medical exemption was approved who supported the employees right to say no to the shots. “I’m here to show support for my fellow Methodist employees who were not allowed a choice in their medical care. They were bullied and bribed into taking a vaccine,” she said on Monday afternoon. “Luckily they approved my exemption, but there have been many, many which have not been approved.”
One of the nurses who had her exemption request denied was Melissa Smith of the Clear Lake Methodist Hospital.
“Friday was my last day. Tomorrow I will sign my suspension and then they will give me 2 weeks to take the J & J vaccine. I am not going to get the vaccine and they will fire me,” Smith told TLAV. She applied for a religious exemption from the treatment and was denied. “This was under our Director of the Operating Room and the manager of my department. They gave us specific instructions on how to fill out the exemption form. So many of us did and all were denied. We all received the blanket email. I actually believe no one even read it.”
Smith estimated that the number of nurses at her hospital requesting religious exemption was in the 40’s.
“I am really here for the people who have cried, the people I have prayed with who got vaccinated because they felt they didn’t have a choice,” Smith stated while the crowd of supporters gathered outside the Baytown Methodist Hospital. “They didn’t have a voice, they felt they had nowhere to go. I am hoping that this kind of action gives them that voice and gives us choices.”
Today my colleague from Kentucky, Chris Wiest, received an awesome ruling from the Circuit Court of Boone County declaring that all of Governor Andy Bashear’s emergency orders and actions are unconstitutional and void. The ruling was in the state-court challenge to the governor’s emergency powers executive orders, filed by Wiest on behalf of Beans Cafe’ & Bakery.
Dr. Stephen Petty, an actual expert in masks, testified at the trial about their uselessness under the circumstances in which they’re being idolized. Here’s an excerpt from the order pertaining to Dr. Petty. For those bureaucrats and social media tyrants who would censor this, this is from an actual court order issued today. Not that you care:
Stephen E. Petty, P.E., CIH, testified as an expert and was accepted as such without objection. Mr. Petty has served as an expert witness in approximately 400 cases relating to toxic or infectious exposure, personal protective equipment (“PPE”), and as a warning expert. He also served as an epidemiology expert for the plaintiffs in the Monsanto “Roundup” cases, and for those in the Dupont C8 litigation. In connection with his service as an expert, he was deposed nearly 100 times and has provided court testimony in approximately 20 trials. Mr. Petty holds nine U.S. patents, has written a book comprising nearly 1,000 pages on forensics engineering, is a certified industrial hygienist, and a recognized expert with the Occupational Safety and Health Agency. Mr. Petty helped write the rules on risk assessment for the State of Ohio and has trained Ohio’s risk assessors.
Mr. Petty explained that the field of his expertise is “to anticipate and recognize and control things that could hurt people, everything from making them sick to killing them.” He testified that, in this context, he has analyzed the use of masks and social distancing in connection with Covid-19. He testified that both the six-foot-distancing rule, and mask mandates, are wholly ineffective at reducing the spread of this virus. Masks are worthless, he explained, because they are not capable of filtering anything as small as Covid-19 aerosols. In addition, masks are not respirators and lack the limited protections that respirators can provide.
The N-95 respirator, which he states is in the bottom class of what may be classified as a respirator, is rated to filter 95% of all particles that are larger than .3 microns. However, a Covid-19 particle, which is only between .09 to .12 micron, is much smaller. Mr. Petty further explained that an N-95 will not even filter above .3 microns if it is not used in accordance with industry standards. Among the requirements, respirators must be properly fitted to seal along the face, and they also must be timely replaced. Mr. Petty stated that N-95 masks, which he said are often utilized as surgical masks, are “not intended to keep infectious disease from either the surgeon or from the patient infecting each other” but only to catch the “big droplets” from the surgeon’s mouth.”
According to Mr. Petty, masks have no standards, are not respirators, and do not even qualify as protective equipment. In contrast, respirators have standards, including rules that state respirators may not be worn by persons with facial hair, must be fitted to ensure a seal, and must be timely replaced—or, as in higher end respirators, the cartridges must be replaced to prevent saturation. In addition, standards for respirators also require users to obtain a medical clearance because the breathing restriction can impair lung function or cause other problems for persons having such limitations. Putting those persons in a respirator can harm their well-being.
Concerning the effectiveness of respirators, Mr. Petty explained that it comes down to “big stuff” versus “small stuff.” Big stuff can be taken out by the body’s defenses, such as its mucus tissue, where droplets can be caught and eliminated. The small stuff, however—like aerosols—are more dangerous. Masks cannot filter the small stuff. According to Petty, because Covid-19 particles are comprised of aerosols, it is really, really, small stuff. And, as he pointed out, an N-95 is designed to filter larger particles. Even for particles as large as .3 micron, Mr. Petty testified that an N-95’s effectiveness is in direct proportion to its seal. In fact, he stated it becomes completely ineffective if 3% or more of the contact area with the face is not sealed.
Mr. Petty testified that masks leak, do not filter out the small stuff, cannot be sealed, are commonly worn by persons with facial hair, and may be contaminated due to repetitive use and the manner of use. He emphatically stated that mask wearing provides no benefit whatsoever, either to the wearer or others.
He explained that the big droplets fall to the ground right away, the smaller droplets will float longer, and aerosols will remain suspended for days or longer if the air is stirred. Mr. Petty testified that the duration of time that particles remain suspended can be determined using “Stoke’s Law.” Based on it, for particles the size of Covid-19 (.12 to .09 micron) to fall five feet would take between 5 and 58 days in still air. Thus, particles are suspended in the air even from previous days. And so, he asks, “If it takes days for the particles to fall, how in the world does a six-foot rule have any meaning?”
Mr. Petty acknowledged that both OSHA and CDC have recommended that people wear masks. However, he called this “at best dishonest.”61 As an example on this, he pointed to CDC guidance documents where, on page 1, it recommends wearing a mask; but then on page 6, admits that “masks, do not provide . . . a reliable level of protection from . . . smaller airborne particles.”62 According to Mr. Petty, those agencies have smart individuals who know better. Mr. Petty points out that, even before March 2020, it was known that Covid-19 particles are tiny aerosols. And on this, he states that he insisted that fact early on. He also points to a more recent letter by numerous medical researchers, physicians and experts with Ph.D.s, asking the CDC to address the implications of Covid-19 aerosols. During Dr. Stack’s subsequent testimony, he also acknowledged that Covid-19 is spread “by . . . airborne transmission that could be aerosols . . . .”
Finally, Mr. Petty pointed to another recent study by Ben Sheldon of Stanford University out of Palo Alto. According to that study, “both the medical and non-medical face masks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious diseases, such as SARS, CoV-2 and COVID-19.”64 The Court finds the opinions expressed by Mr. Petty firmly established in logic. The inescapable conclusion from his testimony is that ordering masks to stop Covid-19 is like putting up chain-link fencing to keep out mosquitos. The six-foot- distancing requirements fare no better.
The judge summarizes the situation nicely:
It is obvious from even a cursory review that the orders issued over the past fifteen months “attempt to control” and seek “to form and determine future rights and duties” of Kentucky citizens. These included ordering the closure of all businesses, except those the Governor deemed essential. He ordered churches closed, prohibited social gatherings, including at weddings and funerals, prohibited travel, and through CHFS, even prohibited citizens from receiving scheduled surgeries and access to medical care. And then there is the order that everyone wear a mask. These are, undeniably, attempts to control, set policy, and determine rights and duties of the citizenry. Except in those instances where the federal courts have stepped in, Defendants assert authority to modify or re-impose these orders at their sole discretion. Consider, for example, the recent modification of the mask mandate. It orders persons who did not get vaccinated for Covid-19 to wear masks but lifts that requirement for others. That is setting policy and determining future rights and duties.
At the hearing, Defendants took exception to the Attorney General’s characterization of the Governor’s actions as a “lockdown,” and argued that prohibiting persons from entering those restaurants is not the same as ordering that they be closed. But that doesn’t minimize the impact on those who lost their businesses as a result, or those in nursing homes condemned to spend their final hours alone, deprived of the comfort from loved ones (or even any real contact with humanity), or those citizens who the Governor prohibited from celebrating their wedding day with more than ten persons, or those he forced to bury their dead alone, without the consoling presence of family and friends (and who likewise were deprived of paying their final respects), or those persons who were barred from entering church to worship Almighty God during Holy Week, and even Easter Sunday, or those persons who were denied access to health care, including cancer-screenings, or those denied entry into government buildings (which they pay for with their taxes) in order to obtain a necessary license, and who were forced to wait outside for hours in the sweltering heat, or rain, purportedly to keep them from getting sick.
What the people have endured over the past fifteen months—to borrow a phrase from United States District Judge Justin R. Walker—“is something this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel.” Yet, Defendants contend that the Governor’s rule by mere emergency decree must continue indefinitely, and independent of legislative limits. In effect, Defendants seek declaratory judgment that the Constitution provides this broad power so long as he utters the word, “emergency.” It does not. For this Court to accept Defendant’s position would not be honoring its oath to support the Constitution; it would be tantamount to a coup d’état against it.
Yes, life is now a dystopian novel. Let’s hope this patriot judge’s order stands up on appeal in the state appellate courts in Kentucky. And thanks to Chris Wiest and the AG of Kentucky for fighting the good fight. The order notes that the permanent injunction against the governor goes into effect on June 10, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
“…how can you give informed consent if there’s no package insert, with no
ingredients, no test note, no anything? The words are intentionally left
blank on the package insert for the shots and there’s no long-term data,
so I can’t tell people what will happen in 2, 3, 4, 5, ten years from now,
because they took this shot. So that, by default, is the informed consent
that I’m concerned with.”
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to New York pharmacist Joel Wood about his dismissal for his refusal to administer experimental biological agents without providing his patients the ability to give their informed consent to receive them.
On May 5th, Wood called an anonymous ethics line at the Kinney Drugs corporation where he was employed to express concerns over both vaccine shedding and vaccination in youth. On May 9th he wrote an email to the corporation in which he stated: “I have been an employee for Kinneys for over 5 years. I have always felt that they have made safety for staff and patients a priority. However, I would like to know what the company is doing to address the safety concern of shedding of vaccine in the work place. It is a known phenomenon, and specifically mentioned in the Pfizer study on page 67 as a concern. It is possible to have contact thru both physical touching (which is not the concern at work) but also inhalation – this is a concern at work. The masks do not provide any safety. I would like to see this addressed in an email to the company by this weekend.”
Wood continued: “If there is not an email that addresses these concerns, I will forward my complaint to OSHA as a violation of safety.
“I am also concerned with the lack of patient safety and informed consent that involves the Moderna COVID-19 shot. I have heard from many staff and patients that they did not know that the shot was NOT FDA-approved. I know for a fact the staff who are administering this shot are not telling people that it is not an approved vaccine. This creates an issue when patients get their second shot and are informed that it is not approved and say, ‘Well, the first shot was’; no, it was not.
“I would also like to address the elephant in the room. I understand the need to follow advice from our regulatory governmental agencies. However when those agencies are wrong or make inappropriate recommendations, it is our patients that feel the brunt of this…
“I fear that Kinney is moving in a direction that is the opposite of our motto. Experience the difference means just that, if we do not change our behavior and inform the public the real science and health information that exists in the world, we do a disservice to the community and also ourselves as healthcare providers. We are now going to be administering a shot to children 12 and older for a disease that was called the common cold by the New York Times twice. We have no long-term data about this shot in children.”
Wood concluded his letter to Kinneys: “If there is not an email sent to the company that starts to address these concerns, I will be writing letters to OSHA and well as news organizations as a whistleblower for the crimes that are being committed. I do not believe that it is intentional, but we are acting against international human rights laws that discuss vaccines and discrimination. We have a responsibility to tell the public the reality about this shot, what it really does, that there is no pandemic, and that the numbers were inflated to make it appear like a pandemic. We need to inform them about the vaccine shedding that might be occurring.”
After receiving no answer to address his concerns, Wood addressed a formal complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). On May 11th, he received an answer that read: “At this time OSHA has no standards or jurisdiction when it comes to COVID-19 concerns or complaints. We have been told to give all complainants these 3 numbers to contact if you so choose:”, listing the New York State Governor’s office, the New York State COVID-19 hotline, and the New York State Department of Labor COVID violation hotline. Wood was subsequently fired from his position at Kinney Drugs.
America’s Frontline Doctors spoke to New York pharmacist Joel Wood, who was fired after five years in his job for refusing to administer COVID-19 vaccines without informed consent.
“I’ve been a pharmacist in New York State for seven years and I’ve been working with this company in the retail setting for seven years, and ever since the coronavirus outbreak in the beginning of 2020, I’ve had my concerns as someone who works in the front line trying to make sure that my patients and the public are safe, are taken care of, to the best of the ability that we can as pharmacist and health care providers has been my number one concern.
“So I became very invested in the coronavirus outbreak and pandemic, but as time went on I started to have more concerns over what was going on with the whole story of the coronavirus pandemic and outbreak, from things like grabs for power, from different governments in with located within the United States, and I also saw abroad in the world as well. But New York State, the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has had a massive power grab, and in my opinion violated a lot of concerns that I have as a health care provider, mandates and things like that.
“So it was to the forefront of my attention what was going on, and was something more going on than just what we saw at face value of ‘this is a pandemic.’
“I had my concerns about administering the coronavirus when I heard that we were going to start administering it to children.
“I also did have concerns – I’ve seen some reports of women, most likely younger women of childbearing age, having adverse reactions to either the vaccine, or potentially even the vaccine shedding – you know people who have gotten the vaccine become a vector to shed the vaccine, as noted in Pfizer’s trial.
“So the combination of both the children 12 years and up being given the vaccine, or having the ability to receive the vaccine, as well as women of childbearing age – I started to kind of have some concern what was going on with the vaccine, but also what was going on with the coronavirus pandemic, period.
“But the majority of my concerns stemmed from the lack of solid, I have to say science, backed-up evidence. I mean multiple health organizations, from the World Health Organization to the Centers for Disease Control and to some degree the FDA, in terms of their approval process for this vaccine, they’ve been all over the place. I mean multiple doctors and scientists from across the world have written into the WHO with different concerns; respiratory droplets compared to aerosol, that kind of goes into the mask detail. The CDC has published data that leads to the potential controversy for masks. I mean, I’ve read an article in which the CDC describes the masks were not statistically significant. I was taught in school that if it’s not significant, that’s not something that you look at.
“So combinations of those have led me to believe that the administration of these vaccines in any group in which the coronavirus does not have a high death rate may be unwarranted and potentially, as it is an experimental vaccine – not FDA approved – violates Nuremberg trial law.
“So my ultimate decision to stop administering these COVID-19 vaccines, as I stated, came from the combination of children 12 and up, and specifically women bleeding, menstruation issues as it relates to women specifically of childbearing age; there’s no long term data to what this vaccine does, and technically it’s impossible to give informed consent, in my opinion, because the package insert is blank. The package insert for the drug itself, for the vaccine, if it even is a vaccine, is blank, and there’s no long-term data. So I am concerned for what effects then could happen from women who take this, specifically of childbearing age, what could be the end result? I have no idea, and I’m not speculating that anything awful could happen, but we don’t know – and that’s a concern, that’s something I look at – risk versus benefit is what is what my job is all about.
“Same thing with children. Children who are less than 18 – the survival rate of the coronavirus is like 99.999. The only age group that I feel could and potentially should have concern with receiving this vaccine is 65 and older, as their survival rate was less than 99-point-x, we can just say.
“So I also was administering the shot as of January 11th when the rollout happened in New York, right along, because that was what all of the governing bodies were saying: The states, the CDC, FDA, World Health Organization – everybody was discussing the importance of the shots and need to get to herd immunity, so I was doing my part – or I thought I was doing my part – by helping us get there.
“But I noticed as we started to get there, and people started to receive the shot and get both doses, if they were getting the Pfizer and Moderna, for example, it seems like we’re never going to reach this herd immunity and they just keep pushing the vaccine.
“I mean, now in New York State, you can win anywhere from $20 to $5 million with the lottery, just for signing up and getting the vaccine. For me, that’s a huge concern on multiple different levels. I mean one, on the very face value, the government of New York under the leadership of Governor Cuomo, and along with the federal government as well, at least for part of this, is using our federal and state tax dollars to get the money for this vaccine, which my question is may or may not be causing more harm, and also now we are using tax money that should be going towards schools, is my is my understanding of what the New York State lottery was supposed to be for when it was revamped believe over a decade ago, now we’re using that money to give people for getting the vaccine? It’s just highly irregular. I’ve never seen anything like that before in my life. It’s a concern.
“I also have concerns, as I previously mentioned, about violations of the Nuremberg trial, human rights as it pertains to the Geneva conference in the Nuremberg trials. This is an experimental vaccine, it’s not FDA approved.
“And from there, my concerns go out to: Is this coronavirus pandemic a real pandemic? No more people died from it month over month in 2020 than in previous years. The CDC has come out that 6% of deaths were attributed specifically to coronavirus, meaning that the other 94% had underlying comorbid diseases, which we would generally assume similar to like the flu, we don’t say that everyone just died from the flu if you had the flu, something else helped you get there. That’s how that’s how it presents itself.
“The CDC has been, in my opinion, manipulating and shifting how they are counting deaths and cases to establish a point that if anyone believes that we are not in a pandemic, there is a massive issue and concern with that. So moving forward, if we are actually not in a pandemic, there is fraud and deceit associated with receiving this experiment which both violate the Nuremberg trial.
“The other part of the Nuremberg trial that concerns me is coercion. It’s also stated in the Nuremberg trials that you have to have free, informed consent to be able to have someone sign up for your experiment. And we are coercing people now to have to get the vaccine to be able to take their mask off. So it’s also a false pretense that you have to get the vaccine to take the mask off, but that’s not how we should be doing an experiment, it gives a false sense of reality to people that were not truly informed as to what could be happening.”
Just for the record, what has been your stance on vaccines in general, prior to the emergence of COVID-19, and what has been your experience regarding the whole issue of informed consent? Has there not been a problem until now?
“I don’t have a concern with vaccines in general. I mean, I do have some minor concerns, specifically as it pertains to the pediatric administration of vaccines, but it’s not necessarily the vaccines itself as much it is the tenacity to which we give all these vaccines. I mean, just for example, the amount of aluminum in a child’s vaccine series could be more than what the FDA allows to have in an adult’s i.v. So just as a quick example of where my concerns for vaccines stem from, that’s pretty much my only concern with vaccines, like the current childhood immunization schedule I think is a little over the top. But otherwise no, I don’t have a problem with other vaccines, I don’t have a problem with administering other vaccines. The informed consent has never come up as a major issue for me, in general because they’re all FDA approved. In the very least, every other vaccine that I have ever administered has been FDA approved. So then from there, it’s more of the informed consent of like, ‘these are the side effects, this is to look what to look out for, what could happen; if this happens, do this,’ which is common for any and all medications, new medications, or any and all medications that I would be giving in a pharmacy. Letting people know what the risks and benefits are from the shots that are given.
“The informed consent is a massive concern this time because the package insert is blank. So if someone were to ask me, ‘Hey Dr. Wood, what’s in this?’ I couldn’t tell you. I do know some of the things, I do know some of what’s in it, but I couldn’t give you specific details from the package insert. And then also, ‘What could happen to me?’ I can tell you what has happened to people previously to this point; I can tell you adverse reactions that I have seen from the VAERS reporting, including all of the deaths, the rashes; I can tell you what I have seen up to this point, but I can’t tell you what’s going to happen to you a year from now or two years from now, five, seven, ten years – I have no idea. So informed consent is for me the biggest concern, as it pertains to this coronavirus shot.
“In New York, and in I believe most of the rest of the United States, pharmacists are administering vaccines and have been quite a while, typically in the very least the influenza, maybe the pneumonia or shingles vaccine. But since the beginning of January, retail pharmacies of which I was working for have been administering the coronavirus shot – I will call it a shot, it’s not a vaccine in my opinion. So I have been giving the coronavirus shot probably upwards of over at least 500 people, if not more, and I’ve expressed what my concern is. I went to my employer and said I don’t feel comfortable giving this. We can’t give the people full, informed consent.
“When I told people it wasn’t FDA-approved, people didn’t even know it wasn’t FDA-approved. Or people would say, ‘Well, the first one was.’ That by itself indicates that pharmacists were not telling people that it was not even an FDA-approved shot yet. And second to that, how can you give informed consent if there’s no package insert, with no ingredients, no test note, no anything? The words are intentionally left blank on the package insert for the shots and there’s no long-term data, so I can’t tell people what will happen in 2, 3, 4, 5, ten years from now, because they took this shot. So that, by default, is the informed consent that I’m concerned with.”
Can you tell us about your complaint to OSHA? What is their jurisdiction? What were you hoping to achieve? And what did they finally answer?
“So I had reached out to OSHA after I had reached out to my employer about concerns of vaccine shedding. The vaccine shedding phenomenon is a well-documented concern, and specifically for the coronavirus shot: Pfizer’s own study mentions they were worried about environmental spreading of the vaccine, specifically to pregnant women through both inhalation and skin-to-skin contact. So that leads me to believe that it’s at least possible, or they were worried about it, that vaccine shedding could be a thing.
“I reached out to OSHA because my employer ignored my concerns of vaccine shedding. I have not received the shot yet, so I was concerned about other people, both employees who have received it, and patients and customers who have received it, shedding the vaccine, and what my company was going to do to protect me and other people like me who have not received it. They said nothing.
“I reached out to OSHA and said, ‘What can be done? I have a concern in my own position, job, business, as well as any other retail pharmacy in the country – if you chose not to get the shot, but you are around people who have gotten it, and they are shedding the vax, they are shedding parts of the shot, that’s a concern. So I reached out to OSHA, and OSHA emailed me back and said that they currently have no jurisdiction over the coronavirus shot, there’s nothing in place, there’s no policies or procedures as it pertains to the coronavirus, and that I needed to reach out to New York State, both the New York State governor’s office and the Department of Labor as a means to get an answer, which I was not happy with, I did not accept. My concern for OSHA’s complaint is, how can a federal body not have something in place for after a brand-new experimental shot is released from big pharma, and the only people that have the answers are the same people that I am potentially concerned with are violating human rights set forth in the Geneva laws put forth after the Nuremberg trials?
“Her response indicates exactly what I think it says: We don’t have any jurisdiction, we don’t know anything about this; reach out to the New York Department of Labor and the governor’s office. That is a huge concern for anyone who is worried about his safety and health in the office. Anyone across the country right now could have a concern over whether someone is or is not vaccinated, and that’s part of the debate, I believe, that’s going on in the country. Before, it meant forcing vaccines, or forcing masks, or all of this stuff – and if OSHA’s response is to just default to whatever the state says, then you are potentially at the mercy of whoever your state governor is. And I don’t I don’t mean to turn it into a political, Republican/Democrat, red versus blue concern, but in the very least both certain Democrats and certain Republicans have taken opposite stances. So just that being said alone, it’s very concerning that in one state, for example, you can eliminate the mask mandates and there’s no vaccine passports, but in other states, that’s the only way we’re operating. So OSHA’s response is very concerning to me. That’s part of the federal government that in my opinion is supposed to be watching out for workplace safety concerns, and I agree 100% – I think her answer is kind of just wool over the eyes, the programmed response to say ‘we don’t have any jurisdiction, here’s who you can talk to…’ and then guess what? It’s not OSHA’s problem anymore, they have addressed it, they emailed me back. I mean, it’s so bizarre and terrifying.”
You said risk versus benefit is what your job is all about. Could you elaborate on that more, and explain to us how that specifically relates to your responsibilities as a pharmacist vis-à-vis COVID-19?
“Yes, the risk versus benefit: One of the great conundrums of how all healthcare works. That’s the basis for my job as a pharmacist, and I believe that’s the basis for almost every other health care profession out there. We have the knowledge through teaching, training, education, to assess the risk versus disease state, or the risk versus treatment, versus the benefit of not having treatment, or the benefit of getting treatment, so whether it’s triple bypass surgery, your doctor, your cardiologist, your surgeon looks and measures and decides what’s going to be the healthiest outcome, the best outcome for you.
“Same thing for me, it just happens for me, as a pharmacist, drugs is what I look at and evaluate. And then when it came to the COVID-19, initially I was under the impression that this was the only thing that was going to get us over this, over the hump, through this awful time in history, was to give these vaccines, give these shots.
“But as time went on, I started to be concerned more with what the shots were doing to people, that’s when I started to change my opinion. And I noticed the risk/benefit may not be the same. It appears to me the risk of the coronavirus itself COVID-19 in most age groups less than 65, maybe even 50, the negative outweighs the risk of the shot. Getting COVID-19 in someone less than 50 poses almost zero health risk to you.
“So the benefit of the shot, we don’t know. All the shot does, at this point, technically, is prevent you from getting severe disease. You can still pass the coronavirus, you can still get the coronavirus, it just prevents you from getting severe disease. So that’s the risk/benefit that I look at. What is the benefit to this shot? Just getting severe just preventing severe disease? When 80% of cases are asymptomatic, the coronavirus itself kind of prevents severe disease. Coronavirus has been around for decades, they are part of what causes the common cold.”
Do you believe that there is a code of silence among pharmacists regarding this issue?
“I do not believe that there is a code of silence among pharmacists. I’m more inclined to believe that there is a very deep-rooted psychological hand at play by certain groups of people or certain bodies or certain powers, I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s a silence code.
“And it was hard for myself to do it, too. We are trained – why would we ever think that any one of the federal governing bodies or even worldly, in the example of the World Health Organization, why would we believe that they would be telling us lies? So I don’t think it’s a code of silence, I just think we’re trained and taught to think the CDC, FDA, and the World Health Organization are all quality, upstanding government bodies that aim to solve public health crises.
“And that is not to say that they are not those things and that they do not do that. I don’t want to sound like a complete martyr. Again, I’m not saying that they do. My concern is, I don’t know what’s going on, and that’s why I have concerns over the administration of this shot.”
Have you received feedback from your colleagues? What did they think about the stand you’ve taken?
“I have reached out to a few colleagues and expressed my concerns. Most of them think that I have a decent case, or that the case that I am making isn’t necessarily completely left-field bizarre, even though it is kind of left-field. I don’t know that they’re willing to take a stand, I mean, I was fired from my position. I could only imagine that in any other pharmacy, company, corporation, chain – or most, I would say, for a pharmacist who is not willing to do an aspect of their job, as in giving shots and vaccinations, whether it’s COVID or any vaccine, but specifically the COVID one, it’s going to be hard for a company to keep them on or want to keep them on because there’s a lot of other pharmacists out there who will do it because they need a job, they need the paycheck. So it’s hard for someone to risk it all unless they feel strongly about it.”
At what point did you understand that making this stand may mean the termination of your employment, and when you did realize that, what was it that pushed you to decide to go on anyway?
“I had always known that by taking the stance of not doing a role in your job, when you choose not to do something in your position or your job that is what is expected, you always risk being fired, terminated, reprimanded, what have you. So I always knew that would be a concern, at any point I had decided to take the stance.
“But what officially gave me the courage to decide to do this was when my wife agreed with me that being able to vaccinate children 12 and up was just not right and we needed to do something, I needed to do something. We needed to take a stand and express our concerns for the health and safety of, most importantly, children, and I think potentially even everyone who is eligible to get this shot 12 and up, and it’s going to get younger soon I imagine, they’re going to try for it. So it was my wife who gave me the encouragement and kind of the okay to be like, ‘Yeah, this is a possibility, if you do get fired we’ll do whatever we have to, but it’s the right thing to do.”
Does this move and does the termination of your job represent financial hardship for your family?
“The move does represent financial hardship for my family, my wife and I have a lot of student loan debt; just that alone is a huge concern as a means of bills we have to pay, and now I’m losing a very good salaried job, so it will it will be difficult to weather the storm…”
What does your family say? Are they supportive?
“My family is supportive. I would say for the most part I think the majority of my family is supportive because they support me, and first and foremost that’s what families do, that’s what that’s what blood is, but I think parts of my family Also question, ‘what is he talking about? What is he thinking? How can you know?’ But that kind of goes back to the pharmacists keeping a code of silence and other health care providers – why would anyone question health authorities like the CDC, FDA, World Health Organization? It just sounds so bizarre, and I don’t disagree with him, I mean it does sound bizarre, but for me, I’m educated as a pharmacist and I’ve also been keeping track of all things related to coronavirus because I wanted to make sure that first and foremost my family was safe when the outbreak happened, and then secondly, it’s my job to make sure that people in the public are taken care of, and in the public scene as a pharmacist, in the pharmacy we’re a store that’s open, so anyone could be a patient of mine, anyone could come in off the streets and ask me a question and that could be anyone from around the world. I’ve worked in cities where I see people and meet people who are from around the world who don’t speak English, don’t speak English very well, so for me it’s the real undertaking I needed to do, because anyone and everyone could be one of my patients and I took an oath to protect and serve and make sure that people received quality health care with no harm.”
Do you think that you’ll be able to identify another source of employment?
“I definitely believe that I would be able to find another source for employment from someone who is like-minded, like myself, and has made commitments to protecting health in the public eye. I think the biggest concern is just kind of waiting when that will happen kind of the who, what, where, why, when will that job happen I’m not sure, but I’ve also decided I wasn’t happy as I could be as a pharmacist in my previous job, just from what I was seeing happening in the whole healthcare landscape.
“So the next job that I hopefully get will be where I can feel more impactful that I’m actually creating and changing people’s health and health outcomes in as in as dynamic away as possible. But yes, I do believe that there are people, companies, employers out there who, whether or not they are specifically concerned with whether I am or I’m not vaccinated, or if they’re concerned with the stance that I’ve taken, I think there are employers out there who are looking for someone who is willing and wanting to provide quality health care and that has always been my goal.”
Over the years the medical establishment has acquired a well-deserved reputation for ignoring good discoveries (which would make a dramatic difference to human health) and continuing with useless practices (which do more harm than good) long after they should have abandoned them. The medical profession, or, rather, perhaps I should say ‘the medical establishment’ has always been slow to accept and assimilate new ideas – and slow to see the obvious.
I have long thought that the main problem with modern medical education is that it is largely based upon learning by rote and upon eliminating all original thought. This is deliberate since the aim of an orthodox modern medical education is to help maintain the status quo (and preserve the position of the pharmaceutical industry). Right from the very beginning, young students are made to learn long lists of information. They learn the names of the bones, the arteries, the nerves and the veins in the body. They learn the names of the muscles and they learn the histology of the various organs. They then learn lists of clinical signs and symptoms. And they learn lists of drugs. At no point are students encouraged to think for themselves.
As a result it is not surprising that after graduation most doctors continue to do as they are told. The average doctor is strangely incapable of critical thought. Given the indoctrination they have undergone it is hardly surprising that doctors readily accept everything they are told by the drug companies (which more or less control post graduate education) and equally readily reject alternative medicine – something which never makes much of an appearance in the undergraduate syllabus.
There is nothing new about this.
The greatest thinkers – the ones who have, in the end, contributed most to medicine and human health – have always been scorned or ignored (or preferably both) by the medical establishment. The establishment has always manipulated the truth to suit its own political, religious or commercial purposes. Simple truths which are inconvenient have always been suppressed. It happened in the past, it will happen in the future and it is happening now.
Few medical stories illustrate the way the medical establishment works better than the story of how scurvy was discovered and how the treatment for it was ignored for centuries.
In 1535, Jacques Cartier sailed from France to Newfoundland with a crew of 110 men. Within six weeks a hundred of his men had developed scurvy. Luckily for Cartier and his men a native told them to drink the juice from the fruit of local trees. The men recovered in days. From that time on wise sea captains made sure that their men were given regular supplies of orange or lemon juice. In a book called The Surgeons Mate, published in 1636 John Woodall recommended that these juices be used to prevent scurvy. But the medical establishment was slow to accept this sensible suggestion.
It wasn’t until two centuries later, in 1747, that the idea was reintroduced by James Lind, who conducted a proper clinical trial and proved that scurvy could be prevented with the right diet. It was Lind’s work which enabled Captain Cook (he was a Lieutenant at the time) to sail around the world without a single case of scurvy.
The admiralty and the medical establishment continued to ignore all this. In the Seven Years War, from 1756 to 1763, approximately half of the 185,000 sailors involved died of scurvy. In 1779 the Channel Fleet had 2,400 cases of scurvy after a single ten week cruise.
Eventually, in 1795 the medical establishment (and the navy) succumbed to common sense and lemon juice became a compulsory part of every sailor’s diet. This breakthrough took well over two centuries to be accepted.
Then there is Paracelsus.
There is no doubt that Paracelsus (Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim to his friends) is the father of modern medicine. He tore into the precepts of established medical thinking with all the zeal of a missionary. He revolutionised medical thinking throughout Europe and scandalised the medical establishment by claiming to have learned more from his contact with witches and midwives than from his study of ancient and well-revered medical texts. No idea or theory was too bizarre to be studied and considered and no belief, no practice and no concept too sacred to be rejected. He was the first man to associate mining with chest disease, to use mercury in the treatment of syphilis, to advocate allowing wounds to drain instead of smothering them with layers of dried dung and to argue that some foods contained poisons which harmed the human body. Paracelsus scandalised the establishment by claiming that he was interested more in pleasing the sick than his own profession. He was, not surprisingly, rejected by the medical establishment and widely and persistently persecuted for his beliefs. It was years after his death that his ideas were recognised.
And there is Vesalius.
In the sixteenth century Andreas Vesalius achieved contemporary notoriety and eternal fame as the author of the first textbook of human anatomy, ‘De Humanis Corporis Fabrica’. Up until Vesalius medical students had studied anatomy using texts prepared by Galen. Since Galen used pigs not human corpses for his studies his anatomical notes were, to say the least, rather misleading.
Vesalius’s frank rejection of many of Galen’s anatomical claims earned him considerable disapproval. The medical establishment still firmly believed that Galen could do no wrong. They weren’t interested in anything as superficial and irrelevant as evidence.
Like so many original thinkers before and after him, Vesalius was unable to cope with the outcry. He burnt his remaining manuscripts, abandoned his study of anatomy and took a job as court physician to Charles V in Madrid.
Vesalius wasn’t the only anatomist whose work was rejected. In the 17th century, British doctor William Harvey spent eight years researching the circulation of the blood – and getting it right. His patience was rewarded with ridicule. He received nothing but abuse. He lost many friends and his practice shrank.
When Ambrose Pare, the great French surgeon, first started work as an army surgeon it was accepted practice to stop a haemorrhage by sealing a wound with a red hot iron. Amputations were performed with a red hot knife and the wounds which were left were sealed with boiling oil. One day Pare ran out of boiling oil and used a mild emollient to dress the wounds of the men he was treating. He worried all night about what he had done but the next day he found that his patients were not only healthy but that they were also in less pain than the men whose wounds had been sealed with boiling oil. Pare was wise enough to learn from this and from that day on he started dressing wounds with an emollient rather than boiling oil. He also introduced ligatures, artificial limbs and many surgical instruments. Inevitably, Pare met the usual fate of innovators and reformers (who get a rougher ride within the world of medicine than anywhere else). He was denounced by other surgeons as dangerous and unprofessional. Older surgeons banded together to oppose him and in their attempts to discredit him they attacked him for all sorts of things – for example, his ignorance of Latin and Greek. Pare eventually succeeded because the soldiers he treated trusted him and wanted to be treated by him. They weren’t interested in the views of the French medical establishment.
A look back at hospitals is also revealing.
When Tsar Paul came to power in Russia in 1796 he was so horrified at the state of the hospital in Moscow that he ordered it to be rebuilt. In Frankfurt in the 18th century physicians considered working in hospital to be equivalent to a sentence of death.
In 1788, Jacobus-Rene Tenon published a report on the hospitals of Paris which shocked city officials. He described how the Hotel Dieu (the magnificent looking hospital next to Notre Dame) contained 1200 beds but up to 7,000 patients – with up to six patients crammed into each bed. The stench in the hospital was so foul that people who entered would do so holding a vinegar soaked sponge to their noses. Very few patients escaped from the hospital with their lives. When reformer John Howard toured European hospitals he angrily reported that no fresh air, no sunlight, straw as bedding, no bandages and a milk and water diet supplemented with weak soup were standard. The reports of Tenon and Howard were ignored and dismissed for years and it took decades for the medical establishment to make any real changes.
In the 18th century the treatment of the mentally ill was abysmal. Daniel Defoe, best remembered for his story of the adventures of Robinson Crusoe, wrote a vicious attack on mental hospitals. ‘Is it not enough to make anyone mad,’ he asked, ‘ to be suddenly clap’d up, stripp’d, whipp’d, ill fed and worse us’d? To have no reason assigned for such treatment, no crime alleged or accusers to confront? And what is worse, no soul to appeal to but merciless creatures who answer but in laughter, surliness, contradiction and too often stripes?’
No one took much notice and medical practitioners continued to treat mentally ill patients without respect or care.
At the Bethlem Royal Hospital half naked patients were kept chained in irons. Physicians bled their patients once a year and the more troublesome patients were put on a tranquillising wheel. Until 1770 visitors could pay a penny to see the ‘fun’ at Bedlam. John Wesley, founder of the Wesleyan Church, who considered himself a benefactor of the mentally ill, suggested pouring water onto the heads of the mentally ill and forcing them to eat nothing but apples for a month. Wesley was one of the first men to use electricity in the attempted treatment of the mentally ill. Despite the protests of reformers such as Philippe Pinel (who shocked the establishment in the late 18th century by claiming that the mentally ill were sick and needed treatment) mental hospitals were, well into the 19th century, still quite unsuitable for people needing medical treatment.
There was never any evidence to show that it did any good but blood-letting was a favourite therapeutic tool for centuries. The fact that removing blood from a patient made him or her quieter was regarded as proof that it was doing some good. (This is no dafter than the rationale used to explain some modern treatments.) Blood-letting was easy to perform and it was something to do. Doctors have always felt the need to do something to their patients. (Possibly because it is difficult to explain away a big fee if all you do is give advice.) Leeches were hugely popular in the 19th century. In 1824, two million leeches were imported into France. In 1832, the figure had risen to 57 million a year.
In 1843, the American poet, novelist and anatomist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, read to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement a paper entitled ‘On The Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever’. He argued that the disease could be carried from patient to patient by doctors. He suggested that surgeons should consider changing their clothes and washing their hands after leaving a patient with puerperal fever. His lecture annoyed the medical establishment and his advice was ignored completely.
A similar fate befell Ignaz Philipp Semmelweiss who, in 1846, at the age of 28, became an assistant in an obstetric ward at the Allgemeines Krankenhaus in Vienna. Semmelweiss noticed that the number of women dying in his ward was higher than the number dying in other wards. It wasn’t difficult to notice this. Women would beg, in tears, not to be taken into Semmelweiss’s ward.
Deciding that he wasn’t that bad a doctor, Semmelweiss looked for an explanation and came to the conclusion that the major difference was that patients on his ward were looked after by medical students whereas the patients on other wards were looked after by midwives. Semmelweiss then discovered that the students came straight to the ward from the dissecting room where they had had their hands stuck into the corpses of women who had died from puerperal fever. The midwives never went near to the dissecting room. Semmelweiss instructed the medical students that they should start washing their hands in a solution of calcium chloride after coming from the dissecting room. The remedy produced a dramatic drop in the death rate on his ward.
Predictably the medical establishment was not well pleased – even though Semmelweiss had proved his point very dramatically. The unfortunate young doctor couldn’t cope with the rejection. He became an outcast and died in a mental hospital a few years later. The medical establishment had scored another hollow victory. Once again the patients were the losers.
You might have thought that the medical establishment would have welcomed anaesthesia. After all, before anaesthetics were available, surgeons had to get their patients drunk or knock them out with a blow to the head. Surgeons would often operate with the patient held down by four strong men. The first operation under anaesthesia was performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1846. But the establishment was not going to accept this new-fangled nonsense lying down. The main objection was that anaesthetics were being used to help women who were in labour. And that, said the establishment, just wasn’t acceptable. It was, said the wise men, unnatural and unhealthy for women to deliver babies without suffering pain. ‘In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children,’ says the Bible. However, the religious barbarians were eventually overcome by Dr James Simpson who trumped the Bible quoters with this quote: ‘And the Good Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept; and He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof.’ The opposition to anaesthesia was finally quelled when Queen Victoria gave birth to Prince Leopold while under the influence of chloroform.
In 1867 Joseph Lister published a paper in The Lancet entitled ‘On the Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Medicine’. Lister had found a solution to the age old problem of post-operative infection. But the medical establishment doesn’t like change, even if it means keeping patients alive. And Lister found himself being attacked by doctors who ignored the evidence but disapproved of his new techniques simply because they were new. It was decades before the ‘antiseptic principle’ was accepted.
One of the reasons why hospital infections are so commonplace today is that doctors and nurses seem to believe that they can use antibiotics instead of washing their hands. Incompetence, carelessness and ignorance mean that the quality of cleanliness in the average modern hospital is little better than it was in a hospital in the Middle Ages.
Until surprisingly recently, it was routine for surgery on babies to be performed without anaesthesia on the grounds that babies are incapable of feeling pain. There was no evidence for this claim (one which any mother would be able to oppose with credible if anecdotal evidence) but anaesthetists were taught that babies had immature nervous systems and so didn’t need painkillers.
Above I have described just a few of the hundreds (probably thousands) of examples I could give to illustrate the way that the medical establishment, in recent years allied with the drug industry, has always opposed original thought and has protected the status quo – regardless of the effect on patients.
The medical establishment has acted in the interests of the profession but against the interests of patients, and thoughtful and creative individuals have always had a hard time. The value of serendipity has also been ignored, of course. Both penicillin and X-rays were the result of serendipity.
The real tragedy is that absolutely nothing has changed for the better. Indeed, things have arguably got worse.
The medical establishment is still responsible for protecting and promoting medical procedures which do not work and have never worked (and which expose patients to great risk) while at the same time it opposes and suppresses treatments which do work and have been proved to work.
Today, anyone in the medical profession who dares to offer thoughts or warnings which don’t fit in with the specific requirements of the medical establishment will get the Semmelweiss treatment. They will be laughed at and suppressed.
[Original video is available at Dr. Vernon Coleman BrandNewTube channel. As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
O Canada, You’ve Got Medical Nazis; Their Stench Is Rising Into the Sky
They’re called the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
As their home page states, they “regulate the practice of medicine in Ontario. Physicians are required to be members to practice medicine in Ontario.”
In other words, CPSO is THE medical board. They run the show. If practicing doctors make a wrong move or say the wrong thing, CPSO is there to step on their faces and discipline them and even cancel their licenses to practice.
But now a new rebel group of Canadian MDs has emerged. Why? Because CPSO has issued a fascist edict threatening practicing doctors. Read the threat carefully.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [CPSO] Statement on Public Health Misinformation (4/30/21): [1]
“The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.”
WE’RE YOUR BOSSES. YOU DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO. SHUT YOUR MOUTHS. MARCH STRAIGHT AHEAD. KILL YOUR PATIENTS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT OBEY US.
The new rebels against this monster call themselves the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth. This is a brief excerpt from their response: [2]
“On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19.”
“We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.”
“As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.”
“The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients…”
I wondered what medical treatments, in general, CPSO supports and tolerates. It took me three minutes to find a Toronto outfit called the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Foundation (CAMH). They promote electro-convulsive therapy. In other words, shock treatment.
In other words, delivering electric shocks to the brain. As a cure for “mental illness.” I call it torture.
Apparently, this treatment is just fine and dandy, but telling patients the COVID lockdowns are criminal is forbidden by the Nazi bureaucrats at CPSO. Saying the vaccine is dangerous is forbidden. Saying masks are useless and harmful is forbidden.
What would happen if these medical rebels, the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth—say, 10,000 of them—took this war to the wall?
Practiced non-harmful medicine, kept warning their patients about the sociopathic COVID regulations and the vaccine, refused to knuckle under to the Nazi bureaucrats, even to the point of having their licenses stripped and going to jail?
What would happen, as many thousands/millions of Canadians rallied to their side?
I’ll tell you what would happen. Sanity. Revolution. The downfall of the scum.
We’re at Nuremberg 2.0, people. If you don’t know what that means, look it up.
Doctors clear their vision and their brains and do their level best to HEAL, or they follow orders of the Commandants and maim and kill. It’s one side or the other.
In my 83 years, I’ve known a few very good doctors, and a number of The Cold Ones. The Cold Ones administer, without feeling or remorse, the Book of Death.
They’re ice on the outside, and rotting fungus and stench within.
Many of them sit at the top of medical boards.
They turn open societies into concentration camps.
On 25 May 2021, the Indian Bar Association (IBA) served a 51-page legal notice on Dr Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at the World Health Organisation (WHO), for:
“[H]er act of spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfil her agenda.”
The Mumbai-based IBA is an association of lawyers who strive to bring transparency and accountability to the Indian justice system. It is actively involved in the dissemination of legal knowledge and provides guidance and support to advocates and ordinary people in their fight for justice.
The legal notice says Dr Swaminathan has been:
“Running a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19, despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data compiled and presented by esteemed, highly qualified, experienced medical doctors and scientists,”
And:
“Issuing statements in social media and mainstream media, thereby influencing the public against the use of Ivermectin and attacking the credibility of acclaimed bodies/institutes like ICMR and AIIMS, Delhi, which have included ‘Ivermectin’ in the ‘National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.”
The IBA states that legal action is being taken against Dr Swaminathan in order to stop her from causing further damage to the lives of citizens of India.
The IBA says that Dr Swaminathan has ignored these studies and reports and has deliberately suppressed the data regarding the effectiveness of Ivermectin, with an intent to dissuade the people of India from using it.
However, two key medical bodies, the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi, have refused to accept her stand and have retained the recommendation for Ivermectin, under a ‘May Do’ category, for patients with mild symptoms and those in home isolation, as stated in ‘The National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.
It is interesting to note that the content of several web links to news articles and reports included in the notice served upon Dr Swaminathan, which was visible before issuing the notice, has either been removed or deleted.
It seems that the vaccine manufacturers and many governments are desperate to protect their pro-vaccine agenda and will attempt to censor information and news regarding the efficacy of Ivermectin.
Colin Todhunter is an independent journalist who writes on development, environmental issues, politics, food and agriculture. In August 2018 he was named as one of 400 Living Peace and Justice Leaders and Models by Transcend Media Services, in recognition of his journalism.
UKMFA has sent an Open Letter to the the MHRA in which we raise grave concerns about this emergency authorisation, citing evidence of known and potential harms to children that may result and the serious ethical issues this decision raises.
Given that these vaccines will have virtually no benefit to the children themselves, it is profoundly unethical and indefensible to vaccinate children, especially with an experimental vaccine using novel technology, in what appears to be a misguided attempt to protect adults and achieve herd immunity. We call on the MHRA to exercise caution and immediately reverse their decision.
URGENT Open Letter from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
Dr June Raine CBE – Chief Executive Office
Mr Stephen Lightfoot – Chair
Professor David Webb – Deputy Chair
Re: Covid-19 Vaccination in Children – Emergency Use Authorisation and Rollout in Schools
The UK Medical Freedom Alliance (UKMFA) is an alliance of UK medical professionals, scientists and lawyers campaigning for Medical Freedom, Informed Consent and Bodily Autonomy to be preserved and protected.
It is with the gravest of concern and utter incredulity that we assimilate the decision by the MHRA to grant regulatory approval for emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine in 12- to 15-year- old children [i]. We wish to notify you of the multiple factors indicating that most likely your decision will have devastating consequences for a significant number of children in the UK and their families.
We are adding our voice to doctors and experts around the world, including groups in the UK [ii] [iii], US [iv] [v] and Israel [vi], who have raised serious ethical and safety concerns, and demanded that Covid-19 vaccines are not rolled out to children.
We previously outlined our arguments against giving Covid-19 vaccines to children in an Open Letter to the MHRA, JVCI and Government Ministers, dated 25 February 2021 [vii]. Considering new and mounting evidence of harm caused by Covid-19 vaccines, we wish to urgently re-enforce our appeal to reverse this latest decision immediately and halt all plans in relation to administration of Covid-19 vaccines to children.
Ethical and Safety Concerns
1. In the UK, evidence-based medicine has been the basis of all clinical practice. Medical professionals are educated to critically appraise scientific evidence and ensure recommendations and guidelines rest on robust foundations. The implementation of the Covid-19 vaccination program is in complete incongruence with this concept, and this has never been more obvious than in relation to young people and children.
Rather than referring to peer-reviewed science, recommendations have been based only on interim analyses of clinical trials that have not been completed. Completion of the adult trials has already been compromised by offering the vaccine to participants in the placebo groups, thus removing the control arm [viii]. Trials to establish efficacy and safety of the Covid-19 vaccines are not conducted by independent research teams but by the pharmaceutical companies, who stand to gain financially from the sale of their products. Raw trial data are not yet accessible to be scrutinized. Instead, interim analyses and claims are communicated by press release, without peer review, and instantly assimilated into advice to the public. The Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trials involving children and teenagers only commenced in 2021 and are underpowered for obtaining meaningful safety data (there were only 1131 12–15-year-olds in treatment arm). Only 2 months’ worth of interim data was provided to the MHRA, giving extremely limited short-term and NO long-term safety profile. Safety cannot be established if due scientific process is not adhered to.
2. The justification for the enhanced timelines and the irregular process for temporary emergency use authorization of Covid-19 vaccines has been the urgency of the ongoing pandemic. There is no historical precedent where a pandemic was successfully ended or mitigated by vaccinating the entire population. Indeed, concerns have been raised that this approach may prolong the pandemic and risk promotion of more virulent variants [ix]. French virologist and Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier recently highlighted and warned about this potential issue [x] [xi]. As the concept of ending a pandemic by vaccinating the entire population has no basis in science, there is no imperative to vaccinate children.
3. The last time a vaccine was developed and brought to market on an emergency basis, was in an attempt to halt the swine flu epidemic in 2009-2010. Tragically, this resulted in significant, unexpected injuries, with over 1000 cases of life-changing narcolepsy in children and teenagers across Europe, and the eventual withdrawal of the Pandemri vaccine [xii] [xiii]. We have an obligation to exercise caution to prevent a re-occurrence of serious and unforeseen side-effects of an inadequately tested product in children [xiv].
4. The benefits of Covid-19 vaccines for children are close to zero, yet they carry known and unknown risks. Experts are stating that vaccinating children is neither necessary nor justified:
The minutes of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) dated 16 February 2021 note “little impact of vaccinating children once all other adults were offered vaccine” and “that modelling results on the impact of vaccinating children were considered highly uncertain” [xv].
Other experts have argued that “Covid-19 vaccines for children should not get emergency use authorization” [xvi] and that this would be “hard to justify right now for most children in most countries” [xvii].
Professor of Paediatrics and member of the JCVI, Adam Finn, said in an interview on the 20 May 2021 that it was “an open question as to whether we need to immunise children at all” and “if we can control this virus without immunising children, we shouldn’t immunise children as a matter of principle”.
5. Below, we set out specific issues regarding Covid-19 vaccines in children – each sufficient to justify not proceeding any further with this proposal.
a. The risk of Covid-19 to children is miniscule. The infection fatality rate in this age group is close to zero, and most remain asymptomatic or experience mild symptoms only [xix] [xx] [xxi] [xxii]. This has been reiterated by the Government [xxiii] and by Professor of Paediatrics, Adam Finn [xviii]. Even the low records of children hospitalized with Covid-19, may be an over- estimate, according to a recent study [xxiv]. The number of children and teens under the age of 20 without pre-existing conditions who have died in England with a positive Covid- 19 test, as of 13 May 2021, is in single figures [xxv]. Mortality in children in the UK in 2020/21 has in fact been significantly lower than in previous years [xxvi] [xxvii]. As the emergency does not, therefore, apply to children, there can be no justification to authorize any product for emergency use in the paediatric population.
b.The absolute risk reduction by Covid-19 vaccines is around 1% (0.84-1.3%) [xxviii]. This applies to the healthy adult trial participants and cannot be extrapolated to children, who are already at extremely low risk from the disease. The potential benefit to an individual child of receiving a Covid-19 vaccine is statistically zero.
c. Children play an insignificant role in transmission of Covid-19 [ix] [xviii] [xxix]. Living with children may even reduce the risks of the disease [xxx]. Transmission in schools has not been significant [xxxi] [xxxii] [xxxiii]. Trials have not demonstrated whether Covid-19 vaccines reduce asymptomatic infection or transmission [xxxiv]. There is therefore no demonstrable benefit to the wider society in vaccinating children.
d. In a population cohort at minimal risk of severe disease, such as young people and children, acquiring natural immunity will serve a better purpose, as this will be more comprehensive, longer lasting, and cover a broad range of virus variants. Vaccine- induced immunity does not cover the full spectrum of protection (mucosal immunity, IgA, and T-cell immunity to the whole virus) and may only be short-lived. Acquiring natural immunity will therefore also benefit the wider population, contributing to herd immunity [xxxv] [xxxvi] [xxxvii] [xxxviii] [xxxix].
e. All Covid-19 vaccines used in the UK are based on completely new gene-based technologies (mRNA / DNA vector technology) [xl], that have never received full regulatory approval for mass rollout in humans. They have not been licensed and remain experimental until Phase 3 trials have been completed [xli]. Thus, we cannot infer long-term safety without observing the impact on human health in those who have received the vaccines over the next few years.
f. There is currently no data to indicate whether dose adjustment may be necessary in children. This would appear relevant as side-effects in initial phase 1 dose-escalation trials were more significant with higher dosage [xlii].
g. Covid-19 vaccines work completely differently to established childhood vaccines. Traditional, live vaccines work using attenuated virus strains to prompt antibody development. Covid-19 vaccines introduce a synthetic gene which induces the recipient’s own cells to produce spike proteins. Spike proteins appear to contribute significantly to the pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2, and there are studies suggesting that they have the potential to cause pathology on their own [xliii] [xliv]. It is unknown how much spike protein will be produced by an individual, and it is plausible that younger, healthier people may produce higher quantities, potentially increasing the risk of side-effects. The safety of this approach needs to be thoroughly investigated and firmly established prior to full licensure in adults and prior to any use in children.
h. At this stage, medium- and long-term effects of Covid-19 vaccines are completely unknown and unpredictable, due to the short duration of the Phase 3 safety trials, which are ongoing and not due to complete until 2023. This is most relevant for young people and children. Before giving Covid-19 vaccines to children, potential adverse, long-term, effects on fertility, carcinogenesis, and children’s developing neurological and immune systems MUST be completely ruled out, as is done with other drugs and vaccines. This may take years or decades to fully establish.
i. Serious adverse events and vaccine-related deaths have been reported in the UK [xlv], the US [xlvi] and Europe [xlvii]. In the report published by the MHRA on 13 May 2021, there were 822,078 adverse reactions in the UK, including seizures, paralysis, blindness, strokes, blood clots and acute cardiac events. There were 1178 reports of fatalities.
j. Some life-threatening effects, such as blood clots [xlviii] and myocarditis [xlix], have been reported specifically in children and young adults [l] [li]. Government advice has recently been amended to avoid the AstraZeneca vaccine in young people due to a concern regarding the risk of rare blood clots (now considered to be around 1:100,000). The new term “vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia” acknowledges the causality of the vaccine in these events, often presenting as ischemic strokes [lii]. It is possible that this reaction could be a class effect caused by spike proteins and therefore not specific or limited to the AstraZeneca vaccine [liii]. Of the 4347 events of thrombosis and embolism reported to the MHRA as of 13 May 2021, 770 occurred following the Pizer-BioNTech vaccine [xlv]. According to the US VAERS reporting system, several children under the age of 18 have died following a Covid-19 vaccine [liv].
k. Vaccine manufacturers have requested and been granted complete exemption from liability for any injuries or deaths resulting from their products [lv] [lvi]. A spokesperson for AstraZeneca acknowledged the potential for unexpected long-term side-effects, stating that as a company, they “simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side-effects” [lvii]. If the risk is significant enough for manufacturers to anticipate economic loss, children must not be expected to take the same risk to their long-term health.
6. Informed consent is the cornerstone of good, ethical medical practice and is firmly enshrined in the code of conduct issued by the General Medical Council (GMC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Unless factually accurate information is made available, detailing risks as well as benefits, it is not possible for anyone, let alone children, to make a fully informed decision and give informed consent to Covid-19 vaccination. Gillick Competence cannot be assumed under current circumstances, where the vaccines are based on novel technologies, and no long-term safety data is available.
We are alarmed at the targeting of the public, and more recently schoolchildren [lviii] [lix], with material conveying a one-sided and simplified message, without reflection or consideration for individual circumstances, or disclosure of the known and unknown risks we have outlined.
Multiple resources are being made available that appear to be aimed at modifying behaviour to reduce “vaccine hesitancy”. These appear to rely not on the strength of scientific arguments but on techniques of persuasion [lx] [lxi] [lxii]. Recent reports, suggesting that the use of peer pressure to increase uptake of the vaccine in children has been condoned by some school leaders, were very disturbing [lxiii]. This is not consistent with ethical and lawful practice of medicine and indeed constitutes a violation of Informed Consent, as required by the GMC, the NHS Constitution, and the Montgomery ruling [lxiv].
7. In the UK, post-marketing surveillance is carried out via the Yellow Card System, a passive reporting system that requires all members of the public and all doctors to be aware of its existence, and compliant with filling in reports of all potential side-effects observed, to be effective at recognizing unexpected adverse events and signals of safety concern. In fact, there is poor awareness of, and compliance with, this scheme among both doctors and the public, potentially leading to a significant underestimate of the true number of adverse events and deaths connected with these vaccines.
Conclusion and Request
We have presented evidence that children are at no substantial risk from Covid-19, but face known and unknown risks from Covid-19 vaccines, including significant, life-changing injury and death. Some of the serious reported injuries, such as blood clots and myocarditis, have specifically occurred in young people and children. In addition, children have a lifetime ahead of them and we have no idea of the impact of these novel, gene-based vaccines on their health or fertility in 5-10 years’ time. Considering these facts, we cannot comprehend how the review by the MHRA can be described as rigorous, with a conclusion to grant regulatory approval.
We are already seeing reports of deaths and injury in children in the US and Canada, where vaccines are being trialed and rolled out to children. Even with rare risks (1:10,000 to 1:100,000), if these vaccines are rolled out to around 10 million UK children, it seems certain that we will see deaths and serious injuries in a significant number of children who would never have been harmed by Covid-19, devastating families and communities. There may be healthy UK children who will not live to see another Christmas if Covid-19 vaccines are rolled out in schools over the summer/autumn. This would be an unforgiveable act of completely avoidable harm, for which you would be responsible, individually and collectively.
We implore the MHRA to immediately reverse the decision to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for children and abide by the Hippocratic oath to “First do no Harm”.
The UK public trusts and relies on you not to expose their children to unnecessary risk.
We thank you for taking the time to read this letter and consider its contents. We request that you kindly acknowledge this letter and all the references within, and either confirm that emergency authorization for use of Covid-19 vaccines in children will be withdrawn or otherwise lay out the reasoning for your considered actions.
Rt Hon Boris Johnson – Prime Minister Rt Hon Matt Hancock – Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Professor Chris Whitty – Chief Medical Officer Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon – First Minister of Scotland Rt Hon Mark Drakeford – First Minister of Wales Rt Hon Arlene Foster – First Minister of Northern Ireland Prof Andrew Pollard – Chair of the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) Rt Hon Nadhim Zahawi – Minister for Covid-19 Vaccine Deployment
In today’s edition of The Redpill Series, James talks to James Delingpole, an ex-MSM journalist who has taken the red pill in the past year and a half and is now engaged in a series of conversations he never expected to be having on his Delingpod podcast. This is one of them.
Chalk up a victory vs. public health tyranny! In the face of massive public resistance, so-called ‘officials’ have retreated from their unscientific and misanthropic propaganda tactics.
Another round of record protests across in London (barely acknowledged in corporate media) has served as a bellwether for the surging distaste against several forms of public health Covid edicts.
After more than a year ignoring the data and science to lockdown the world, public health officials have begun reluctantly abandoning many of their heavy-handed tactics. Taking a “carrot and stick” approach, global populations have been continually beaten with a medical stick to force compliance. Yet few doing the ‘beating’ cared to look at history or do a simple cost-benefit analysis to examine the erroneous plan for their populations.
Continued analysis of the data behind lockdowns shows epic failures that have set society back in unimaginable ways. Forcing public health edicts illogically has forever weakened confidence in governmental and global health bodies.
Canadian economist Douglas W. Allen recently published an examination of over 80 Covid-19 studies, taking a critical look at the literature to assess the lockdown Cost vs. Benefits:
“There are about 45 stringency points from the least stringent country (Russia: 40.28) to the most stringent (Ireland: 84.26). Over this range, moving from the least to most stringent lockdown increases the cumulative deaths per million by 630 deaths. Contrary to the popular understanding, lockdown is not associated with fewer deaths per million, but more. “
Despite the false assertion by public health officials that the limited, available science pointed to lockdowns being the only solution, Allen refutes this, stating:
“By August there was enough information available to show that any reasonable cost/benefit analysis would show that lockdown was creating more harm than good. It is unreasonable to suggest that a proper decision could not have been made in the fall when the second wave of infections hit.”
The public is emboldened like never before to both return to normal and disobey public health officials pushing irrational, unscientific orders whose only roots stem from virtue signaling, political jockeying and/or petty power plays. It’s over. And would-be government employees refusing to see the writing on the wall will be voted out of office.
Established in April 2020 and composed by a group of multi-disciplinary professionals, the Pandemics Data & Analytics (or PANDA) organization understands this. PANDA stands for open science, rational debate about replacing flawed science, and for retrieving liberty and prosperity from the clutches of a dystopian “new normal”.
The organization recently released its 17-page analysis and Declaration for the Protection of Children and Young People. It states:
“Evidence already shows serious damage to the physical, mental and social wellbeing of children and young people, as well as their educational attainment and future prospects (Lewis et al., 2021). There was never a reason to disrupt the lives of children and young people and there is every reason to restore normality to this population. Policymakers should take immediate action to protect children and young people from further harm and injustice, now and in the future.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is facing down a scandal from several directions. First, internal emails revealed the agency relied upon politically motivated actors, rather than science, to craft its school reopening policy. Secondly, the agency’s mask guidance was peppered with confusion and questionable science.
Research examining mitigation practices and Covid-19 rates in Florida, New York and Massachusetts’ schools continued to drive home the CDC’s scientific misadventures. After looking at all the data encompassing public schools and districts for the 2020-2021 school year, the authors concluded “…we do not see a correlation between mask mandates and COVID-19 rates among students…”
Even at this advanced stage of public revelation and transparency to the failed policies of some tone-deaf public health officials, some are still desperately trying to move the goalposts. For example: After the goal of lowering case counts in an effort to return to normal was reached, officials in Australia and New Zealand demanded a zero-Covid approach! Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, Ontario has announced a three-step plan to reopen the province, starting with outdoor recreational amenities, as it gradually prepares to ease pandemic restrictions. But wait! Hold on! Forget about lower case counts or mortality rates, Ontario must wait at least two weeks after 60 per cent of adults have received one dose of the vaccine!
In the U.S., the reopening has happened too rapidly for power-hungry public officials still not ready to give up their ill-gotten fiefdoms. The vaccine passport idea continues to be a non-starter in the USA as many governors checkmated the idea with a slew of early executive orders and bills.
Defaulting to individual businesses, a few governors have resorted to making weary frontline business owners manually violate their patron’s health privacy by asking them to check the vaccine status of everyone who enters their establishment. This is the textbook definition of fascism, by the way: The marriage of government and industry.
Other businesses have simply removed their “face masks mandatory” signs and replaced them with masking suggestions for the unvaccinated. How many people are complying no one knows for sure.
A month ago, headlines told of an impending U.K. domestic vaccine passport despite widespread public distaste. It manifested in the form of an NHS app which had some concerning additional features as exposed during an interview on U.K.’s Talk Radio:
The NHS app has been updated to include far more than vaccine jabs.
Julia: “Data relating to mental health, lifestyle, ethnic origin, biometric data and alleged criminal behaviour; what the hell does that have to do with proving you’ve had two jabs!?”@JuliaHB1 | @silkiecarlopic.twitter.com/TFztDpoMpq
In a surprising plot twist, following this weekend’s capacity protests, plans for the U.K. vaccine passport have reportedly been scrapped. In a Telegraph exclusive, ‘officials’ working on Covid-19 status certification believe there is no chance the law will be changed to mandate vaccine passports’ use within the U.K. Called a “well-placed source” by The Telegraph stated, “No one is talking about it still as a potential thing … It has been killed off really.”
As travel and employment appear to be the new chokepoints to ram through vaccine certificates, are governments defaulting to private business to finish the op? Or will something happen that gives officials a rejuvenated push in the near future?
In an open letter to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, more than 40 doctors, medics and scientists in the UK say children are more vulnerable to the potential long-term effects of COVID vaccines.
A group of more than 40 doctors, medics and scientists is calling the UK government’s plan to vaccinate children for COVID “irresponsible, unethical and unnecessary.”
In an open letter addressed to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the group said no one under 18 should be vaccinated for COVID because evidence shows the virus poses almost no risk to healthy children.
The letter was written in response to leaked documents from the UK National Health service detailing how UK health authorities plan to give COVID vaccines to children over 12 years old.
According to the documents, children as young as 5 years old could be vaccinated as early as July — a move the government said may be necessary to keep COVID cases down as lockdowns lift across the country.
The authors of the letter said the risk of death from COVID in healthy children is 1 in 1.25 million. COVID vaccines, however, are linked to strokes due to cerebral venous thromboses in people under 40 — a finding that “led to the suspension of the Oxford-AstraZeneca children’s trial,” the authors said.
The letter states:
“Children have a lifetime ahead of them, and their immunological and neurological systems are still in development, making them potentially more vulnerable to adverse effects than adults.”
Read “COVID-19 Child Vaccination: Safety and Ethical Concerns — An Open Letter From UK Doctors to Dr. June Raine, Chief Executive, MHRA”:
We wish to notify you of our grave concerns regarding all proposals to administer COVID-19 vaccines to children. Recently leaked Government documents suggested that a COVID-19 vaccine rollout in children over 12 years old is already planned for September 2021, and the possibility of children as young as 5 years old being vaccinated in the summer in a worst-case scenario.
We have been deeply disturbed to hear several Government and SAGE representatives calling in the media for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout to be “turning to children as fast as we can”. Teaching materials circulated to London schools contain emotionally loaded questions and inaccuracies. In addition, there has been disturbing language used by teaching union leaders, implying that coercion of children to accept the COVID-19 vaccines through peer pressure in schools was to be encouraged, despite the fact that coercion to accept a medical treatment is against UK and International Laws and Declarations. Rhetoric such as this is irresponsible and unethical, and encourages the public to demand the vaccination of minors with a product still at the research stage and about which no medium- or long-term effects are known, against a disease which presents no material risk to them. A summary of our reasons is given below and a more detailed fully referenced explanation is available.
Risks and benefits in medical treatments
Vaccines, like any other medical treatment, come with varied risks and benefits. Therefore, we must consider each product, individually, on its merits, and specifically for which patients or sections of the population is the risk/benefit ratio acceptable. For COVID-19 vaccines, the potential benefits are clear for the elderly and vulnerable, however, for children, the balance of benefit and risk would be quite different. We are raising these concerns as part of an informed debate, which is a vital part of the proper, scientific process. We must ensure that there is no repeat of any past tragedies which have occurred especially when vaccines are rushed to market. For example, the swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, rolled out following the pandemic of 2010, resulted in over one thousand cases of narcolepsy, a devastating brain injury, in children and teenagers, before being withdrawn. Dengvaxia, a new vaccine against Dengue, was also rolled out to children ahead of the full trial outcomes, and 19 children died of possible antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) before the vaccine was withdrawn. We must not risk a repeat of this with the COVID-19 vaccines, which would not only impact on the children and families affected, but would also have a hugely damaging effect on vaccination uptake in general.
No medical intervention should be introduced on a ‘one size fits all’ basis, but instead should be fully assessed for suitability according to the characteristics of the age cohort and of the individuals concerned, weighing up the risk versus benefit profile for each cohort and the individuals within a group. This approach was outlined last October, by the head of the Government Vaccine Task Force, Kate Bingham, who said “We just need to vaccinate everyone at risk. There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”
Children do not need vaccination for their own protection
Healthy children are at almost no risk from COVID-19, with risk of death as low as 1 in 2.5 million. No previously healthy child under the age of 15 died during the pandemic in the UK and admissions to hospital or intensive care are exceedingly rare with most children having no or very mild symptoms. Although Long-Covid has been cited as a reason for vaccinating children, there is little hard data. It appears less common and much shorter-lived than in adults and none of the vaccine trials have studied this outcome. The inflammatory condition, PIMS, was listed as a potential adverse effect in the Oxford AstraZeneca children’s trial. Naturally acquired immunity will give broader and better lasting immunity than vaccination. Indeed, many children will already be immune. Individual children at very high risk can already receive vaccination on compassionate grounds.
Children do not need vaccination to support herd immunity
Already, two thirds of the adult population have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Models that assume vaccination of children is required to reach herd immunity have failed to account for the proportion who had immunity prior to March 2020 and those who have acquired it naturally. Recent modelling suggested that the UK had achieved the required herd immunity threshold on 12 April 2021.
Children do not transmit SARS-CoV-2 as readily as adults, moreover adults living or working with young children are at lower risk of severe COVID-19. Schools have not been shown to be the focus on spread to the community, teachers have a lower risk of COVID-19 than other working age adults.
Short-term safety concerns
As of 13th May, the MHRA22 has received a total of 224,544 adverse events, including 1,145 deaths in association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Reports of strokes due to cerebral venous thrombosis were initially in low numbers but as awareness increased, many more reports led to the conclusion that AstraZeneca vaccine should not be used for adults under 40 years of age and this unpredicted finding has also led to the suspension of the Oxford AstraZeneca children’s trial.
Similar events have been noted with Pfizer & Moderna vaccines on the US adverse reporting system (VAERS) and it is likely that this is a class effect related to production of spike protein. New UK guidelines on managing Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) include all COVID-19 vaccines in their advice. The possibility of further unexpected safety issues cannot be ruled out. In Israel, where the vaccines have been widely rolled out to young people and teenagers, the Pfizer vaccine has been linked to several cases of myocarditis in young men and concerns have been raised about reports of altered menstrual cycles and abnormal bleeding in young women following the vaccine.
Most concerning with regard to possible vaccination of children, is that there have now been a number of deaths associated with vaccination reported to VAERS in the US, despite the vaccines only being given to children within trials and a very recent rollout to 16-17 year olds.
Long-term safety concerns
All Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials are ongoing and not due to conclude until late 2022/early 2023. The vaccines are, therefore, currently experimental with only limited short-term and no long-term adult safety data available. In addition, many are using a completely new mRNA vaccine technology, which has never previously been approved for use in humans. The mRNA is effectively a pro-drug and it is not known how much spike protein any individual will produce. Potential late-onset effects can take months or years to become apparent. The limited children’s trials undertaken to date are totally underpowered to rule out uncommon but severe side effects.
Children have a lifetime ahead of them, and their immunological and neurological systems are still in development, making them potentially more vulnerable to adverse effects than adults. A number of specific concerns have been raised already, including autoimmune disease and possible effects on placentation and fertility. A recently published paper raised the possibility that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could trigger prion-based, neurodegenerative disease. All potential risks, known and unknown, must be balanced against risks of COVID-19 itself, so a very different benefit/risk balance will apply to children than to adults.
Conclusion
There is important wisdom in the Hippocratic Oath which states, “First do no harm”. All medical interventions carry a risk of harm, so we have a duty to act with caution and proportionality. This is particularly the case when considering mass intervention in a healthy population, in which situation there must be firm evidence of benefits far greater than harms. The current, available evidence clearly shows that the risk versus benefit calculation does NOT support administering rushed and experimental COVID-19 vaccines to children, who have virtually no risk from COVID-19, yet face known and unknown risks from the vaccines. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection”. As adults we have a duty of care to protect children from unnecessary and foreseeable harm.
We conclude that it is irresponsible, unethical and indeed, unnecessary, to include children under 18 years in the national COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Clinical trials in children also pose huge ethical dilemmas, in light of the lack of potential benefit to trial participants and the unknown risks. The end of the current Phase 3 trials should be awaited as well as several years of safety data in adults, to rule out, or quantify, all potential adverse effects.
We call upon our governments and the regulators not to repeat mistakes from history, and to reject the calls to vaccinate children against COVID-19. Extreme caution has been exercised over many aspects of the pandemic, but surely now is the most important time to exercise true caution – we must not be the generation of adults that, through unnecessary haste and fear, risks the health of children.
Signatories
Dr Rosamond Jones, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician
Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former parliamentary undersecretary of state 2001-2003, former consultant in Public Health Medicine
Prof Anthony Fryer, PhD, FRCPath, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry, Keele University
Professor Karol Sikora, MA, MBBChir, PhD, FRCR, FRCP, FFPM, Dean of Medicine, Buckingham
University, Professor of Oncology
Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMed Sci, Professor of Oncology, St Georges Hospital London
Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD. Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh
Professor Anthony J Brookes, Department of Genetics & Genome Biology, University of Leicester
Dr John A Lee, MBBS, PhD, FRCPath, retired Consultant Histopathologist, former Clinical Professor
of Pathology at Hull York Medical School
Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH (ret). Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA, MBBS, DRCOG, retired doctor
A group of 117 Houston-area hospital employees on Friday filed a civil lawsuit against an employer hospital’s coronavirus vaccine mandate. The lawsuit alleges that the mandate violates both the Nuremberg Code and U.S. statutes that allow Americans to refuse “unapproved” medical treatments. It also alleges violations of Texas labor and employment laws.
That “people” are “trying to force you to put something into your body that you’re not comfortable with to keep your job is just insane,” lead plaintiff Jennifer Bridgestold Houston CBS affiliate KHOU.
The defendants are The Methodist Hospital, the Methodist Hospital System, and Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital. The people in charge of those entities responded to the litigation by saying the plaintiffs are but a small minority of voices among 26,000 employees and that it is “legal for health care institutions to mandate vaccines.”
The Lawsuit.
The sharply worded 56-page complaint argues that the COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market were authorized merely as “emergency” measures and, thus, are not fully “approved” vaccines.
At the top of the document are words attributed to David Bernard, the CEO of Houston Methodist San Jacinto Hospital: “100% vaccination is more important than your individual freedom. Everyone [sic] of you is replaceable. If you don’t like what your [sic] doing you can leave and we will replace your spot.”
Those alleged words did not sit well with the plaintiffs.
“For the first time in the history of the United States, an employer is forcing an employee to participate in an experimental vaccine trial as a condition for continued employment,” the lawsuit argues.
The document continues by alleging that the defendant hospital “became the first major health care system in the country to force it [sic] employees to be injected with an experimental COVID-19 mRNA gene modification injection (‘experimental vaccine’) or be fired.”
“Methodist Hospital is forcing its employees to be human ‘guinea pigs’ as a condition for continued employment,” the lawsuit’s opening paragraph also says.
The Washington Post on May 14 reported that the coronavirus vaccines available in the U.S. are no longer considered “experimental” because they have “completed clinical trials and have been authorized for emergency use.” The same report quotes a bevy of experts who asserted that the current vaccines are safe while noting that millions of Americans have been vaccinated without serious harm.
Still, the plaintiff employees remain skeptical.
“[T]here is much the FDA does not know about these products even as it authorizes them for emergency use, including their effectiveness against infection, death, and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that is allegedly the cause of the COVID disease,” the lawsuit claims.
“Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations,” the new EEOC technical assistance document reads.
This article takes off from the work of investigative reporter, Whitney Webb. Much of what I’m laying out here confirms her exposure of “the other Wuhan.” Webb writes at Unlimited Hangout and The Last American Vagabond.
When I put together Webb’s findings with my own COVID research, startling new dimensions of the false “pandemic” story come to light.
Who would have thought that, in less than a year, the image of the opioid drug, fentanyl, would undergo a face lift, enhancing it from “most destructive killer drug in the world” to “lifesaver in the treatment of COVID patients?”
And if this PR miracle is not a sufficient stunner, it just so happens that Opioid Central for illegally trafficking fentanyl to the planet is Wuhan, now the focus of claims that COVID was born in a lab there.
(Fake) pandemic transforms fentanyl into “vital COVID medication.”
(Fake) pandemic starts in Wuhan.
Wuhan is the city where killer drug fentanyl is shipped out to dealers all over the world.
High-level operators, focusing on Wuhan, manage to obscure, from the broad public, the city’s global role in killing millions of people with opioids…by claiming a pandemic was born in Wuhan. “The ONLY thing you have to know about Wuhan is the virus broke out there.”
This has the earmarks of a highly successful cover story.
Here’s a prime illustration of fentanyl’s PR facelift:
NJ [New Jersey] Spotlight News, April 14, 2020, “No Longer a Scourge, Fentanyl Is Now Most-Needed Drug in COVID-19 War.”
“…fentanyl, one of the drugs given to patients so they can withstand the pain of having a breathing tube inserted, is in short supply along with a handful of other crucial drugs.”
“The first wave of critical shortages exposed by the coronavirus was medical masks and gowns. Then it was ventilators. Now, a handful of crucial drugs are in short supply in overrun ICUs throughout northern New Jersey and New York City, many of which are needed to use the ventilators.”
“At the top of the list is fentanyl, the deadly synthetic painkiller — 100 times more powerful than morphine — the very drug that has become public enemy No. 1 in the nation’s war on opioid addiction. Demand for fentanyl has doubled nationwide and shot up more than 500% in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan region, the current global epicenter of the pandemic.”
“Fentanyl may have been killing people in record numbers on the streets of New Jersey in recent years, but in our hospitals, it is now saving lives.”
“Demand for fentanyl is followed by Propofol, a sedative also used with ventilators, according to Soumi Saha, Premier’s senior director of advocacy…Close behind those two is a new category of drugs to face shortages — neuromuscular blockers, which are also being used for ventilator patients because they keep them from involuntarily coughing on the healthcare worker inserting the vent tube.”
“During normal times, patients stay on ventilators for three or four days. Now, not only has the number of ventilated patients spiked, but the time they remain on the device is two to three weeks.”
I gave you an extended quote from that New Jersey article, because I’ll cover the real story behind ventilators later in this piece.
Right now, here are a few references pointing to Wuhan as Opioid Central.
City-journal.org, May 12, 2020, “Wuhan’s other epidemic,” Christopher F. Rufo: “…many don’t know that Wuhan is also the source of another deadly epidemic: America’s fentanyl overdoses… Over the past decade, Wuhan has emerged as the global headquarters for fentanyl production. The city’s chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers hide production of the drug within their larger, licit manufacturing operations, then ship it abroad using deliberately mislabeled packaging, concealment techniques, and a complex network of forwarding addresses. According to a recent ABC News report, ‘huge amounts of these mail-order [fentanyl] components can be traced to a single, state-subsidized company in Wuhan.’”
The Atlantic, August 18, 2019, “The Brazen Way a Chinese Company Pumped Fentanyl Ingredients Into the US,” by Ben Westhoff: “According to Bryce Pardo, a fentanyl expert at the Rand Corporation, the two most commonly used fentanyl precursors—think of them as ingredients—are chemicals called NPP and 4-ANPP. When I first started researching them, in early 2017, advertisements for the chemicals were all over the internet, from a wide variety of different companies. Later, I determined that the majority of those companies were under the Yuancheng [company] umbrella.”
“Posing as a buyer, I answered an online advertisement for fentanyl precursors and was put in touch with a Yuancheng salesman who called himself Sean. We arranged to meet at the company’s main office in Wuhan, in the Wuchang district, near a busy subway station in a blue-collar neighborhood…”
LA Times, April 24, 2020: “For drug traffickers interested in getting in on the fentanyl business, all roads once led to Wuhan.”
“The sprawling industrial city built along the Yangtze River in east-central China is known for its production of chemicals, including the ingredients needed to cook fentanyl and other powerful synthetic opioids.”
“Vendors there shipped huge quantities around the world. The biggest customers were Mexican drug cartels, which have embraced fentanyl in recent years because it is cheaper and easier to produce than heroin.”
The Times article cites the pandemic as the reason for a decline in the fentanyl business. But lockdowns increased people’s desires for drugs. And of course, since economies have started loosening up, fentanyl trafficking operations are certainly booming again.
The highly successful cover story I described above…were there reasons for this cover, other than an attempt to conceal, from the broad public, Wuhan as the global center of opioid trafficking?
I can think of two other reasons. The first one I would introduce this way: “We’re killing people in the streets with fentanyl, but that’s not enough. We want to kill them in the hospitals, too.”
Heavy hitters, intent on getting rid of the elderly on a wide scale, saw an opportunity. And now we come to the ventilator story.
There is no doubt that, globally speaking, there has been a mad and destructive rush to put people diagnosed with COVID on breathing ventilators.
To deploy these devices in hospitals requires intubation, which is painful and very disruptive. Patients must be sedated. They must be kept sedated, while they’re hooked up to the breathing machines— for days and weeks.
Enter fentanyl and other opioids.
Since the whole story of the COVID virus was a fake from the get-go, some group would have to bear the burden of dying, in order to inflate death numbers; in order to make it appear that the “pandemic” was a fire sweeping through the world.
The group was and is the elderly, and in a series of articles on this gruesome subject a year ago, I left no doubt about the truth staring us in the face. (Note: CDC, May 14, 2021: “8 out 10 COVID-19 deaths reported in the US have been in adults 65 years old and older.”)
COVID is old people. Their premature deaths are forced. Their statistical numbers are gold for the planners of the operation. And this has nothing to do with a virus.
The Hill, (undated, late April 2020), reports on “data…gathered at Northwell Health, New York state’s largest hospital system. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) examines 5,700 patients hospitalized with coronavirus infections in the New York City region, with final outcomes recorded for 2,634 patients. The average patient age was 63 years old… For the next oldest age group, ages 66 years and older, patients receiving mechanical [breathing] ventilation recorded a 97.2 percent mortality rate.”
97.2 percent of elderly patients put on breathing ventilators died.
Just in case other obvious strategies failed to produce premature death in the elderly, ventilators provided the method:
VENTILATORS PLUS SEDATION WITH OPIOIDS.
THE OPIOIDS CAUSE SUPPRESSION OF BREATHING AND DEATH.
OF COURSE, THAT SUPPRESSION OF BREATHING (“HYPOXIA”) IS CALLED A CARDINAL SYMPTOM OF COVID.
Don’t even think of saying, “Well, you see, those old people put on ventilators were already very sick and close to dying.” NO medical treatment that kills 97.2 percent of patients in a well-defined group is continued, unless there are orders mandating it. Unless there is insurance money to be saved. Unless the doctors are willing to follow orders and keep using the treatment, despite the results.
So yes, opioids were transformed, by a cover story, from a killer street drug to a “lifesaving treatment” for COVID—but at the deepest level, that meant murdering the elderly with the drugs.
The second reason for the cover story would have involved moving up the time table for launching the fake pandemic story in Wuhan.
Was there some sort of accident, in which the people of Wuhan were exposed to fentanyl, with deadly consequences? Desperately needing a phony cover-up explanation—was “THE VIRUS” story invoked?
I can only speculate about that possibility. However, China is famous for loose enforcement of safety regulations in factories, and it’s possible that some sort of accident occurred, which blew fentanyl or its components through the city of Wuhan, killing people on the spot.
There are analogous recent incidents in China.
The Wikipedia page for the 2019 Xiangshui chemical plant explosion, which killed 78 people and injured 617, mentions other events as well:
“On 27 November 2007, an explosion occurred in one of the chemical factories in Chenjiagang Chemical Zone, with seven killed and around 50 injured…In the early morning of 11 February 2011, rumors of toxic chemical release and potential imminent explosions in the Chenjiagang Chemical Industry Park led over ten thousand residents to evacuate in panic from the towns of Chenjiagang and Shuanggang during which four people died and many were injured. On the afternoon of May 18 and again on July 26 in 2011, there were explosions at local factories.”
As I keep reminding readers, the whole “pandemic” is a covert op. Such operations always deploy cover stories, in order to hide what is really being done, how it’s being done, and why.
Speaking of which, there are several major pharmaceutical companies who’ve faced heavy exposure for their roles in the opioid criminal trafficking business. For example, Purdue, and Johnson & Johnson. A third one is (Mossad-connected) Teva.
If you could offer Warren Buffet an ice cream cone with a truth-serum cherry on top, it would be interesting to ask him whether the PR campaign to push opioids as life-saving COVID treatments helped stabilize his 42,789,295 shares of beleaguered Teva, worth $412,916,000.
To connect one more dot (for now,) the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation holds 50 million shares, worth $11 billion, in Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway. It is the Gates Foundation’s top investment.
“Until we understand the real agenda here — which is to control humanity at the
genetic level — I don’t think we’ll be able to get a grasp at what’s going on.” ~ James Corbett
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Topics discussed include:
The Great Reset
The history of eugenics in its many forms
The biosecurity state
Technocratic control of humanity
Unfolding global lawsuits
Global efforts to raise awareness and to create the society we want
Link to James Corbett’s documentaries including How Big Oil Conquered the World: https://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-documentaries/
Under the banner of fighting COVID-19 children all over the world are being abused and exploited in ways that would have been unthinkable over a year ago. The title of this article is part of a powerful speech condemning this abuse at the Gwinnett County School Board in Georgia by Courtney Ann Taylor, a mother of three small children. Here is part of her stinging rebuke:
“Every month I come here, and I hear the same thing: ‘social emotional health.’ If you truly mean that, you would end the mask requirement tonight…My six year old looks at me every month before I come here and she says ‘are you gonna tell them tonight. Tell them I don’t want to wear this anymore’…forcing five, six, seven, eight, and nine year old little children to cover their noses and their mouths where they breathe for seven hours a day every day for the last nine months…that is not in their best interest and this has to stop…Every one of us knows that young children are not affected by this virus…And that’s a blessing…But as the adults what have we done with that blessing? We’ve shoved it to the side and we’ve said, ‘we don’t care. You’re still going to have to wear a mask on your face every day…You still can’t play together on the playground like normal children…We don’t care. We’re still going to force you to carry a burden that was never yours to carry.’ Shame on us.”
Truer words were never spoken. Unfortunately, most people tend to blindly trust government officials and other so-called experts instead of their own common sense.
The History of “Eugenics”
Nazi Germany was obsessed with racial purity partly due to the pseudoscience of eugenics which was a popular ideology throughout the world at the time. Shortly after Hitler took power in 1933, the Nazis began to purge Germany of what they considered undesirables via sterilization and euthanasia programs. The victims of these horrible and inhumane programs included the mentally ill, the disabled,epileptics, the deformed, those with genetic diseases, alcoholics—anyone considered to be a burden on society, “life unworthy of life,” “useless feeders.”
The Euthanasia program was known as “Aktion T4,” code name for Tiergartenstrasse 4, (the street address of the coordinating office in Berlin). Its first victims were infants and toddlers. But soon older children were included as well as teenagers.
Starting in 1939, hospitals and homes for the disabled began the systematic killing of infants and small children. While doctors decided who would live or die, it was the nurses, usually women, there were some male nurses, who carried out those orders. The children were either killed by lethal injection, starvation or hypothermia from exposure, and in some cases, medical experimentation, and physical abuse. Imagine killing an infant by one these methods. We’re not talking about aborting fetuses within the first three months of conception here, but fully formed out-of-the-womb already born babies. I can’t comprehend how anyone could be so heartless and so cruel that they could do something so monstrously evil.
Many nurses did refuse to participate in this kind of genocide, but many didn’t. But those who refused weren’t punished in any way—they were simply transferred to another hospital or ward. So, the nurses who killed children and later adults in these institutions were doing so of their own free will.
Another method of execution was to tell children they were going on a picnic. A picnic lunch was provided and a nurse would help them onto a bus. But they didn’t know that it was a sealed bus that had been converted into a mobile gas chamber. The exhaust pipes were placed inside. The bus drove off, the exhaust fumes filled the bus, and by the time it got back to the hospital the children were dead. ABC News pointed out that this was the prototype for the gas chambers that would later be used to murder millions of Jews, gypsies, Poles, and others deemed undesirables in infamous concentration camps like Auschwitz and Buchenwald—the “Final Solution”—the Holocaust.
Naturally, parents wouldn’t take kindly to their children being executed so the government did what governments do best—they lied to them. Parents were encouraged to put their sick and disabled children into institutions that would supposedly provide them with the best medical care. The children would then be moved to another institution much farther away and contact between parent and child would cease. A few months later the parents would receive a letter saying that the child died of pneumonia or some other illness and that they could come and collect their ashes and pay for the funeral. The ashes weren’t even the ashes of their children, but were from multiple bodies that were cremated together. However, the brains of the dead children were removed prior to cremation for further study. Some these preserved brains remained in private collections into the 21st Century.
An estimated 275,000-300,000 innocent men, women, and children were killed under the Aktion T4 program. And although the euthanasia program was suspended in 1941 due to public pressure, it was impossible to keep such a program totally secret forever, German medical professionals and healthcare workers secretly resumed the killings the following year and continued them until the end of the war with the help of local authorities.
But that was the Nazis, some will argue–we Americans would never do that. The US is the land of the free and home of the brave–the leader of the free world—a Christian nation. Oh, really?
The Role of Big Pharma
Medicine is a healing art and a profession. But it is also a business—the biggest business in the US at just under four trillion dollars which makes up 18% of our 22.2 trillion dollar 2020 GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Medicine is also part of the government. As such, the CDC, FDA, NIH, and state health departments are just as corrupt and subject to influence peddling as the rest of the government. Because of this, the treatment modalities for various diseases and conditions usually aren’t what’s best for the patient, but what is most profitable for pharmaceutical companies and other for-profit corporate interests. This corruption has been reported numerous times in the scientific literature.
Example: Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2013, Abstract: “The pharmaceutical Industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs.”
The fact that doctors and public health bureaucrats wield enormous power adds to their corruption and arrogance. British historian and Politician Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton 1834-1902) summed it up best:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority…Official truth is not actual truth..It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people fit to govern others…Men cannot be made good by the state, but they can easily be made bad. Morality depends on liberty.”
Child Abuse In The Name of Public Health
A lot of people like to think that doctors and nurses are noble people who have our best interests at heart. This simply isn’t true in most cases. In fact, Nazi doctors and nurses at the Nuremberg Trials tried to defend their gruesome practices by pointing out the inhumane experiments doctors in the US carried out, and continued to carry out long after WWII. This is in spite of the fact that The Nuremberg Code which came about as a result of Nazi genocide, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Federal policies and state laws prohibit experimenting on people without their knowledge or consent. Granted, the Nazis took things to a much higher level. But what we did wasn’t anything to brag about. Here are but a few examples:
St. Vincent’s Home for Orphans, Philadelphia, PA 1908: researchers studying tuberculosis conducted a series on diagnostic tests on over a 100 children under 8 years old by placing a tuberculin formula in their eyes. Some children were blinded for life as a result of this unethical, immoral experiment.
Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Manhattan, New York City 1911: Dr. Hideyo Noguchi (1876-1928) injected 146 children with luetin, an extract of Treponema Pallidum, the causative agent of syphilis in order to develop a skin test for the disease. The kids and other adult subjects didn’t know that they were being used in an experiment. The parents of some of the children sued Noguchi alleging that their children had contracted syphilis.
Tuskegee Institute, Macon County, Alabama 1932-1972: on May 16, 1997, President Bill Clinton apologized to the victims of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. The government lied to hundreds of poor Black men infected with syphilis who thought they were getting free medical care. In reality, their syphilis went untreated so medical researchers could study how the disease progressed. Why didn’t they already know? Syphilis had been around for centuries. By 1947 penicillin was known to cure syphilis, but the men in the study didn’t get it. The result: 28 men died of syphilis, 100 others were dead from related complications, at least 40 wives were infected, and passed the disease on to 19 children at birth.
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 1946: 829 pregnant women were given “vitamin drinks” that researchers told them would improve the health of their unborn babies. But unknown to them the concoctions contained radioactive iron. The purpose of the research was to find out how fast the radioisotope crossed into the placenta. In the women, this resulted in rashes, bruises, anemia, hair loss, tooth loss, and cancer. At least 7 of their babies died from cancers and leukemia. These kind of perverse radiation experiments (from 1944-1974 there were over 4,000 of them) were driven by the US government’s obsession with chemical warfare, and atomic weapons due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Bellevue Hospital, New York City 1940-1953: Dr. Lauretta Bender (1897-1987), a child psychiatrist experimented on anywhere from 100 to 500 children (reports vary) between 3 and 12 years of age using electroshock therapy after diagnosing them with “autistic schizophrenia.” She would sit a child in front of a large group and apply gentle pressure to their head. If the kid moved Bender claimed that this was an early sign of schizophrenia. A 1954 study of 50 of bender’s child subjects showed that nearly all were worse off and that some had become suicidal. Bender continued her experiments on children at Creedmoor Hospital, also in New York City, from 1956-1969 which included using LSD on them.
Willowbrook State School, Staten Island, N.Y. 1955-1970: Dr. Saul Krugman (1911-1995) deliberately infected over 700 mentally disabled, but healthy children ages 3-10 with hepatitis which was rampant at the institution due to poor sanitation and overcrowding. He infected the children by spiking their food and chocolate milk with strains of the disease synthesized from the poop of patients who had it.Yuck! The purpose of this unethical research, approved by the state and federal government, was to develop a vaccine. The children became sick, but fortunately none of them died. Reporter Geraldo Rivera did an expose on the horrible conditions at this school in 1972 by sneaking onto the grounds. He saw children neglected, naked, smeared in their own feces, and banging their heads against the wall. Rivera said he still cries when he thinks about what he saw. The school was shut down in 1987.
Edmonston-Zagreb high-titre (EZ-HT) measles vaccine 1989-1991: the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) injected thousands of babies in Third World countries with experimental EZ-HT vaccines. Clinical trials conducted in Africa and Haiti like the Senegal study published in the Lancet showed that child mortality was much higher in babies who received the EZ-HT vaccines. In spite of this, the CDC irresponsibly gave EZ-HT vaccines to over 1,500 minority babies in Los Angeles, California without telling the parents it was experimental, unlicensed for use in the US, and potentially dangerous. The CDC admitted that “A mistake was made,” but claimed “there was no ill intent.” Fortunately, none of the babies suffered any immediate ill-effects from the EZ-HT vaccines. But the Senegal study states that “little is known about the long-term effects of high-titre live measles vaccines given early in life.” How lovely.
All of the aforementioned atrocities and irresponsible experiments happened many years ago. But to this day children are still being used as guinea pigs by the government and Big Pharma. For example, millions of children are on psychiatric medication. The majority of kids who went on a shooting rampage between 1988 and 2013 were taking psychiatric medication. That’s not counting kids who had been on these medications in that past and the cases where the medical records had been sealed.
Numerous studies have been done on how harmful psychiatric drugs can be. Ten of them can be accessed here. Of course, it’s more fashionable to blame guns, video games, and porn for mixed up, violent kids. And now that the COVID-19 vaccines have been rolled out they want to use all of us as lab rats.
“Unless we act now to address the pandemic’s impacts on children, the echoes of COVID-19 will permanently damage our shared future… COVID-19 has the potential to overwhelm fragile health systems in low and middle-income countries and undermine many of the gains made in child survival, health, nutrition and development over the last several decades.”
“For many children, the COVID-19 crisis will mean limited or no education..More than 91 percent of the world’s students are out of school, due to school closures in at least 188 countries…Added family stresses related to the COVID-19 crisis—including job loss, isolation, excessive confinement, and anxieties over health and finances—heighten the risk of violence in the home…Child abuse is less likely to be detected during the COVID-19 crisis, as child protection agencies have reduced monitoring to avoid spreading the virus, and teachers are less likely to detect signs of ill treatment with schools closed.”
“Increasing numbers of American children and young adults died by suicide in recent years, and the Covid-19 pandemic threatens to continue the trend…Rates more than doubled in New Hampshire, and the majority of states showed an increase between 30% and 60%… Recent research has documented increases in serious psychological distress, major depression, and suicidal thoughts and attempts among youth. A survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that more than one-quarter of young adults reported having seriously considered suicide in the 30 days before completing the June 24-30 questionnaire.”
“The COVID-19 pandemic has had a deep impact on children, families, communities, and societies the world over. The coronavirus is tearing children’s lives apart…”
Again, keep in mind, it’s not any pandemic or virus that’s causing the crisis our world is facing—it’s the oppressive and stupid actions of governments. Even if COVID-19 were a real pandemic, it isn’t, none of this authoritarian nonsense would do a damn bit of good. The very policies that governments have enacted to protect children not to mention adults have done nothing but harm them.
Here are some examples:
School children are being forced to exercise and play sports in masks—something professional athletes aren’t required to do. It’s bad enough they have to wear masks for hours at a time in class, but while engaging in athletic activities is sheer lunacy.
Parents, coaches, and the kids themselves in Minnesota,Illinois,Michigan, and other parts of the country have reported that being forced to wear masks while engaging in strenuous physical activities has resulted in difficulty breathing, exhaustion, poor vision, injuries, and passing out. The parents of kids who play hockey said they are being put at a greater risk for concussions because the masks force them to look down and restrict their peripheral vision and that some “are hitting the ice without their mouth guards in because the mask blocks the strap that attaches it to helmets.” In Minnesota, parents even brought videos to state legislative committees of kids in sporting events running into each other and collapsing.
And what do government officials do when they hear this stuff and see it on video with their own eyes? They deny reality and keep repeating insane talking points from the CDC. They just don’t give a tinker’s damn. For example, a public health official in Minnesota asserted that there is no evidence that wearing masks while engaging in athletic activity is harmful to children or causes sports injuries. Apparently, this idiot never read what the WHO (World Health Organization) has to say here and here. Adults and children should not exercise or engage in sports with a mask on—it is unhealthy and dangerous.
COVID19 restrictions on school children in this country and in many places throughout the world are a draconian nightmare. In addition to being forced to wear masks, children in many cases, depending on the school, are not allowed to hug or touch each other, can’t play together, must stay away from each other, and be surrounded by plexiglass barriers. Talking might not be allowed and they might have to keep their masks on while eating—lowering it to put food in their mouth and then raising it back up while they chew and swallow.
Numerous studies in the scientific literature show how important play and peer interaction is for children and adolescents.
Porto Biomedical Journal, September-October 2017: Introduction:
“Through play, the child can experiment, solve problems, think creatively, cooperate with others, etc., gaining a deeper knowledge about his/herself and the world. From an early age, the possibility to experience several opportunities for unstructured play, in which the child can decide what to do, with whom and how, promotes positive self-esteem, autonomy, and confidence.”
“Adolescence (the stage between 10 and 24 years) is a period of life characterised by heightened sensitivity to social stimuli and the increased need for peer interaction. The physical distancing measures mandated globally…are radically reducing adolescents’ opportunities to engage in face-to-face social contact outside their household…social deprivation in adolescence might have far-reaching consequences. Human studies have shown the importance of peer acceptance and peer influence in adolescence.”
In a recent interview on the first segment of The HighWire hosted by Del BigTree, Laura Centner, founder of Centner Academy explained why she flat-out refuses to subject the children in her school to oppressive COVID-19 restrictions which she described as “worse than solitary confinement. They treat prisoners better than they’re treating our children. And the thing that really, really infuriates me and just hurts my heart is that I see schools all over the world that are blindly following the CDC when there isn’t any evidence or any justification to do what they’re doing…all of the reports show the psychological damage that’s being done to children during the lockdowns, during the strict measures are hurting them far greater than COVID will ever hurt them.”
Speaking of harm, how about forcing pregnant woman to give birth with masks on, putting masks and face shields on newborn babies, and not allowing support partners in the delivery room.
October 13, 2020 Daily Mail article: last year, hospitals in France started forcing pregnant women to give birth with masks on. The scientific literature is filled with studies that show proper breathing is vital to reducing anxiety and having an easier time in the delivery room. Not so in the upside down Bizarro world of COVID-19. French mothers reported on the extreme stress and trauma that they experienced giving birth with the masks on leaving them vomiting and unable to breathe. They also said that if they refused to wear masks doctors threatened to leave the delivery room and that they would have to give birth alone. After a flood of complaints, the French Government stepped in and declared that pregnant women cannot be forced to wear masks during childbirth. And in spite of what one of the articles says, some hospitals in the US are forcing women to give birth in masks.
In New York State some hospitals wouldn’t allow women to have visitors during childbirth including their partners until the Governor put a stop to it. The WHO supports allowing women to have support partners in the delivery room. But as reported in Medical Xpress last March, the practice is still going on in many countries. The Medical Xpress article also reported that in a survey that involved 62 countries, two-thirds of health workers wouldn’t support “Kangaroo Mother care” (KMC). This is a life-saving technique involving early, prolonged skin-to-skin contact for preterm babies and exclusive breastfeeding by the mother. But if mothers have a positive or unknown COVID-19 test status they are separated from their mothers which increases their chances of dying.
Is it any wonder that a March 2021 study in the Lancet concluded: Interpretation:
“Global maternal and fetal outcomes have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in maternal deaths, stillbirth, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and maternal depression.”
All of these oppressive and idiotic polices are being driven by the idea that COVID-19 is being spread by asymptomatic carriers. This is a myth exposed by COVID czar Anthony Fauci himself at a Health & Human Services press conference back in January 2020 when he said,
“…if there is asymptomatic transmission, it impacts certain policies that you do regarding screening, et cetera. But the one thing historically people need to realize that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.”
And let us not forget that Fauci the flip-flopper was among the so-called experts who climbed all over Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove of the WHO when she echoed his words at a June 2020 press conference that asymptomatic transmission of the COVID-19 virus is “very rare.” As a result, Van Kerkhove quickly walked back on her statement. Can’t disrupt the phony narrative now can we.
At a roundtable discussion on public health in Florida last April chaired by Governor Ron DeSantis that included Dr. Scott Atlas, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School pulled no punches regarding COVID-19 policies: “This is the biggest public health mistake or the biggest public health fiasco in history.”
The roundtable discussion was censored by YouTube. Why?
The Real Agenda
Our world has been conquered by a tiny cabal of perverted psychopaths who control obscene amounts of wealth. Unlike despots of the past who tried to capture the world via military force, these slimy, slithering cowards conquer through bribery and corruption. Their goal: enslavement and control of the entire human race. Make no mistake people, with modern technology at their disposal It isn’t just our freedom that is at stake: our very humanity is on the line like it has never been before.
The encyclopedia Britannica defines brainwashing as a
“systematic effort to persuade nonbelievers to accept a certain allegiance, command, or doctrine…any technique designed to manipulate human thought or action…By controlling the physical and social environment, an attempt is made to destroy loyalties to any unfavorable groups or individuals, to demonstrate to the individual that his attitudes and patterns of thinking are incorrect and must be changed, and to develop loyalty and unquestioning obedience to the ruling party…isolation from former associates and sources of information…strong social pressures and rewards for cooperation; physical and psychological punishments for non-cooperation.”
Masks, social distancing, sanitizing everything in sight, stay-at-home orders, and travel restrictions are about social control. They have absolutely nothing to do with public health. They are designed to break your spirit, stifle your independence, condition you to obey orders, keep you in a constant state of fear, and make you dependent on government and experts for salvation. They are designed to turn you and your children into slaves.
Two recent articles in Vogue and USA Today explained that once people got used to engaging in COVID-19 rituals like wearing masks they became a habit—a conditioned reflex. They compulsively keep doing the ritual and feel anxiety and discomfort if they don’t.
I’m getting physical therapy for an old shoulder injury. My physical therapist continues to wear a mask even though there are no more mask mandates or ordinances in our area. She told me that she is afraid she will lose customers if she ditches the mask. This is intellectualizing her conditioning. Wearing a mask has become a habit. I never wear a mask in her clinic as well as a number of other people. None of the patients who wear masks cringe in our presence yet she continues to wear the mask.
The architects behind the fake COVID-19 pandemic are the epitome of what psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) called the “emotional plague.” People with this affliction are control freaks. They can’t let people alone. They can’t tolerate anything in their environment that disrupts their unhealthy way of thinking and living because it causes them enormous discomfort and anxiety.
People like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, and Rajiv Shah, president of the Rockefeller Foundation are emotional plague characters.They are the puppet masters who pull the strings of governments.Thanks to them the world’s 2,153 billionaires “are wealthier than 60% of the earth’s entire population combined.” They envision a near future when chips will be implanted in our skin or in our brain that will enable us to merge with the digital world without considering what could go wrong. When I look at them I see a black hole of greed and a lust for power that will devour all love, liberty, beauty, and joy if we let them. In my opinion they are the Darth Vaders and Lex Luthors of the real world–they are the dark side.
Over the years, I’ve heard more than a few people say that they would have resisted the Nazis if they had lived in Germany under Hitler. People who say this aren’t displaying any courage because they aren’t risking anything. Talk is cheap. Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and the old Nazi regime are long gone. It’s easy to say what you would have done after the fact. The true test of courage is to resist tyranny when it is happening now, and is popular with the public, and part of your own government.
And don’t buy into the sleazy propaganda ploy that people who refuse to wear masks or get vaccinated are selfish. This is an attempt to turn submission to tyranny into a virtue. There is nothing virtuous about obeying unjust laws and edicts folks.
Anyone who has been brainwashed by fear, refuses to educate themselves, and tries to force others to participate in their fear is selfish. If you aren’t willing to get out of your comfort zone and stand up to injustice then you are selfish. If you know that masks are useless and are being used as a political tool but wear them anyway to appease family and friends or to show that you’re a respectful and virtuous person then you are selfish.
Wilhelm Reich taught us that love flows freely and naturally from every small child. It is we who corrupt and stifle that love. So, to parents everywhere I say: take those stupid masks off of yourselves and your children. Stop allowing schools to indoctrinate and brainwash them even if you have to home school them. Stop participating in this ritualistic COVID death cult. Say “hell no” to the new normal.
From Wilhelm Reich’s book “Listen Little Man” (Source: Michael J. Talmo)
Our latest fact-check examines the Covid bioweapon theory. The origins of it, the evidence for it, and the possible motivations behind its sudden resurgence.
Sometime in the winter of 2019/2020, when the coronavirus “pandemic” was still only incipient, a theory started doing the rounds that the alleged “novel coronavirus” had in fact been grown in a laboratory, and either released by accident or deployed deliberately as a bioweapon.
Calling it “the theory” is somewhat of a misnomer, really. It was more a collection of theories with the same core idea. Variations on a theme, if you will.
So both the main branches of the theory have a vague basis in fact that makes them hypothetically possible, but not much more than that.
What was the mainstream media reaction?
That’s an interesting question.
At first, last spring, it was universally derided as “misinformation”. Mainstream outlet after mainstream outlet chortled at the conspiracy theorists spreading their crazy nonsense. Some people said they were racists for blaming China. The Guardian blamed Russia, as they usually do.
In this way, the theory served a purpose for the mainstream narrative – it was used to attack all Covid sceptics by association. As recently as February this year, research papers were being published that “debunked” this “conspiracy theory”.
But that was then, and this is now. Things change,
Recently mainstream outlets have been giving what they call the “lab leak theory” a little bit of serious consideration. The New Yorker, just two days ago, published an article stating:
Scientists and political commentators are no longer dismissing the possibility that COVID-19 emerged from a Chinese laboratory.
Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously
The change is not just in the media sphere, but the political one, too. Joe Biden’s administration is ordering an investigation into the “lab leak” theory.
It’s not just the US either.
Last year, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, ordered an investigative team to write a report on the origins of the virus. Their report, which was released a few weeks ago, found a laboratory origin to be “extremely unlikely”. But Ghebreyesus, rather than simply accepting the findings of his team, stated more investigation was needed. Keeping the lab leak theory alive in the public mind.
Nowhere is the volte-face of the establishment voices more apparent than Dr Anthony Fauci, who has totally flipped on the lab-leak theory after dismissing it out of hand last year.
Why the sudden change?
That’s a very good question. And one that we can’t answer until the current craziness picks a direction and goes with it. Suffice to say, last year it served the establishment’s agenda to rubbish the lab-leak theory, and this year it serves their agenda to endorse it.
This could be an attempt to scramble together a “pandemic” narrative that has never made much sense, it could be a sign that the unified “Great Reset” policy is crumbling and China is going to be scape-goated. It could be nothing but noise and chaos to distract people.
As usual, what the mainstream and politicians are saying has absolutely no bearing on the reality of the situation, and can tell us nothing about anything, except their current agenda.
However, the lab-leak theory does serve the Deep State agenda in one fashion: it reinforces the idea that the virus is a real problem that needs to be solved, rather than a fear-based control narrative.
Fear is fear, and whether it’s of a zoonotic virus or a bioweapon, it can be used to bend a population to your will.
…OK, but seriously, could Covid be a bioweapon?
Well, obviously it could be. We don’t know enough to say that it’s impossible. But it’s not very likely.
For one thing, there’s the question of efficacy.
It’s still a matter of some debate whether the Sars-Cov-2 virus has been isolated to the point it has even been proven to exist. Supposing it definitely exists as a discrete entity, it hasn’t at this time fulfilled Koch’s postulates to the point it is proven to cause disease.
But even if you accept those two questions as resolved: The virus does exist, and it does cause Covid19. Well, you’re still looking at a disease that is symptomless in the majority of people exposed to it, only ever mild in the vast majority of people who get sick, and has a 99.8% survival rate.
If Covid is a bioweapon, it’s a rubbish one.
Secondly, there’s the question of efficiency and expense.
What, exactly, would be the point in a bioweapon which is no more deadly than common flu viruses? Why go to the trouble of creating a pretty much harmless virus in a lab?
Supposing you were interested in creating a pandemic, would that be a good way of doing it? Would it be worth the expense? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just make-believe there was a plague through fear-porn and statistical sleight-of-hand?
After all, an imaginary pandemic can infect whoever you want, spare whoever you like, start and stop at your convenience, obey any rules you care to make up and be cured instantly as long as everyone pays you for your “vaccine”.
* * *
In conclusion: No direct evidence that the alleged Sars-Cov-2 virus was created in a lab has ever been produced. It’s nothing like as virulent as you’d expect a bioweapon to be, and logically an actual virus would not serve the Deep State agenda as well as a largely imaginary one.
Maybe the virus was grown in a lab, maybe it just jumped from bats to people. Since all evidence suggests it’s not very dangerous, it doesn’t really matter.
The debate sure does make a good distraction though.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Millions of Face Masks Officially Declared Dangerous
This is not an article about whether face masks work.
As my readers know, for the past year I’ve been demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been proven to exist. Therefore, face masks are nothing more (or less) than a mind-control ritual.
However, much has been written about the harm the masks cause.
And now we have an official declaration. On April 2, 2021, Health Canada issued an advisory, warning people not to “use face masks labelled to contain graphene or biomass graphene.”
Andrew Maynard covers this issue in a medium.com article, “Manufacturers have been using nanotechnology-derived graphene in face masks—now there are safety concerns.”
Those concerns? Masks could create lung problems.
Of course, since COVID-19 is claimed to be a lung disease, you can see where that leads: the remedy turns out to cause what it’s supposed to prevent. I could write a book detailing how many times this “coincidence” pops up in the field of medicine.
Maynard’s article traces the safety concerns to a Chinese mask manufacturer, Shandong, but points out that millions of graphene-containing masks are in use around the world, produced by a whole host of companies.
So far, it’s not clear whether the nanoparticles of graphene in the masks also contain metals—which are highly destructive.
The mainstream literature on graphene is ambiguous: yes, it’s probably toxic to the lungs; perhaps not seriously so; perhaps only temporarily; there are more questions than answers.
Since there are more questions, why have these masks been certified anywhere in the world for public use? Why haven’t the CDC and the WHO made definitive statements about safety concerns?
At materialstoday.com, we have, “Is graphene safe?”
“But, it is the very nature of graphene that might be cause for concern: thin and lightweight, yet tough and intractable particles are notoriously worrisome in terms of the detrimental effects they can have on our health, particularly when breathed in…”
“Ken Donaldson is a respiratory toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh and he and his colleagues are among the first to raise the warning flag on graphene, at least for nanoscopic platelets of the material. It is not too great a leap of the imagination to imagine how such tiny flakes of carbon might be transported deep within the lungs similar to asbestos fibres and coal dust. Once lodged within, there is no likely mechanism for the removal or break down of such inert particles and they might reside on these sensitive tissues triggering a chronic inflammatory response or interfering with the normal cellular functions.”
Does this make any sane person feel safe about wearing a mask and breathing in those graphene particles all day long?
In fact, you could rightly call the masks graphene-inhalation transporters.
“We have a new idea and a new product. It’s designed to force you to breathe in nanoparticles of graphene. Who knows? There might be health benefits. Try it and see.”
Yes, try it. And if you then develop a lung infection, since that is called a cardinal pandemic symptom, you could hit the jackpot and earn a diagnosis of COVID-19.
At which point the fun really begins, as you try to explain to your doctor that the cause isn’t a virus, but rather nanoparticles of graphene in your mask. If you play your cards right, you could end up in the psych ward with other “conspiracy theorists.”
“Can you believe it, nurse? I had this guy a few hours ago coughing and dripping mucus all over the place. Inflamed lungs. Classic COVID case. But he tells me he’s breathing in NANOPARTICLES. I gave him a sedative and sent him to the Crazy Pen. Where do these people get these stories? Have you ever heard of graphene? That’s what they put in pencils, right?”
“I don’t know, Doc. My cousin thinks she’s breathing in these nanos, too. I told her she needs a Thorazine drip.”
There’s a good chance the masks are COVID-diagnosis promoters. Step one: breathe in nanoparticles of graphene. Step two: therefore develop a so-called major COVID symptom—lung infection. Step three: test false-positive on the PCR test (happens millions of times, as I’ve documented). And boom, you’re a COVID case.
In keeping with local laws, I’ve applied for a license to own a mask as a weapon. If I gain approval, I plan to seal it in a glass box and mount it on the wall next to my grenade launcher and Civil War cannonball.
Doctors and journalists all over the world are creating panic over the fungal infections currently alleged to be affecting people in India.
It is claimed by some that the fungal infections are a new symptom of covid-19.
Others say the fungal infections are caused by the over-prescribing of steroids for covid-19.
And yet more blame diabetes mellitus.
Both of these may contribute to the fungal problem but I do not believe they are the sole or even the main cause.
I believe this is yet more scare mongering designed to encourage people to accept one of the experimental pseudo-vaccines.
The alleged epidemic of fungal infections is caused by mask wearing. The problem is particularly prevalent in India where poor people cannot afford to buy new masks on a regular basis, thus the same mask is being worn again and again. Also, the hot weather, which increases sweating, exacerbates fungal infections in those wearing face masks.
I warned that this would happen nine months ago.
Fungi love dark, moist areas. That’s why fungi can grow in damp houses – particularly in bathrooms. Fungal infections grow in skin folds where there is little light but a good deal of moisture. Mushrooms grow in moist areas.
There are millions of types of fungi and more than one type can grow on the skin. When a mask is worn for more than two hours or so there is a huge risk that fungal growths will develop and will affect the skin, the nose, the mouth and the lungs.
The authorities don’t like to admit it but the fungal infections now affecting so many people are caused by the masks they are wearing. And, of course, masks are damaging immune systems – which increases susceptibility to all types of infection (bacterial and fungal in particular). Added to this, lockdowns and the covid ‘vaccine’ may also damage the immune system, leaving people susceptible to fungal infections and complications caused by fungal infections.
Here are relevant short extracts from my book Proof that Masks Do More Harm than Good:
1) Many people wear the same mask for more than two hours (which is dangerous), wear disposable masks more than once (which is dangerous), fail to wash cloth masks (which means they accumulate bacteria, fungi and viruses – all of which are breathed in) touch their mask while it is in position (which makes the mask even worse than useless), put masks into their pockets or handbags and then put them back on creased and grubby (a very dangerous thing to do since the wearer will then be breathing in whatever bugs have been transmitted to the mask.)
2) Leading German virologist Professor Streeck has criticised the use of masks, which he has said are a wonderful breeding ground for bacteria and fungi.
3) `I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections,’ said Dr James Meehan. ‘Reports coming from my colleagues all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise. Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly in a non-sterile fashion. They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off their car seat, off the rear-view mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time.’
The solution is simple. Persuade people to remove their masks.
The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece, and a new report linked the AstraZeneca vaccine to strokes in young adults.
The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece.
Adding to the vaccine makers’ woes is a new report out of London from researchers who identified the first cases of strokes occurring in young adults who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was co-developed by the University of Oxford University in the UK.
Belgium suspends use of J&J vaccine
Belgium said Wednesday it was suspending vaccinations with J&J vaccine, for people under the age of 41, following the death of a woman from blood clots after she received the shot. This is the second time Belgium has paused the one-shot vaccine.
“The Inter-ministerial conference has decided to temporarily administer Janssen’s vaccine to the general population from the age of 41 years, pending a more detailed benefit-risk analysis by the EMA,” said a statement issued by Belgium’s federal health minister and seven regional counterparts.
The woman, who was under the age of 40, died May 21 after being admitted to the hospital with severe thrombosis and platelet deficiency, Reuters reported.
The government asked for urgent advice from the European Union’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), before it would consider lifting the suspension.
The EMA said it is reviewing the death of the woman in Belgium, along with other reports of blood clots, with the Belgian and Slovenian medicines agencies, and has asked J&J to carry out a series of additional studies to help assess a possible link between the shot and rare blood clots.
J&J said April 20 it would resume the roll-out in the EU of its COVID vaccine, marketed under the company’s Janssen subsidiary — with a warning on its label — after several countries, including Belgium, first paused the vaccine amid concerns of its possible link to blood clotting disorders.
The EMA confirmed a “possible link,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks. The drug regulator’s safety committee (PRAC) said a warning should be added to the product label, but the blood clot-related disorders should be listed as “very rare” side effects of the vaccine.
On April 23, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) voted to resume the use of J&J’s vaccine without restrictions after the vaccine was paused to investigate reports of rare blood clots. The recommendation by the CDC’s advisory panel said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks and recommended use for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization.
Researchers identify strokes in young adults after AstraZeneca shot
The first cases of large-vessel arterial occlusion strokes in young adults linked to AstraZeneca’s vaccine were described in detail for the first time in a letter published online in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
“These are the first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” senior author, Dr. David Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, told Medscape Medical News.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” Werring explained.
Werring noted the reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are describing only three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said.
The first case, a 35-year-old woman, experienced intermittent headaches on the right side and around her eyes for six days after vaccination. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm and leg.
Imaging revealed the woman had a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and treatment with anticoagulant and fondaparinux, but suffered brain stem death and subsequently died.
The second case, a 37-year-old woman, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after vaccination with AstraZeneca. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as blood clots in her lungs and brain. She improved clinically with treatment.
The third case occurred in a 43-year-old man who presented 21 days after vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery. He was treated and remains stable.
The researchers said young patients presenting with ischaemic stroke after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT.
Ontario man dies from ‘rare but real’ blood clot after first dose of AstraZeneca
An Ontario man in his 40s died after receiving his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, public health officials confirmed Tuesday.
Dr. Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s associate chief medical officer of health, said his death is being investigated, but the man suffered from VITT.
“While the investigation is ongoing and a final cause of death has yet to be officially determined, it has been confirmed that the individual did have VITT at the time of his death,” Yaffe said Tuesday. “The risks associated with this vaccine are [rare], but they are real.”
Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams restricted AstraZeneca vaccinations for people who have not yet received the first dose as of May 11, due to a higher-than-expected rate of blood clots.
Greece investigating four cases of blood clots after AstraZeneca shot
Α 63-year-old woman from Greece died of blood clots after vaccination with AstraZeneca. The case was one of four being investigated by the National Organization for Medicines (EOF) for a potential correlation between AstraZeneca’s vaccine and rare blood clots, according to the Greek City Times.
Also in Greece, a 44-year-old woman is in serious condition after experiencing VITT. Her case was the second incident found by EOF to be linked to the vaccine, according to the Greek Reporter.
A third blood clotting incident involved a 35-year-old man from Crete who suffered two blood clots after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine. The man was hospitalized after suffering a clot in his leg a few days after getting the jab. He suffered a second blood clot in his brain while hospitalized
As The Defender reported April 7, European regulators said they confirmed a “possible link” between AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine and “very rare” blood clots, but concluded the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks.
The EMA did not recommend restricting use of the vaccine based on age, gender or other risk factors, but did say cases of blood clotting after vaccination “should be” listed as a possible side effect, according to a statement issued by the agency’s safety committee.
The AstraZeneca vaccine is not yet authorized for use in the U.S.
Governors from many American states are now framing a legal structure and are signing laws to ban Vaccine Passports and mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Governors from Wyoming, South Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, Arizona, Idaho, and Texas have issued executive orders to prohibit Covid-19 Vaccine Passports, while North Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas and Utah have passed bills into law to prohibit Vaccine Passport.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the bills into law. They are joining other states that do not support Covid-19 Vaccine Passports at the state level.
On May 24, Ivey signed Senate Bill 267 (read below) into law. On May 20, Reynolds signed House File 889 into law.
“Since the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, both Dr. Harris [the state health officer] and I have said that we would not mandate vaccines in the state of Alabama. I am supportive of a voluntary vaccine, and by signing this bill into law, I am only further solidifying that conviction,” Ivey said in a statement.
Reynolds said she “strongly oppose[s] vaccine passports” last month and that she would like to take legislative or executive action.
These two laws are same and prohibit state agencies from issuing identifications to show personal vaccine records. It states that no government entities or businesses should need Vaccine Passport to offer service.
The Iowa version targets Covid-19 Vaccine Passports, while the Alabama version appears to be more than this.
Iowa requires that contracts or grants funded by state revenue should not be renewed or awarded with respect to a governmental entity or business that violates the law. The Alabama version does not offer any such punishment mechanism.
Two paths have been taken by states to counter vaccine passports including either via legislation or executive orders.
Governors from Wyoming, South Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, Arizona, Idaho, and Texas have issued executive orders to prohibit Covid-19 Vaccine Passports, while North Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas and Utah have passed bills into law to prohibit Vaccine Passport.
Most of us have heard about ‘Vaccine Passports’ only after the pandemic, when different governments started emphasizing the requirement of ‘Vaccine Passports’ for travelling to other countries or even for going to public places.
What these roadmap talk about is not just some document that would restrict your entry or movement to certain places. What they envision is an entire COVID eco-system, a future where each and every aspect of your life is monitored and regulated as per the whims and fancy of these Pharma Overlords.
The mother of 17-year-old Gregory Hatton, diagnosed with pericarditis within days of his second dose of the vaccine, said her son “basically has a heart condition now and it’s terrifying.”
One week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced it was investigating heart inflammation in recently vaccinated young adults, Connecticut reported 18 new cases of heart problems among teens who had received a COVID vaccine.
“It’s terrifying,” said Hatton. Her son started complaining of severe chest pain three days after his second vaccine dose. It worsened on the fourth day, causing back pain.
After blood work and an x-ray, doctors diagnosed Gregory with pericarditis, an inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart that can cause sharp chest pain and other symptoms.
“They hooked him up to a heart monitor, did more EKGs, echocardiograms. Infectious disease actually came and ran their own set of blood work to try to figure out if it could have been caused by something else, some sort of infection, something else, like Lyme disease. They tested him for all sorts of things and one by one those tests came back negative,” said Hatton.
Doctors couldn’t confirm Gregory’s condition was caused by the COVID vaccine, but two more recently vaccinated patients presented to the hospital with similar symptoms. A spokesperson from Connecticut Children’s said patients have presented with both pericarditis and myocarditis
Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”
Mayo Clinic doctors say treatment focuses on the cause of the condition and symptoms, such as heart failure and shortness of breath.
Hatton said her son is now out of work, on medication and hooked up to a heart monitor. He will have another MRI in June to see if his condition has improved.
“I don’t sleep because … if I hear my son sneeze or if he sounds like he’s out of breath when I call him on my break at work, I get nervous because I just don’t know what else could happen. He basically has a heart condition now and it’s terrifying,” she said.
NBC Connecticut spoke with other parents of teens who received their first dose of COVID vaccine and are scheduled to get their second.
“I can’t believe the government would really put out a shot that would really negatively impact the health of my child so I’m behind the vaccine 100%,” said Heather Salgado.
“I’m just trusting the science and the recommendation is to get the vaccine,” said Theresa Galizia.
Other parents, like Siobhan Cefarelli, had reservations. “It’s one thing for me to get the vaccine, but for my child to get the vaccine, it’s kind of scary not knowing what’s going to happen and not having a lot of research having been done on it.”
Hatton said she shared her son’s story because she wanted parents to be aware. Despite doctors saying the condition is rare, Hatton explained it doesn’t feel rare when it’s affecting your own child.
The CDC has not determined if vaccines were the cause of the reported heart condition in the Connecticut cases. But the CDC safety committee released an advisory May 17 alerting doctors to reports of myocarditis, which seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing Monday the Biden administration will continue to advise young people to get vaccinated, despite reported cases of myocarditis.
“Our health and medical experts still continue to convey that it is the right step for 12- to 15-year-olds to get vaccinated, that these are limited cases, and that, obviously, the risks of contracting COVID are certainly significant even for people of that age,” Psaki said.
According to CDC data, the death rate among adolescents ages 0 to 17 who get COVID and are subsequently hospitalized is 0.7%, with many experiencing either mild or no symptoms at all. The COVID death rate in all adolescent age categories is less than 0.1%.
While the CDC numbers appear to contradict Psaki’s assessment of young people’s risk of getting COVID, new research suggests that even the CDC’s numbers are too high.
As The Defender reported, two papers published May 19 in the journal of Hospital Pediatrics found pediatric hospitalizations for COVID were overcounted by at least 40%, carrying potential implications for nationwide figures used to justify vaccinating children.
How Reiner Fuellmich became aware that something was seriously wrong with the official narrative about the pandemic
How the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee was formed and how it proceeded to grow into what is now an international endeavor.
The fraud of the PCR test and the man who “invented” it without ever having seen the virus (Christian Drosten)
The agenda behind this planned pandemic which has been planned for at least 10 years. He mentions Event 201 which took place in October 2019 and it’s connection to The World Economic Forum.
The role of pharmaceutical companies creating a “public health emergency of international concern” and the end game of getting everyone vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy.
How the stage was set to push this genetic experiment onto the whole world with the rollout of Emergency Use Approval in the US and Conditional Use Approval in Europe.
How covid cases, that previously did not exist, were created by using the fraudulent PCR test
Upcoming lawsuits — with 200 to 300 lawyers cooperating worldwide in various class action and individual lawsuits.
The damages caused by this agenda that includes population reduction (including serious adverse affects by untested “vaccines”) and destruction of small businesses.
GAVI, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation & ties to The Great Reset agenda.
The role of the mainstream media in pushing and protecting this corporate agenda.
Censorship of truth by mainstream media, social media, youtube and google — and the corruption within governments that pushes the agenda.
How some of the agenda is not going according to plan. One of the worst effects is all these adverse effects from the vaccinations that are happening worldwide.
Regarding the possibility of class action lawsuits for those who were harmed or kill as a result of the covid vaccines, and in light of the fact that the manufacturers of the vaccines claim immunity from such suits, Reiner Fuellmich responds:
“They claim that in the United States and in some other parts of the world there’s no liability for them. They’re immune. They claim immunity. But there’s no immunity from intentional infliction of harm. And this is what this is.”
Crimes against humanity — The Nuremberg Code and it’s protections against medical interventions without full informed consent.
Connect with James Delingpole via his Delingpod podcast or Rumble, Odysee and Vimeo channels
On April 1, 1933, shortly after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis staged a boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany. Members of the Storm Troopers (“die Sturmabteilung,” or the “Storm Department,” as I like to think of them) stood around outside of Jewish-owned stores with Gothic-lettered placards reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Do not buy from Jews!” The boycott itself was a total disaster — most Germans ignored it and just went on with their lives — but it was the beginning of the official persecution of the Jews and totalitarianism in Nazi Germany.
Last week, here in “New Normal” Germany, the government (which, it goes without saying, bears no resemblance to the Nazi regime, or any other totalitarian regime) implemented a social-segregation system that bans anyone who refuses to publicly conform to the official “New Normal” ideology from participating in German society. From now on, only those who have an official “vaccination pass” or proof of a negative PCR test are allowed to sit down and eat at restaurants, shop at a “non-essential” stores, or go to bars, or the cinema, or wherever.
Here’s a notice from the website of Prater, a popular beer garden in Berlin:
Of course, there is absolutely no valid comparison to be made between these two events, or between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany, nor would I ever imply that there was. That would be illegal in “New Normal” Germany, as it would be considered “relativizing the Holocaust,” not to mention being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” or whatever. Plus, it’s not like there are SA goons standing outside shops and restaurants with signs reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Don’t sell to the Unvaccinated and Untested!” It’s just that it’s now illegal to do that, i.e., sell anything to those of us whom the media and the government have systematically stigmatized as “Covid deniers” because we haven’t converted to the new official ideology and submitted to being “vaccinated” or “tested.”
Protesting the new official ideology is also illegal in “New Normal” Germany. OK, I think I should probably rephrase that. I certainly don’t want to misinform anyone. Protesting the “New Normal” isn’t outlawed per se. You’re totally allowed to apply for a permit to protest against the “Covid restrictions” on the condition that everyone taking part in your protest wears a medical-looking N95 mask and maintains a distance of 1.5 meters from every other medical-masked protester … which is kind of like permitting anti-racism protests as long as the protesters all wear Ku Klux Klan robes and perform a choreographed karaoke of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Sweet Home Alabama.
Who says the Germans don’t have a sense of humor?
I don’t mean to single out the Germans. There is nothing inherently totalitarian, or fascist, or robotically authoritarian and hyper-conformist about the Germans, as a people. The fact that the vast majority of Germans clicked their heels and started mindlessly following orders, like they did in Nazi Germany, the moment the “New Normal” was introduced last year doesn’t mean that all Germans are fascists by nature. Most Americans did the same thing. So did the British, the Australians, the Spanish, the French, the Canadians, and a long list of others. It’s just that, well, I happen to live here, so I’ve watched as Germany has been transformed into “New Normal Germany” up close and personal, and it has definitely made an impression on me.
The ease with which the German authorities implemented the new official ideology, and how fanatically it has been embraced by the majority of Germans, came as something of a shock. I had naively believed that, in light of their history, the Germans would be among the first to recognize a nascent totalitarian movement predicated on textbook Goebbelsian Big Lies (i.e., manipulated Covid “case” and “death” statistics), and would resist it en masse, or at least take a moment to question the lies their leaders were hysterically barking at them.
I couldn’t have been more wrong.
Here we are, over a year later, and waiters and shop clerks are “checking papers” to enforce compliance with the new official ideology. (And, yes, the “New Normal” is an official ideology. When you strip away the illusion of an apocalyptic plague, there isn’t any other description for it). Perfectly healthy, medical-masked people are lining up in the streets to be experimentally “vaccinated.” Lockdown-bankrupted shops and restaurants have been converted into walk-in “PCR-test stations.” The government is debating mandatory “vaccination” of children in kindergarten. Goon squads are arresting octogenarians for picnicking on the sidewalk without permission. And so on. At this point, I’m just sitting here waiting for the news that mass “disinfection camps” are being set up to solve the “Unvaccinated Question.”
Whoops … there I go again, “relativizing the Holocaust.” I really need to stop doing that. The Germans take this stuff very seriously, especially with Israel under relentless attack by the desperately impoverished people it has locked inside an enormous walled ghetto, and is self-defensively ethnically cleansing.
But, seriously, there is no similarity whatsoever between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany. Sure, both systems suspended the constitution, declared a national “state of emergency” enabling the government to rule by decree, inundated the masses with insane propaganda and manipulated “scientific facts,” outlawed protests, criminalized dissent, implemented a variety of public rituals, and symbols, and a social segregation system, to enforce compliance with their official ideologies, and demonized anyone who refused to comply … but, other than that, there’s no similarity, and anyone who suggests there is is a dangerous social-deviant extremist who probably needs to be quarantined somewhere, or perhaps dealt with in some other “special” way.
Plus, the two ideologies are completely different. One was a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on imaginary racial superiority and the other is a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on an imaginary “apocalyptic plague” … so what the hell am I even talking about? On top of which, no swastikas, right? No swastikas, no totalitarianism! And nobody’s mass murdering the Jews, that I know of, and that’s the critical thing, after all!
So, never mind. Just ignore all that crazy stuff I just told you about “New Normal” Germany. Don’t worry about “New Normal” America, either. Or “New Normal” Great Britain. Or “New Normal” wherever. Get experimentally “vaccinated.” Experimentally “vaccinate” your kids. Prove your loyalty to the Reich … sorry, I meant to global capitalism. Ignore those reports of people dying and suffering horrible adverse effects. Wear your mask. Wear it forever. God knows what other viruses are out there, just waiting to defile your bodily fluids and cause you to experience a flu-like illness, or cut you down in the prime of your seventies or eighties … and, Jesus, I almost forgot “long Covid.” That in itself is certainly enough to justify radically restructuring society so that it resembles an upscale hospital theme park staffed by paranoid, smiley-faced fascists in fanciful designer Hazmat suits.
Oh, and keep your “vaccination papers” in order. You never know when you’re going to have to show them to some official at the airport, or a shop, or restaurant, or to your boss, or your landlord, or the police, or your bank, or your ISP, or your Tinder date … or some other “New Normal” authority figure. I mean, you don’t want to be mistaken for a “Covid denier,” or an “anti-vaxxer,” or a “conspiracy theorist,” or some other type of ideological deviant, and be banished from society, do you?
As I’ve been documenting for the past year, the COVID experts have been contradicting themselves six ways from Sunday. As charlatans, they’re abject failures. They can’t keep their own story straight.
Thanks to an alert reader, I’ve come across a new blockbuster.
BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS, the FDA should never have allowed the Pfizer COVID vaccine to be shot into a single arm. The Agency’s Emergency Use Authorization was a crime—according to their own data.
Here we go.
The document, posted on the FDA website, is titled, “Vaccines and Related Biological Products; Advisory Committee Meeting; FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” [1]
It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.
A key quote is buried on page 42: “Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group [who received a saltwater shot].”
Those shocking numbers have never seen the light of day in news media.
The comparative numbers reveal that the vaccine was not effective at preventing COVID-19. It was certainly not 50% more effective than no vaccine at all—the standard for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.
To make all this clear, I need to back up and explain the theory of the vaccine clinical trial.
The researchers assumed the SARS-CoV-2 virus was spreading everywhere in the world, and during the clinical trial, it would descend on some volunteers.
The billion-dollar question was: how many people receiving the vaccine would become infected, vs. how many people in the placebo group?
If it turned out that FAR FEWER people getting the vaccine became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine would be hailed as a success. It protected people against the virus.
But as you can see from the numbers above, that wasn’t the case at all.
So now we come to the vital weasel-phrase in the FDA document I just quoted: “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 [cases].”
“Well, you see, we can’t say these were ACTUAL COVID-19 cases. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. They’re in limbo. We want to keep them in limbo. Otherwise, our clinical trial is dead in the water, and we’ll never get approval for the vaccine.”
What does “suspected cases” mean? It can only mean these people all displayed symptoms consistent with the definition of COVID-19, but they’re unconfirmed cases because…their PCR tests were negative, not positive.
However, if their tests were negative, why would they be called “suspected cases” instead of “NOT CASES”?
Something is wrong here. The FDA is hedging its bets, muddying the waters, obscuring facts.
By FDA/CDC rules, a case of COVID-19 means: a person has tested positive, period.
That’s the way cases are counted.
These several thousand volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial were either COVID-19 cases or they weren’t. Which is it?
The official response to that question is obvious: the FDA decided to throw the data from all those suspected cases in the garbage and ignore them. Poof. Gone.
Why do I say that?
Because if the FDA had paid serious attention to the several thousand “suspected cases,” they never would have authorized the vaccine for public use. They would have stopped the clinical trial and undertaken a very deep and extensive investigation.
Which they didn’t.
This is called a crime.
“But…but it’s not that simple. This is a complex situation. It’s a gray area.”
“No. It isn’t. If you were running a clinical trial of a new drug, and a few thousand people in the trial, who were given the drug, nevertheless came down with the disease symptoms the drug was supposed to cure, wouldn’t you cancel the trial and go back to the drawing board?”
“You mean if we were being honest? That’s a joke, right? We’re not honest. Don’t you get it?”
Yes. I get it. You’re criminals. Killers.
But wait. There’s more. The FDA document also states: “Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.”
That’s explosive. Right after vaccination, 409 people who received the shots became “suspected COVID cases.” This alone should have been enough to stop the clinical trial altogether. But it wasn’t.
In fact, the FDA document tries to excuse those 409 cases with a slippery comment: “It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.”
Translation: You see, a number of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and adverse effects from the vaccine are the same. Therefore, we have no idea whether the vaccinated people developed COVID or were just reacting to the vaccine. So we’re going to ignore this whole mess and pretend it’s of no importance.
Back in April of 2020, I predicted the vaccine manufacturers would use this strategy to explain away COVID cases occurring in the vaccine groups of their clinical trials.
It’s called cooking the data. It’s a way of writing off and ignoring COVID symptoms in the vaccine group—and instead saying, “The vaccine is safe and effective.”
And the FDA document, as I stated above, just puts an impenetrable cloud over all the volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial by inventing a category called “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases,” and throwing those crucial data away, never to be spoken of again.
I’m speaking about them now. Any sensible person, looking at them, would conclude that the vaccine should never have been authorized.
Unless fraud, deception, profits, and destruction of human life via the vaccine were and are the true goals.
Finally: When you have “suspected cases,” and their ultimate status depends on doing a test, you do the test. You do it as many times as you need to, until it registers positive or negative. Then each “suspected case” becomes an actual case or no case at all.
Perhaps these “suspected cases” in the clinical trial were tested, and many of them came up positive, revealing they were actual COVID cases—but the researchers lied and covered up the fact that they were tested.
Or if you really don’t want to know whether “suspected cases” are actual cases, you don’t test them. You leave them in a convenient limbo and park them, never to be seen again.
Either way, the situation is patently absurd. By official standards, the PCR test decides whether a person is a case or not a case. Just do the test. Saying “we don’t know” is nothing more than a con and a hustle.
I’d love to hear the researchers try to talk their way out of this one. Here is how the conversation might go:
“So you’re saying these several thousand suspected COVID cases couldn’t be adjudicated one way or another?”
“That’s right. Their PCR tests were ‘indeterminate’.”
“That says something devastating about the test itself.”
“Well, sometimes you just can’t tell whether it’s positive or negative.”
“I see. And this ‘indeterminate’ result occurred in SEVERAL THOUSAND suspected cases.”
“I guess so, yes.”
“You know, you could have done something else with these suspected cases. A different test. You could have taken tissue samples and looked for the virus itself in a more direct way.”
“No. That wouldn’t work.”
“Why not?”
“Because…the actual virus…”
“Because no one has been able to come up with a specimen of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
“Right.”
“So tell me—what does that indicate? I’ll tell you what it indicates. You can’t prove the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists.
“I have to go. I’m late for a meeting.”
“You’re late for more than just a meeting. Is it true a person becomes a virologist by cutting out a coupon from the back of a comic book and mailing it to a PO Box in Maryland?’
“Absolutely not. That’s outrageous.”
“What then?”
“The PO Box is in Virginia.”
SOURCES:
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
Three Tips for Checking Whether a Medical Study Is Legit or Bulls-It
You’ve just watched a video of a high-profile, Covid-sceptic speaker saying that shedding of the spike protein from vaccinated people endangers those they come in close contact with. You want to find out more, so you look at one or two of the links under the video that provide source material for what the speaker said. (Great those links are there; most videos don’t have them.)
Or a friend who is a believer in the official narrative about Covid has sent you a news item with a scary headline about the Indian ‘triple-mutation new variant.’ You’re pretty sure the article is very misleading, so you want to check out the study it’s based on.
How can you find source material and — if and when you find it – try to quickly figure out whether it’s legit?
Because there’s a huge, hot complicated mess of claims and counter-claims out there. And unfortunately there’s misleading information coming from ‘experts’ on both sides of the Covid divide.
And this isn’t unique to Covid. As Scott Adams — who created the Dilbert cartoon strip and now is a pundit — points out in page 14 of his book Loserthink:
“One thing I can say with complete certainty is that it is a bad idea to trust the majority of experts in any domain in which both complexity and large amounts of money are involved.”
So I’ve put together three tips to help you quickly discern whether a medical paper is meaningful or meaningless. I’ve distilled the tips from my decades of reading, writing and editing scientific and medical papers.
Tip One: Is key information left out or hidden?
Tip Two: If the source material is a study about the effect of an intervention, does the study measure serious illness or death in humans, or is it on animals or theoretical, test-tube models?
Tip Three: Does the study contain the information that the article or video referring to it says it contains?
Tip One: Is key information left out or hidden?
You’ve very likely seen the April 30, 2021, news article from the Salk Institute. It’s titled, ‘The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness.’ Its subtitle is, ‘Salk researchers and collaborators show how the protein damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease.’
The article has been weaponized to bolster virtually every Covid-related viewpoint. For example, many news reports about it — such as this one – claim that the Salk paper provides yet more proof that Covid is deadly, and also shows that Covid exerts its action via the spike protein attacking blood vessels.
And many other pieces — such as this video – say that it demonstrates yet another way mRNA vaccines are injuring and killing millions of people.
Here’s how you can easily and quickly check whether this paper is solid.
It’s easy to find the study: here’s a hyperlink to the studyin the second paragraph of the Salk article. Click the hyperlink, and you’ll see the study, which is on the Circulation Research journal’s website.
But – ugh – it looks complicated: the title is ‘SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2.’
Don’t despair. It turns out it’s easy to figure out whether the paper is full of holes or not.
Scroll down through the study.
First, you’ll see that in the study the researchers created an artificial, spike-protein-coated, viral shell (and didn’t put any RNA into the shell). Then they place a number of these viral shells into each hamster’s trachea, which is the top of the windpipe leading to the lungs.
So this is very far removed from meaningful studies involving humans. See Tip Two for more on this topic. (Note also that the study wasn’t at all related to injection of mRNA or to vaccines — so it’s a real stretch to extrapolate from it to what could happen in people who have receive an mRNA jab.)
Then scroll down more, and you’ll see this bombshell:
“Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study, including statistical analyses and reagents used, are available from the corresponding author upon request.“
(‘Corresponding author’ refers to the person who’s the contact for responding to queries about the study.)
Whoa! You have to write to one of the study’s authors to get key information about the study?! That’s a whopper of a red flag.
I wouldn’t send this Salk news article and accompanying study – or videos or articles making assertions about them – to others.
Not unless you want to: email the study’s corresponding author asking for the missing data/material, receive the material, analyze it and determine whether it holds water. And the very fact that one has to do all that is enough to conclude there’s something very suspicious going on.
(And by the way, there are many other ways of hiding critical information. A very common one is burying the key results in supplemental tables or charts. [‘Supplemental’ is a term for information that’s not included in the main paper but instead is in a separate document or documents.] To find a current example of this, because I know it’s extremely common, yesterday I went to the medRχiv website, scrolled down a bit and clicked on ‘View by Month.’ Then I clicked on the title of the paper at the top of the list that came up. That paper was published May 20. It’s on how airway antibodies reappear after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. I scrolled down and saw it only shows the abstract – that is, a summary of the study. [There’s also other info under the abstract, including a ‘Funding Statement’ that says the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was among the funders of the study. That’s a big red flag.] To look at the full paper, I scrolled back up to the top of the page and clicked ‘Download PDF’ on the right-hand side. Then I looked at the ‘Results’ section of the PDF of the paper. Sure enough [after skipping the first section of the ‘Results,’ on ‘Patient enrollment, assessment of disease severity and timeline,’ which in fact is part of the methods rather than results (sigh)], I saw that the reporting of key results is largely in figures and tables in the supplemental material. So a person would have to click on the supplementary-material hyperlink, download the material, and then search for and examine the figures and tables with the key results. How many people have time or inclination to do that?)
Tip Two: If the source material is a study about the effect of an intervention, does the study measure serious illness or death in humans, or is it on animals or theoretical, test-tube models?
We’re constantly being told that a particular ‘treatment,’ ‘vaccine’ or ‘public-health measure’ is saving lives. And that a ‘new variant’ or ‘viral-escape mutation’ is very deadly.
But such claims are meaningless unless they are objectively, verifiably, shown to be true.
So for starters, they’ve got to be studied in people. Not in mice or monkeys, nor in test tubes or petri dishes (AKA ‘in vitro’).
And those human studies have to focus on whether the interventions reduce serious illness and death, or whether things like the ‘new variants’ increase serious illness and death. (Serious illness and death are ‘hard outcomes’ – where the tire hits the road. These are definable, measurable/quantifiable and clinically meaningful. ‘Soft outcomes’ are things like antibody levels in the blood, and relatively minor complaints like coughing, fever, fatigue or a headache.)
(One additional caveat: even if papers are on humans and study serious illness or death, they probably are skewed in some very significant ways. Virtually all medical studies conducted in at least the past three decades have been funded by an organization or company with financial and/or political interests. So studies are set up to produce results that further those interests.)
By way of examples, here are two papers that supposedly provide ‘proof’ that the Indian ‘triple-mutation’ new variant dubbed B.1.617 is highly ‘transmissible’/infectious and, by extrapolation, very dangerous and deadly. [Note added May 25: These papers aren’t easy to find: the vast majority of pieces on the Indian ‘new variant’ don’t provide primary-source material.]
1) The first paper was posted on the website of the online journal bioRχiv onMay 3, 2021, titled,’Convergent evolution of SARS-CoV-2 spike mutations, L452R, E484Q and P681R, in the second wave of COVID-19 in Maharashtra, India.’
Here’s what the paper’s authors wrote about the approach they used to figure out whether the new variant is more ‘transmissible’:
“For assessment of the noted mutations on binding to neutralizing antibodies, the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD domain complexed with two selected mAbs REGN10933/ P2B-2F6 were retrieved (PDB ID: 6XDG; resolution 3.90Å and 7BWJ; resolution 2.65 Å respectively)15,16. Point mutations were carried out using Biovia Discovery studio visualizer 2020 and the structures of the complexes were subjected to energy minimization using macro model tool in Schrodinger 2020 using default parameters. The molecular interactions between the RBD-ACE2 interface, within the RBD and between the neutralizing mAbs-RBD[,] were analyzed using non-bonded interactions tool in Biovia Discovery studio visualizer 2020.”
Translation: the study was done in artificial conditions in vitro using highly complex methods, equipment and computations.
You can’t get more removed from real life than that!
2) The second paper was posted on bioRχiv on May 5, 2021, titled, ‘SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.167.1 is highly pathogenic in hamsters than B.1 variant.’
The study was done with 18 hamsters.
(And the scientists didn’t even attempt to see whether this ‘new variant’ actually moves between hamsters faster than other forms of the novel coronavirus or any other virus, and/or sickens and kills more of them.)
So these two studies tell us virtually nothing about whether the Indian ‘new variant’ is more dangerous in humans than other forms of the novel coronavirus.
Tip Three: Does the study contain the information that the article or video referring to it says it contains?
For illustrative purposes, I’ll use this tip to tackle the topic of ‘spike-protein shedding.’
This is the theoretical scenario in which a person receives an mRNA shot, makes copies of the spike protein in their cells, releases a sizable number of these copies into the environment, and then large quantities of the spike-protein copies enter body of someone nearby.
One group that’s fanning flames of fear surrounding shedding is America’s Frontline Doctors. On April 26, 2021, the group released an ‘issue brief for citizens, policymakers and physicians’ on complications after Covid vaccination.
The third section of that issue brief is titled, ‘Can the unvaccinated get sick from contact with the vaccinated?’ The section is crammed with claims about damage that occurs in people after they receive the mRNA vaccines. But it has only one hyperlink to source material. That hyperlink is in the second sentence.
Here’s that whole section (I’ve added bolding for emphasis):
“The vaccine produces many trillions of particles of spike proteins in the recipients. Patients who are vaccinated can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts. The particles have the ability to create inflammation and disease in these contacts. In other words, the spike proteins are pathogenic (“disease causing”) just like the full virus. What is most worrisome is that a person’s body is being suddenly flooded with 13 trillion of these particles and the spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus. Because of the biomimicry (similarity) on the spike, shedding appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease[s] (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons. Worldwide cases of pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated. In addition, we know the spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.”
But note again that there’s just one primary-source paper for that paragraph/section; it’s hyperlinked to the word ‘shed.’ The primary-source material is a study published online on September 1, 2020 in a journal called SN Compr Clin Med (the short form for SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine [I don’t know what ‘SN’ stands for][Note added March 25: SN is ‘Springer Nature]). Its title is, ‘COVID-19 and its Modes of Transmission.’
The paper is about indirect and direct modes of transmission of Covid. But it does not mention vaccines, vaccination or injection of mRNA at all.
Therefore it doesn’t back up the claim by America’s Frontline Doctors that people who receive Covid mRNA vaccines shed the spike protein.
While we’re at it, let’s look at whether there’s any primary-source material that does support the ‘spike-protein shedding’ claim.
One document that’s being used by a lot of people to try to support the claim that shedding occurs after Covid vaccination is a November 2020 Pfizer document that details the protocol for Pfizer’s Covid-vaccine study.
The focus of all that attention is the first part of subsection ‘8.3.5.1. Exposure During Pregnancy,’ on pages 67 and 68 of the document. Subsection 8.3.5.1 reads as follows (bolding added by me for emphasis):
‘An EDP [exposure during pregnancy] occurs if:
A female participant [in the study] is found to be pregnant while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention.
A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.
A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure.Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:
A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.
A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.’
The term ‘study intervention’ in this document refers to the Pfizer Covid vaccine.
The section is saying that someone can be ‘exposed to the study intervention during environmental exposure,’ and that that ‘environmental exposure’ is via ‘inhalation or skin contact.’
But how can people make the leap from there to saying that the Pfizer-protocol document is referring to the following theoretical sequence: people receiving the mRNA jab, spike protein being made in their bodies, the spike protein spreading into the environment and then the protein entering the bodies of people nearby (and then making them ill)? There’s no basis for that in the document.
Unfortunately some prominent people are making that leap a lot, and misquote the Pfizer document to make it match what they’re claiming.
For example, Dr. Christiane Northrup says in a May 21, 2021, video, “If you look at the Pfizer document from the very beginning, on page 67 it actually says that ‘no male should be impregnating a woman for seven weeks, and no female should get pregnant for seven weeks,’ and they say right on there because of ‘skin contact’ or ‘sexual contact.’ So you have to ask yourself, what did they know, or do they know, that they’re not telling us?” (She must be referring to page 67 of the Pfizer protocol document, because as far as I know there’s no other document about Pfizer’s Covid vaccine that discusses pregnancy and exposure/transmission, at least not one that discusses them on page 67.) Another example of Northrup misquoting the protocol document is this May 20, 2021 interview of her, starting at 3:30.
I found the first clue to what this section of the protocol is much more likely to mean by simply looking at other parts of the Pfizer document. For example one page later, in the last paragraph of subsection ‘8.3.5.2, Exposure During Breastfeeding,’ it says (bolding added by me for emphasis): ‘Anexposureduring breastfeeding is not created when a Pfizer drug specifically approved for breastfeeding women (eg, vitamins) is administered in accord with authorized use. However, if the infant experiences an SAE [serious adverse event] associated with such a drug, the SAE is reported together with the exposure during breastfeeding.’
That mention of ‘exposure’ in this paragraph seems to refer to ‘a Pfizer drug’ … ‘(eg, vitamins).’
So could all the sections in the Pfizer protocol relating to ‘exposure’ from the ‘study intervention’ in fact be using boiler-plate language be referring not to shedding, but instead to people coming into physical contact through the air or another mechanism with the study drug?
That seems the most likely explanation to me.
I searched online and, indeed, this does seem to be Pfizer’s boilerplate-like language.
For example, if you look at section ‘8.10. Exposure During Pregnancy’ in the 2015 Pfizer protocol for its study of dacomitinib (a drug for non-small-cell lung cancer), that section reads (bolding added by me):
“For investigational products and for marketed products, an exposure during pregnancy occurs if:
1. A female becomes, or is found to be, pregnant while receiving or having been exposed (eg, because of treatment or environmental exposure) to the investigational product, or the female becomes, or is found to be pregnant after discontinuing and/or being exposed to the investigational product;
An example of environmental exposure would be a case involving direct contact with a Pfizer product in a pregnant woman (eg, a nurse reports that she is pregnant and has been exposed to chemotherapeutic products).
2. A male patient has been exposed (eg, because of treatment or environmental exposure) to the investigational product prior to or around the time of conception and/or is exposed during his partner’s pregnancy.
It has a reasonably strong resemblance to the section on exposure during pregnancy in the Pfizer vaccine protocol document. (And it’s not at all likely that a cancer drug sheds.)
So the only conclusion I can draw is the Pfizer-vaccine protocol document doesn’t provide any sort of support for the concept that people who have received Covid mRNA shots are shedding the spike protein and spreading it to others.
And the fact that America’s Frontline Doctors attempts to support its assertion that Covid mRNA vaccines cause shedding with a paper that has nothing to do with vaccination indicates that there is not any evidence this can take place.
Using very shaky ‘evidence’ to try to ‘prove’ something suggests that in fact there’sprobably no proof of it at all.
I do think the vaccines are dangerous and are negatively affecting people who’ve received them; I also believe that people who’ve been in close contact with vaccine recipients can be negatively affected.* There are plenty of plausible reports of, for example, altered periods in women who have been in the vicinity of people who’ve been vaccinated. So altered periods are quite possibly related to being in close proximity with vaccinated people. But there’s zero proof, as far as I’ve seen, that the spike proteins produced by the mRNA jabs cause those altered periods.
Maybe it’s something else in the shots that’s resulting in all the negative effects in people who’ve been in proximity to individuals who’ve had the jabs. Or maybe perhaps it’s not something in the shots, but somehow another phenomenon associated with receiving the shots.
At the moment it’s very hard to know. Chasing misinformation just makes us go down blind alleys and delays or even permanently stops us from finding the truth.
Spreading information that has extremely flimsy grounds also givessignificant fodder to our opponentsto paint us all as spreaders of lies. That turns many people away from listening to what any of us are saying.
It alsomakes people on our side support the physical and emotional separation of Covid believers/pro-vaccinators and us (which is exactly what the architects of the Covid coup want). For example, Dr. Larry Palevsky at 41:00 in this April 27, 2021, video says people who’ve received these vaccines “should be quarantined and have a badge on their arms that say[s], ‘I’ve been vaccinated’ [i.e., like Jews were marked by yellow-star badges in WWII]) … so that we know to avoid them on the street … and not go near them anywhere in society.”
The bottom line? Try to resist the pull to believe an article or video just because it fits with your Covid-sceptic view and is from someone you reflexively trust.
You can use thethree tips in this article to work towardstaying objective and figuring outfor yourself whether there’s solid evidence behind claims made by ‘experts.’
*.Sentence was edited in Rosemary Frei’s original article on March 28 for clarity.]
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Last week, Texas Governor Abbot, signed an executive order prohibiting government entities from mandating masks, which in turn banned mask mandates by public schools and local governments. Government officials are finally beginning to dismantle these tyrannical mandates, but it has really been the pressure put on them by brave citizens like yourselves. Take a look at just a handful of the men and women who have fought for our freedoms.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Dr. Pinky Feinstein, the chairman of the Israeli People’s Committee, with a crucial message to the world – NEVER HAS A VACCINE INJURED SO MANY!
The American VAERS system reveals 3,409 reports of mortality amongst vaccinated people in the United States in the first 4 months of 2021.According to US VAERS system 7 deaths in ages 0-17 were reported in relation to Covid 19 vaccination during 2021, 6 of them of Pfizer-Biontec.
We received 330 reports of deaths occurring in proximity after the vaccination (90% up to 10 days after the vaccination). 64% are men.
According to the ministry of health’s statement: only 45 deaths occurred in proximity after the vaccination.
According to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), during January-March 2021, in the midst of the vaccination operation, there was a 18% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared to the tri-monthly average mortality in the previous year. In fact, the period of January-March 2021 is the deadliest one in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates, when compared to the corresponding months over the last 10 years.
According to this assessment, it is possible to estimate that the number of deaths in Israel, which have occurred in proximity after the vaccination, currently stands at about 1600-1700 people. There is a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day, in the range of up to 10 days post vaccination, in all age groups.
The risk of death after the second vaccination is higher than the risk of death after the first vaccination.
Up until the publication date of this report, a total of 2,646 reports of adverse events have been recorded by The Israeli People`s Committee, and the reports continue to flow in.
These reports indicate damage to almost every system in the human body. They also highlight the incomprehensible gap between official Israeli media reports and what is really happening, enabling a “two worlds” situation due to journalistic failure to sense, identify and report on what is actually happening in citizens’ real-life.
This assessment is added to the fact that around 250,000 people did not show up to get the second dose of vaccine, despite all massive social and occupational pressure of the green passport. We believe that the majority of them decided to do so due to experiencing adverse effects following the first vaccine dose.
In our analysis, we have found a relatively high rate of cardiac-related injuries. 25% of all cardiac events occurred in young people below the age of 40, the most common diagnosis in these cases being myocarditis or pericarditis.
Additionally, a high prevalence of massive vaginal bleeding, neurological, skeletal and skin damages have been observed.
It should be noted that a significant number of adverse events reported are related, directly or indirectly, to coagulopathy (myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, disruption of blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism). There are probably many thousands of unreported cases.
We get growing numbers of reports about this phenomenon from medical staff within hospitals and clinics. The general impression is that hospitals seem to be dealing with a chaos and confusion regarding the way to handle growing numbers of vaccine injured patients while at the same time to keep them out of records.
Many doctors in emergency rooms nowadays begin their anamnestic inquiry by the question: “When were you vaccinated?” yet write nothing about it in discharge letters. In light of all the above and the detailed information ahead and for the sake of the good, reliable and advanced medicine, for all people and from the pure intention, we would like to hereby declare the statement that all branches of medicine should agree about:
“Once you apply new medication of all sorts to mass people and have insufficient knowledge about its true safety, all adverse effects that follow must be regarded as related to this medication until proven otherwise. This is the only way to obtain the true information, to ensure maximal safety surveillance and to make sure that non-medical motives will have no influence on the process of evaluating and learning the true nature of this medication and its influence on people.”
As I Warned: RNA Gold Rush; New Genetic Products in the Pipeline
Before I get to the financial bonanza, I have to make a few comments about the COVID RNA vaccine itself.
This shot-in-the-arm gene treatment should be seen AS AN EXTENSION of genetic research into altering humans.
Because that’s what it is.
The field of gene research includes “creating better humans” and eugenics.
Eugenics involves what American Rockefeller and Nazi researchers were setting up: depopulation; population control; selecting out “superior genetic strains” for survival.
William Engdahl and Dr. Peter Breggin have done excellent historical analysis of the eugenics movement. [1] [1a] [1b] [2] [2a]
Another point: In recent articles, I’ve pointed out that ALL genetic research—beyond its motives—is also fraught with unintended ripple-effect consequences. Never believe that the targets and the consequences can be contained. [3] [4]
For example, the notion that the COVID shot will do nothing more than force cells of the body to produce one protein is absurd. It’s on the level of saying, “During rush hour, on the most crowded high-speed highway in the world, we can engineer a two-car crash that will only result in two minor fender-benders…” [4]
Both short and long-term effects of the COVID shot are unknown and unpredictable.
The perpetrators of the COVID RNA shot are criminally insane.
And with that…on to the MONEY.
Bring on the angels and trumpets. Bring on the cash.
A year ago I told you COVID vaccine-testing was rocketing ahead, because Bill Gates, the Rockefeller institute, NIH, the manufacturers, and Fauci saw the light at the end of the tunnel— [5]
The fake pandemic was their golden opportunity to win approval for the first RNA pharma product in history, and once that victory was achieved—
They would beat the drum for new RNA vaccines, WHICH ARE CHEAPER, EASIER, AND FASTER TO MANUFACTURE, AND FAR MORE PROFITABLE. [6]
They would hype new genetic treatments across the board—on the back of the fact that there is not a single genetic cure for any disease. But who cares about facts?
Now, as massive numbers of injuries and deaths from the COVID RNA vaccine pile up, Stephen Ubl, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), gushes: “…We’re really entering the golden era of medicine.” He goes on to sell blue-sky “RNA platforms” for reversing child blindness and MS. [7] [7a]
Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, bloviates about coming genetic cures for flu and cancer. [7b]
Biospace.com: “mRNA tech used in COVID vaccines could be used to cure HIV, cancer, and other diseases.” [8]
Nature/Biotechnology (“Messengers of hope,” 29 December 2020; 39, page 1 (2021)): “Emergency Use Authorizations for two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines represent a turning point in the pandemic. They also herald a new era for vaccinology.” [9]
Think of these hustlers as cartoon characters dancing on a sea of real blood and death created by the RNA COVID vaccines.
In case you’ve forgotten, Moderna, whose COVID shot is now firmly entrenched, had never brought a single product to market in its brief history, but with Fauci’s guidance, managed to snatch $500 million in US government funding to develop the vaccine. Moderna was committed to RNA technology; that was its ticket to fame and fortune. [10]
The landscape of fake promotion about genetic cures is basically a cover for extreme damage created by corporations and governments.
“Confidentially, the truth is, what we’re calling autism isn’t a disorder or a disease. It’s neurological INJURY caused by vaccines and other environmental toxins. But we SAY autism is genetic. We can keep raising money for research—if you want to call it that—and hide what’s really going on.”
Some of these researchers are true believers in the Gene Cult. They actually think the day will come when a person can strip naked and bathe in a pool of poisonous effluent pouring out of a factory pipe—and because that person has received a genetic treatment (like the RNA COVID vaxx), no harm will come to him.
Look for this to happen soon: it’ll be a child, a child with “a rare disorder.” Perhaps blindness. And now: the child can see. Breakthrough. Genetic treatment. Of course, the details of the published study will be somewhat murky. You know, “proprietary technology.”
And quite possibly, only four children in the world have this rare disorder. That means the genetic treatment is 25% effective—an unbelievable marvel.
“Was it RNA, Doctor? Is that what you injected?”
“Well, Lesley, I can’t take you and the 60 Minutes crew into the lab. It’s a high security facility. But yes, for your audience, I can reveal that we deployed the most up to date CRISPR gene-editing technology, and it worked exactly as we hoped it would…”
“Is the cure permanent?”
“Lesley, I remember something my mentor at NIH, Doctor Goldbrick Hogcrusher, told me a long time ago. In this world, we live one day at a time. Who can say what tomorrow brings? We count our blessings, and we move on…”
Behind the propaganda: money and population control.
Sisauda is a village with a population of 1500 people located in the Terai, 70 km from the district headquarters of Barabanki.
There is so much awareness about the adverse events from vaccine and post-vaccination deaths in this village that when the Health Department team arrived here for vaccination, about 200 villagers ran away and reached the shore of river Saryu.
When the Health Department team got information that the villagers were out of the village towards the river, they went to convince them.
Seeing the team coming towards them, the villagers could not find a way to escape and jumped into the Saryu river to avoid getting vaccinated forcefully.
Sisauda is a village with a population of 1500 people located in the Terai, 70 km from the district headquarters of Barabanki.
There is so much awareness about the adverse events from vaccine and post-vaccination deaths in this village that when the Health Department team arrived here for vaccination, about 200 villagers ran away and reached the shore of river Saryu.
When the Health Department team got information that the villagers were out of the village towards the river, they went to convince them.
Seeing the team coming towards them, the villagers could not find a way to escape and jumped into the Saryu river to avoid getting vaccinated forcefully.
Seeing the villagers leap into the river, the Health Department team requested the villagers to come out but the villagers were not ready to move out.
Later, Ramnagar SDM Rajiv Shukla and Nodal Officer Rahul Tripathi reached the spot and told the villagers that would not be vaccinated, only after which they came out of the river.
Regional Indian media is full of such incidents. There is a very high level of vaccine hesitancy mostly in rural India.
There are also cases where the Vaccination Team is not even allowed to enter the village. On the other hand in many villages the Health Team members were beaten up with sticks and stones.
In a village in Gujarat, the entire vaccination drive had to be stopped after the villagers demanded that the government take responsibility if anything happens to them after being vaccinated.
The Indian government advertises its policy to contain COVID-19 as the world’s largest vaccination drive. However, it keeps the data on adverse events and deaths after vaccination a top secret. Moreover, there is no online registry to report post-vaccination deaths or adverse effects in India.
Ogilvy was also hired by the current government for an image makeover to win 2014 election. Our long time readers would remember the origins of Ogilvy come from British Intelligence and specifically the psychological warfare techniques they employed during World War 2.
Kristina Borjesson of The Whistleblower Newsroom in powerful conversation with attorney Tom Renz.
Lawyer Thomas Renz discusses why he and a group of lawyers have filed a temporary restraining order against various government agencies in an Alabama court to halt vaccinations of children. Among their reasons for filing the order: FDA Emergency Use Authorization in this case is illegal; children have virtually zero chance of getting or transmitting covid; the vaccines are experimental and children should not be experimented upon, the vaccines already have an inordinately high rate of serious adverse reactions and deaths.
Listen to The Whistleblower Newsroom on BitChute or as podcast at PodBean
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
We provide these studies without comment at this time on their applicability to current phenomenon being reported following receipt of certain medical interventions.
ABSTRACT: Low efficiency is often observed in the delivery of DNA vaccines. The use of superparamagnetic nanoparticles (SPIONs) to deliver genes via magnetofection could improve transfection efficiency and target the vector to its desired locality. Here, magnetofection was used to enhance the delivery of a malaria DNA vaccine encoding Plasmodium yoelii merozoite surface protein MSP1(19) (VR1020-PyMSP1(19)) that plays a critical role in Plasmodium immunity. The plasmid DNA (pDNA) containing membrane associated 19-kDa carboxyl-terminal fragment of merozoite surface protein 1 (PyMSP1(19)) was conjugated with superparamagnetic nanoparticles coated with polyethyleneimine (PEI) polymer, with different molar ratio of PEI nitrogen to DNA phosphate. We reported the effects of SPIONs-PEI complexation pH values on the properties of the resulting particles, including their ability to condense DNA and the gene expression in vitro. By initially lowering the pH value of SPIONs-PEI complexes to 2.0, the size of the complexes decreased since PEI contained a large number of amino groups that became increasingly protonated under acidic condition, with the electrostatic repulsion inducing less aggregation. Further reaggregation was prevented when the pHs of the complexes were increased to 4.0 and 7.0, respectively, before DNA addition. SPIONs/PEI complexes at pH 4.0 showed better binding capability with PyMSP1(19) gene-containing pDNA than those at neutral pH, despite the negligible differences in the size and surface charge of the complexes. This study indicated that the ability to protect DNA molecules due to the structure of the polymer at acidic pH could help improve the transfection efficiency. The transfection efficiency of magnetic nanoparticle as carrier for malaria DNA vaccine in vitro into eukaryotic cells, as indicated via PyMSP1(19) expression, was significantly enhanced under the application of external magnetic field, while the cytotoxicity was comparable to the benchmark nonviral reagent (Lipofectamine 2000).
Kary Mullis invented the Polymer Chain Reaction (PCR), and won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his efforts. He attempted to expose Fauci for what he really is, which is not what is presented to the public. The public interest was not widespread, nor were Mullis’s revelations accepted at the time, and just three months before the Covid scam was purposely manufactured and perpetrated against humanity, Kary Mullis mysteriously died of what was said to be pneumonia. This was very convenient for the inventors of this evil and deadly fraud, and Mullis’s invention was intentionally misused for very nefarious reasons that allowed the people to be fooled into believing that a dangerous virus and pandemic would be the death of tens millions. It was all a lie!
This four minute video tells a tale that should be viewed by everyone, and touches on Fauci’s thirty year reign of terror against the innocent. Fauci belongs in prison for life, and so do all those involved in this scam.
So you know how anyone who points out any problems with the rush to inject everyone on the planet with an experimental form of gene therapy is portrayed as a stupid, scientifically illiterate, COVID denying, grandma killing anti-vaxxer by the dinosaur media?
And you know how any of your attempts to articulate these problems to your (former) friends will get you labeled as an anti-science loony and castigated from society?
Well, imagine if a team of researchers from a prestigious scientific institution infiltrated the COVID skeptic community to expose their scientific ignorance . . . and instead ended up discovering that the skeptics by and large care more about science—and are more knowledgeable about the scientific process—than their critics?
Guess what? You can stop imagining, because that’s exactly what just happened.
It’s not hard to see why this paper was overlooked. If one merely skims through the paper’s abstract, it seems relatively innocuous. The researchers aim, we are informed, is to better understand how COVID skeptics use data visualizations to spread “[c]ontroversial understandings of the coronavirus pandemic” on social media. To do this, they used “a quantitative analysis of how visualizations spread on Twitter and an ethnographic approach to analyzing conversations about COVID data on Facebook.”
So far, so uninteresting. It’s the researchers conclusions about these visualizations where the real fireworks go off.
The first clue comes in the abstract, where the paper’s authors note “an epistemological gap
that leads pro- and anti-mask groups to draw drastically different inferences from similar data.” (Bonus points if you recognize this point as the central conceit of my Same Facts, Opposite Conclusions episode of #PropagandaWatch from last November.) But buried further down in the article are a raft of observations that cause problems for those trying to assert that “anti-maskers” and “anti-vaxxers” are scientifically illiterate.
For example, we are told that “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries,” that “their approach to the pandemic is grounded in a [sic] more scientific rigor, not less,” and that “anti-mask users in particular were predisposed to digging through the scientific literature and highlighting the uncertainty in academic publications that media organizations elide.”
The study even admits that, “calling for increased media literacy can often backfire: the instruction to ‘question more’ can lead to a weaponization of critical thinking and increased distrust of media and government institutions.” (Yet more bonus points for those who recall Forbes‘ infamous Don’t Do Your Own Research! pronouncement from last year.)
And, in one particularly remarkable passage, the researchers outright admit that the COVID skeptics are not only scientifically literate, but in fact pioneering new ways of incorporating data visualizations into their critiques of the scientific establishment:
“Arguing that anti-maskers simply need more scientific literacy is to characterize their approach as uninformed and inexplicably extreme. This study shows the opposite: users in these communities are deeply invested in forms of critique and knowledge production that they recognize as markers of scientific expertise. If anything, anti-mask science has extended the traditional tools of data analysis by taking up the theoretical mantle of recent critical studies of visualization.”
None of this is at all surprising to anyone who has spent the last year in the reality-based community, where the tricks and sleights-of-hand of the PCR test-driven casedemic have been exposed on a regular basis. But to find MIT researchers writing this up in a mainstream academic paper is rather remarkable. Reading these excerpts, you would be forgiven for thinking that establishment science had finally gained some self-awareness and realized how laughable it has become.
. . . But you would be wrong. No, somehow the paper manages to take these remarkable findings and shoehorn them back into a pat establishment-friendly narrative: These COVID skeptics’ critiques of the mainstream consensus are completely wrong and we need to figure out how to get them to accept our pronouncements with less resistance in the future.
Even so, the paper is worth reading (especially the passage toward the end of the introduction where they echo my Science Says podcast with an acknowledgement that “there is no such thing as dispassionate or objective data analysis,” but rather “stories shaped by cultural logics, animated by personal experience, and entrenched by collective action”). Also worth reading is the accompanying article from MIT News, which gives more insights into how the research team used “Deep Lurking” to infiltrate COVID skeptic communities and how they were amazed to find that skeptics’ arguments are not only scientifically literate but “really quite nuanced.”
So is it possible we’re going to see a more open and constructive debate between the establishment consensus crowd and the skeptics as a result of these realizations? Of course not.
In case there was any question as to whether COVID skeptics will be treated fairly in mainstream debates going forward, we could look to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO)’s statement of April 30 for an answer. The CPSO, Ontario’s physician licensing body, are evidently so concerned about doctors daring to speak out on social media about the shoddy science underpinning the scamdemic narrative that they decided to put their foot down:
“The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.”
In response, a group of physicians from across Canada signed a declaration of their own denouncing the CPSO and their inherently anti-scientific statement. In a section of their declaration specifically accusing the CPSO of denying the scientific method itself, they write:
“The CPSO is ordering physicians to put aside the scientific method and to not debate the processes and conclusions of science.
“We physicians know and continue to believe that throughout history, opposing views, vigorous debate and openness to new ideas have been the bedrock of scientific progress. Any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners vigorously questioning “official” narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth.”
They then go on to decry the censorship of scientific debate, noting that it constitutes a violation of doctors’ pledge to provide evidence-based medicine for their patients and that it violates the principle of informed consent, which, they note, is not just a “sacred duty” of physicians but also a legal obligation under the Nuremberg Code.
The declaration has so far been signed by 448 physicians and co-signed by over 11,000 concerned citizens from across Canada, but CPSO has yet to retract their order.
This is the state we have arrived at in the ongoing Orwellian nightmare of the COVID scam. Even mainstream researchers can no longer pretend that the skeptics are scientifically illiterate dunces, but it doesn’t matter. Any and all dissenting voices are being squelched out at the organizational level. The establishment is closing ranks to defend its narrative.
This is not surprising to those of us who have followed the unfolding of COVID-911 and who know that—far from a seat-of-the-pants response to an out-of-the-blue and ultra-deadly pandemic—the events of the past year have been a long-planned series of actions designed to lead us through a biosecurity state into a Great Reset, and, ultimately, the end of humanity. Unfortunately, there are still relatively few of us who understand what is happening and many, many people whose ignorance about science, medicine, politics and economics has been effectively weaponized against us. These zombies will be the ones to lead us into the coming nightmare by clamouring for vaccine passports and forced “vaccinations” and all the other pre-planned “solutions” to this pre-planned crisis.
Case in point: this reddit thread where a vaccinated hospital worker casually admits that many doctors and nurses at his hospital refused to take the “vaccines” because they “didn’t trust them.” The response of the mindless lemmings to this deeply unsettling news? “That sucks to hear 🙁 But I’m glad you got the shot!!”
So, if you are reading these words, congratulations: You are not a zombie. You are—as MIT admits—scientifically literate enough to have seen through the smokescreen of lies and manipulations that have bamboozled the masses. Of course, the bad news is that means you are now firmly in the crosshairs of both the establishment and their zombie hordes.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.
If you recently accepted an experimental injection, you may be experiencing strange physical adverse effects at the injection site, throughout your body, and in relationship to your electronic devices.
You may be connecting to your surroundings in new and improved ways.
Are you a direct connection to Bluetooth?
Are you questioning who you are?
Since each person is unique, some adverse effects will manifest differently. But other effects may be eerily in synch. Best to be aware of any changes as you notice them, since there is no trial data with which to compare. You are the experiment.
This is not about retribution. This matter is going forward — we are in a live exercise here to get this right.
If you recently accepted an experimental injection, you may have noticed that many “adverse side effects” are really “direct effects” and that these effects are being normalized. Do you experience problems with menstrual cycle? Mysterious rashes? Miscarriages? Infertility? Blood clots? Ringing in the ears? Fever, Headache, Fatigue? You will be told that the vaccine is working properly. What you may not be told is that the covid vaccine does not seem to protect people with immune disorders.
What about unusual effects?
Do magnets stick to your body?
Can radiation detectors pick up levels of EMFs at the site of injection?
Can your veterinarian’s chip scanner go off if you get too close when taking your pet for a check up?
Are you giving off high levels of electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs)?
Connectivity Effects
The only way to find out if COVID vaccinated people are emitting high levels of radiation is to measure the emissions and document the readings. Important information would include: 1) vaccine maker, 2) date of injection, 3) level of radiation identified at injection site, 4) levels of radiation identified at other sites in the body, 5) Bluetooth connectivity to electronic devices.
It would also be prudent to test the differences between a test group (vaccinated) and the control group (unvaccinated). How do the levels compare? Do some samples show that the vaccinated emit EMF readings ten times higher than the unvaccinated? Do they emit more than their cell phone?
Can the vaccinated synch up with unvaccinated people similar to iphones? Or do you need to have the software built in?
Can these emissions affect the unvaccinated through transference?
What might cause the release of EMFs or radiation?
Experimental trials are happening now, in vivo, on the human population. Very few answers are available, but the science has already been done.
NanoMagnetic Human Studies
Generally, the nanomaterials pose many new questions on risk assessment that are not yet completely answered. Thus, a reliable risk assessment related to human health and environment and safety evaluation of these materials should be performed for all in vivo studies.
Prior to the live exercise in vivo, scientists studied the unknowns of using magnetic nanotechnology. One 2010 study, published in Pharm Res concluded with a warning:
What do we know?
Nanoparticles in the body act as receivers and transmitters so they are traceable by scanners. They are also responsive to an outside source of radiation, such as a 5G tower and its frequencies. Functioning as magnetic chips in the body, nanoparticles could also leave human behavior open to be modified (i.e., mind control). For more on nanobots, and how they self-replicate in the body, read The Nanobot Evolution.
The technology of the COVID experimental injections are tied to MagnetoDNA from research on a molecular scale. MagnetoDNA can be injected into the genome of a virus and injected into animals to manipulate neuronal activity.
Several studies have shown that nerve cell proteins which are activated by heat, designer drugs, and mechanical pressure “can be genetically engineered so that they become sensitive to radio waves and magnetic fields, by attaching them to an iron-storing protein called ferritin, or to inorganic paramagnetic particles.”
They are also called ferrofluids or magnetic fluids, meaning colloidal suspensions of magnetic particles in a liquid carrier. Generally, these particles are part of nanotechnology, which can be defined as engineering of functional systems on a molecular scale.
Ferrofluid was developed in the early 1960s by Steve Papell, an engineer at Lewis Research Center, now Glenn Research Center. He discovered a way to disperse magnetic nanoparticles in rocket fluid as a way to draw it from a storage tank into an engine in the absence of gravity. A few years later, a company called Avco Space Systems won a NASA contract to further characterize and develop ferrofluid and created a variety of liquids that ranged up to 10 times the magnetic strength of the initial Lewis invention.
If iron particles are clumping at the site of injection, could they be clumping elsewhere in the body to cause blood clots?Would ferrofluids flowing in the human body emit high levels of radiation, internally and externally, as it travelled? Would this radiation affect others in close proximity? Would it be transferred through bodily fluids? Breathing? Sex? Would it connect you to the internet?
In 2021, these studies are focusing on Manipulative Magnetic Nanomedicine that purport to be the answer to all the lab-created viral epidemics (such as H1N1, H5N1, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Ebola, Zika, and coronavirus) that “created deadly infections associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome.”
To control or to be controlled? That is the question.
Nanobot technology is run by Artificial Intelligence. With the added electromagnetic tech integrated into human DNA, it is possible that mRNA ferroproteins in injections are giving off high amounts of EMF frequencies, to both control other electronic devices, while also being controlled by outside EMF sources.
What does it mean?
The Internet of Things Changing Humanity
Did you think 5G was for faster downloads and higher definition? Think again.The Internet of Things seeks to make humans part of the worldwide web by connecting the human neural system to the grid. By your consent to be injected, you sign up for connectivity. But there is still more to come. Read about how ultrafine threads can be woven into your brain, as part of the Neuralink, for more details.
Evidence for this can be found in a patent using pulsed frequencies that can cause deep subliminal skin temperature oscillations that can induce sleepiness, drowziness, relaxation, a tonic smile, ptosis of the eyelids, a tense feeling, sudden loose stool, or sexual excitement, depending on the precise pulse frequency used. For certain higher frequencies, the induced subliminal skin temperature oscillations cause fractured thought and a slowing of certain cortical processes.
The 5G frequencies are microwaves that affect water, with humans comprising 99.9% water on a molecular level. 5G microwaves have already been used to control human behavior as crowd control technology as directed energy weaponry by the military. None of this tech is new.
On the positive side, whales use infrasounic waves to communicate with each other since the sound can travel hundreds of miles. Might be a good idea to learn telepathy.
Aside from external threats of frequency manipulation, there is the threat of an internal army of tiny robots deployed in the privacy of your body. Nanobots inside the body means there is no privacy and no self-control. A bio-invasion of nanobots also eliminates autonomy over your mind even though government agencies already have the ability to decipher human thoughts via patent 4,877,027.
Nanobots in your DNA via viral mRNA (Covid injection) represent a genetic bioweapon attack on the human landscape; body, mind, and spirit, at the nanoscopic level. From November 2012, The Atlantic reports:
genetic bio-weapons able to target a single human being based on their DNA. The authors paint a scenario of the development of a virus that causes only mild flu in the general population but when the virus crosses paths with cells containing a very specific DNA sequence, the sequence would act as a molecular key to unlock secondary functions that would trigger a fast-acting neuro-destructive disease that produces memory loss and, eventually, death.
The Pentagon’s research arm claims agricultural nanobots are intended to defend crops, but doesn’t deny ‘dual-use’ potential as biological weaponry. On another level, it could represent the creation of a whole new species.
Got Bot Brain?
Can the 5G network activate the bots to turn your cells on, then turn them off? Does the network feed off of your energy? Are you a generator for the Internet of Things? Have you noticed the 5G towers on school grounds and 5G fins atop water towers? Are your thoughts not your own? Will you hear other people’s ideas echo in your head? Have your memories been erased? Is your fertility being erased? Are you hackable? Will others be the first to notice your odd behavior? Does your Bot Brain hookup to your computer? Your refrigerator? To Google? All of the above?
With Bot Brain, there is no need to think for yourself. The Internet of Things (IoT) can do that for you, wherever you are.
With the mask charade ending, and people directed to remove the identify concealment device, is it time to be fitted for a tin foil hat?
The Borg of the Star Trek The Next Generation series are considered the greatest enemies of the crew of the Starship Enterprise and the Federation (i.e., humans). The Borg absorbs you and erases your identify. It’s famous quote: Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Later in the series of six Borg episodes, the Borg became infected with a sense of individuality, showing that nothing is set in stone and anything is possible.
Let The Kids Breathe and the smile project is a national initiative supported by Cape Cod Against Medical Mandates
Protest Calls:
When: Monday May 24, 2021 7:45 AM – 9:45 AM
Where: Nauset School Administration, 78 Eldridge Park Way, Orleans, MA
Stand with Nauset parents in support of bodily autonomy, parental choice, and medical freedom in our schools.
When: Tuesday May 25, 2021 at 8 AM (not 10 AM as previously posted)
Where: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 75 Pleasant St, Malden, MA
Stand with all Massachusetts students. The ‘Let The Kids Breathe’ main demonstration will take place at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in Malden because this is where the statewide “orders” for schools are handed down. Organizers are calling for a boycott of schools until all restrictions are lifted. They are suggesting people bring noisemakers (buckets and sticks).
Making kids wear masks is a form of child abuse. Masks inhibit the intake of oxygen which children need for their developing brains. They force people to re-breathe the carbon dioxide that they exhale. There is little evidence that masks help to prevent the spread of viruses, and plenty of evidence that wearing them is physically and mentally harmful.
Further, children have now come to think it is normal for everyone to wear a mask, and they are being deprived of the ability to understand other people by reading the expressions on their faces. Parents have been so intimidated by “pandemic” fear that they have essentially allowed the state to abuse their children.
Children are not able to understand what is being done to them, and parents, who are in a position to understand, have failed to protest health mandates being blatantly used for political, not health, reasons.
On May 13, 2021 medical tyrant Anthony Fauci said that “children too young to be vaccinated will still have to wear masks when they are indoors and around others, even if older kids and adults are free to take off face protection once they are fully vaccinated. “
Adults have been held hostage with mask and social distancing rules in order to force them to to get the covid injection. Now our children are being held hostage for the same reason. Children are at very low risk of harm from whatever the illness is that has been called covid 19. Adverse effects so far reported among those age 16 and up who have gotten the jab make it a certainty that if the injections are forced on children, they will cause more and much worse harm than the illness.
According to neurologist Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson, “For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain is thirsting for oxygen. The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires. In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active. To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed. The child needs the brain to learn, and the brain needs oxygen to function. We don’t need a clinical study for that. This is simple, indisputable physiology. Conscious and purposely induced oxygen deficiency is an absolutely deliberate health hazard, and an absolute medical contraindication. “
According to psychologist Jack Dresser, “Children are closely attentive to both the facial expressions and voice intonations of their caretakers and surrounding adults. Deprivation or attenuation of these psychologically essential cues constitutes child neglect, which can affect brain development and be more psychologically damaging than overt abuse.”
Emily Burns, founder of the smile project (banner above), had this to say about our taking any further orders from a tyrranical public health establishment:
“As John Ioannidis has said, ‘medicine has now become the enemy of health.’ In order to remedy this, public health officials must resume their rightful position as public servants who provide information and guidance, rather than dictates and punishments. Restoring this balance will restore trust in public health, and improve health outcomes. In the current modality, where un-elected public health officials have been given god-like power and prestige, there is no incentive for them to provide accurate information. They do not guide, they rule. Rulers don’t give information, they give commands. To the extent they give information, it is to justify their commands. This is exactly how the CDC has behaved since March. In the absence of the ability to compel, you must inform. Thus, in order to get the CDC and other public health organizations to begin accurately informing us, we must strip them of their power to command us. The moment this is done, we will all have better information, and a public health apparatus that serves us–not the other way around.”
Attachedis a [downloadable word file] plea for sanity on masks in schools written by a mother of three school-age children in Tempe, Arizona, addressed to the school administrators enforcing the abusive masking policy common to most public schools across America. The arguments in this letter apply equally to all students forced to wear masks in schools on Cape Cod. The argument is simple: parents need to stand up to protect their children.
###
Update: Mask rules are due to be lifted in Massachusetts on May 29, 2021, but not in schools. The updated order of May 17, 2021 is that public school students and adults must continue to wear masks indoors.
A legal memo from Liberty Counsel Action is suitable for print and distribution to employers of all sizes, in order to protect employee rights under American law. Forced mandates are illegal. Discrimination against the non-vaccinated is also illegal. ⁃ TN Editor
Each year, more than 165 million Americans get the flu shot. There were 85 reported deaths following influenza vaccination in 2017; 119 deaths in 2018; and 203 deaths in 2019
Between mid-December 2020 and April 23, 2021, at which point between 95 million and 100 million Americans had received their COVID-19 shots, there were 3,544 reported deaths following COVID vaccination, or about 30 per day
In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years
As of April 23, 2021, VAERS had also received 12,618 reports of serious adverse events. In total, 118,902 adverse event reports had been filed
In the European Union, the EudraVigilance system had as of April 17, 2021, received 330,218 injury reports after vaccination with one of the four available COVID vaccines, including 7,766 deaths
In a May 5, 2021, Fox News report, Tucker Carlson asked the question no one is really allowed to ask: “How many Americans have died after taking the COVID vaccine?”1
If you haven’t paid attention, the answer to this verboten (forbidden) question may shock you. Carlson points out (inaccurately, if you ask me) that vaccines have been shown to be generally safe, citing statistics on how many Americans have died after the seasonal influenza vaccine in recent years.
Each year, more than 165 million Americans get the flu shot, and according to the U.S. vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS), there were 85 reported deaths following influenza vaccination in 2017; 119 deaths in 2018; and 203 deaths in 2019. “How do those rates compare to the death rates from the coronavirus vaccine?” Carlson asks. The answer is, there’s really no comparison.
How Many Have Died From COVID Vaccines?
Between mid-December 2020, when the first COVID-19 shots were rolled out, and April 23, 2021, at which point between 95 million and 100 million Americans had received their COVID-19 shots, there were 3,544 reported deaths following COVID vaccination.2
That’s 182 more deaths than cited by Carlson. As of April 23, 2021, VAERS had also received 12,618 reports of serious adverse events. In total, 118,902 adverse event reports had been filed. If, like Carlson estimates, about 30 people per day are dying from the shots, these numbers will grow by the hundreds each week.
Carlson also cites data from an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which found that VAERS catches a mere 1% of vaccine injuries,3,4 primarily because it’s a passive system and reports are filed voluntarily.
Many Americans don’t even know that the system exists, or that they can file a report, and most doctors won’t file reports when injuries are brought to their attention because the medical system doesn’t reward such fastidiousness. At most, 10% of vaccine side effects are ever reported to VAERS, according to a 2005 study in the BMJ.5
What this means is that side effects may actually be 10 times or even 100 times higher than reported. We could, in reality, be looking at anywhere from 126,000 to 1.2 million serious side effects, and anywhere from 35,440 to 354,400 vaccine-related deaths.
While Carlson refuses to speculate about what the actual death toll might be, he does stress that what we’re seeing is clearly out of the norm, and by a tremendous margin. In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years.
Gamble Your Life or Lose Your Freedom?
While the data show there are clear risks, Americans are urged, cajoled, shamed and threatened into getting the shot in any number of ways. President Biden recently warned that people who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 “can still die every day” from the infection, adding “This is your choice: It’s life and death.”
Carlson accurately points out that while unvaccinated people can indeed die of COVID-19, not everyone is at equal risk of complications and death. Old and chronically ill individuals are at greatest risk, while young and/or healthy individuals have a very low risk, and those who have had COVID-19 and recovered are immune.
For those who are young and/or healthy and/or immune, risking death or injury from the “vaccine” doesn’t make much sense. I would argue it makes no sense whatsoever, as there are also several proven-effective treatments, both early at-home treatments and in-hospital treatments. So, there’s no need to risk your health and life by taking COVID gene therapy.
As noted by Carlson, the young, healthy and already immune can add up to hundreds of millions of people in the U.S., yet policy makers are “not even acknowledging that these categories of people exist,” he says.
They’re pretending that everyone’s risk is the same and, therefore, everyone must get vaccinated, or at bare minimum, they want 70% of the American adult population vaccinated by July 4, 2021.
Carlson points out that this policy might be deemed acceptable if it could be conclusively shown that the “vaccines” are safe, and if we had a thorough understanding of the long-term effects of these mRNA and viral vector DNA shots. However, we can’t and we don’t.
Thousands have died, and many of the side effects reported defy easy explanation. For example, COVID shots now account for one-third of all tinnitus side effects in VAERS. Oxford and UCLA researchers, who are now tracking side effects across eight different countries, report finding that “women aged 18 to 34 years had a higher rate of deep vein thrombosis than men of the same age,” Carlson says. Why? No one knows.
Stunning Lack of Reaction to Mounting Death Toll
Perhaps most stunning of all is that these thousands of deaths and serious reactions are receiving no attention whatsoever. In 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated an estimated 45 million people against pandemic swine flu.
The program was canceled, Carlson reports, after only 53 people died. Authorities decided the vaccine was too risky to continue the campaign. Now, health authorities are shrugging off more than 3,500 deaths after COVID-19 vaccination as either coincidental or inconsequential.
Folks, this is 70 times more deaths than the swine flu vaccine, which was halted. If this isn’t insanity on steroids, please tell me what is. Maybe murder? This doesn’t even include the deaths of thousands, and potentially tens of thousands of miscarriages, which is now becoming rapidly recognized as a possible complication of COVID-19 “vaccines.”
In fact, an April 2021 report in The New England Journal of Medicine6 said that miscarriage was the most common condition reported after a COVID vaccine, and that “there is probably substantial underreporting of pregnancy- and neonatal-specific adverse events” connected with the vaccine. But rather than posting a warning that the vaccine may be causing miscarriages, health officials simply urged “continued monitoring” of the issue.
EU Reports Hundreds of Thousands of Side Effects
In the European Union, we find more of the same. Its EudraVigilance system, to which suspected drug reactions are reported, had as of April 17, 2021, received 330,218 injury reports after vaccination with one of the four available COVID vaccines (Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson), including 7,766 deaths.7
Of these, Pfizer’s mRNA injection accounted for the largest number of deaths at 4,293, followed by Moderna with 2,094 deaths, AstraZeneca with 1,360 deaths and Johnson & Johnson with 19 deaths. The most commonly reported injuries were cardiac-related problems and blood/lymphatic disorders.
In related news, the Israeli People Committee (IPC), a civilian body of health experts, has published a report detailing side effects from the Pfizer vaccine, concluding “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.” The Committee received 288 reports of death, 90% of which occurred within 10 days after the vaccination; 64% of them were men.
This contradicts data from the Israeli Ministry of Health, which claims only 45 deaths were vaccine related. According to this report (translated from Hebrew):8
“According to Central Bureau of Statistics data during January-February 2021, at the peak of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared with the previous year.
In fact, January-February 2021 have been the deadliest months in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates compared to corresponding months in the last 10 years.
Amongst the 20-29 age group the increase in overall mortality has been most dramatic. In this age group, we detect an increase of 32% in overall mortality in comparison with previous year.
Statistical analysis of information from the Central Bureau of Statistics, combined with information from the Ministry of Health, leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+).
According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in proximity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.”
Reproductive Effects
In the U.S., we’re now starting to see thousands of reports of menstrual problems among women who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. As reported by The Defender:9
“Women have reported hemorrhagic bleeding with clots, delayed or absent periods, sudden pre-menopausal symptoms, month-long periods and heavy irregular bleeding after being vaccinated with one or both doses of a COVID vaccine.
There’s no data linking COVID vaccines to changes in menstruation because clinical trials omit tracking menstrual cycles. But two Yale University experts wrote in The New York Times … there could be a connection.
‘There are many reasons vaccination could alter menstruation,’ wrote Alice Lu-Culligan, an M.D./Ph.D. student at Yale School of Medicine, and Dr. Randi Epstein, writer in residence at Yale School of Medicine.
‘Periods involve the immune system, as the thickening and thinning of the uterine lining are facilitated by different teams of immune cells and signals moving in and out of the reproductive tract,’ Lu-Culligan and Epstein explained.
‘Vaccines are designed to ignite an immune response, and the female cycle is supported by the immune system, so it’s possible vaccines could temporarily change the normal course of events.’”
Even more bizarre, there are hundreds of anecdotal reports of women who have not gotten the vaccine, but spent time in close proximity to someone who did, who are experiencing the same kind of abnormal menses and bleeding irregularities. Some doctors are hypothesizing that some sort of shedding may be taking place, although the mechanism is unknown. As yet, it’s too early to speculate further.
Interestingly, a Chinese study10 published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online, which looked at sex hormones and menstruation in unvaccinated women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with COVID-19, found 28% had a change in the length of their cycle, 19% had prolonged cycles and 25% had a change in menstrual blood volume.
The researchers hypothesize that “the menstruation changes of these patients might be the consequence of transient sex hormone changes” caused by a temporary suppression of ovarian function during infection.
Dr. Natalie Crawford, a fertility specialist, told The Defender11 that the menstrual irregularities seen in female COVID-19 patients may be linked to a cellular immunity response, and since the vaccine instructs your body to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which your immune system then responds to, the effects of the vaccine may be similar to the natural infection.
Death Tally May Spike During Fall and Winter
While the death toll from COVID-19 vaccines is already at a historical level, I fear it may shoot far higher as we move through fall and winter. The reason for this is because one of the greatest risk factors and wild cards of these vaccines is antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE) or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE).
The 2003 review paper “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease” explains it this way:13
“In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.
The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.
This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance … For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.”
Fall and winter are the seasons in which most coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV-2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold. If ADE does turn out to be a common problem with these injections, then vaccinated individuals may be at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming.
Another potential risk is that of Th2 immunopathology, especially among the elderly. As reported in a PNAS news feature:14
“Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon: Some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated.
The vaccine-primed immune system, in certain cases, seemed to launch a shoddy response to the natural infection …
This immune backfiring, or so-called immune enhancement, may manifest in different ways such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a process in which a virus leverages antibodies to aid infection; or cell-based enhancement, a category that includes allergic inflammation caused by Th2 immunopathology.
In some cases, the enhancement processes might overlap … Some researchers argue that although ADE has received the most attention to date, it is less likely than the other immune enhancement pathways to cause a dysregulated response to COVID-19, given what is known about the epidemiology of the virus and its behavior in the human body.
‘There is the potential for ADE, but the bigger problem is probably Th2 immunopathology,’ says Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist and expert in coronaviruses … at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In previous studies of SARS, aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology … in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes, activating the complement system and potentially damaging the airways.”
Recognize Cheap Brainwashing Propaganda for What It Is
Carlson ends his segment with a crude, cuss-filled ad “brought to you by people who are smarter than we are,” in which people who are supposedly doctors and nurses belittle those who read about side effects online or hear about risks from friends, and demand, while giving you the finger, that you just “grow up and get the vaccine.”
If you did not watch Carlson’s report, you need to STOP now and watch the video below to see this unbelievable ad. It is queued up to start at the ad. It is beyond shocking that they believe they can get away with this type of abuse.
“It doesn’t make you laugh,” Carlson says. “It makes you nervous. Why are they talking to you that way? Why are they giving you the finger on TV? No matter how many fingers they give you, it doesn’t change what remains true for the country.
If American citizens are going to be forced to take this vaccine, or any other medicine, they have the absolute right to know what it is and what its effects might be.
And they have an absolute right to ask that question, without being silenced or mocked or given the finger. And no amount of happy talk or coercion or appeals to false patriotism can change that. Period.”
In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.
Last but not least, if you or someone you love has already received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations:15
Pharma and government health officials are luring parents and teens into getting the vaccine by promising a return to social events and normal life — while ignoring potential harms and the “miniscule” risk COVID poses to children.
A decade ago, Ohio researchers bemoaned the difficulty of recruiting children for clinical trials. In the article, “Pediatric Drug-Trial Recruitment: Enticement Without Coercion,” published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers identified barriers such as “the challenge of determining appropriate payments for participation that are not coercive,” “the need to obtain consent from parents” and “ethical concerns.”
With COVID-19, it appears the government and pharma may have determined they can simply leapfrog over these pesky obstacles.
The FDA committee that steered the decision chose to ignore urgent warnings from around the world about the vaccine’s risks for children, including a letter by 93 Israeli doctors who wrote in April that “not even a handful of children should be endangered through mass vaccination against a disease that is not dangerous to them.”
According to a recent New York Times article, “For children, the evidence so far does not offer much reason for alarm about COVID-19’s long-term effects.” Conversely, the Israeli doctors and other experts have emphasized that “it cannot be ruled out that the vaccine will have long-term adverse effects that have not yet been discovered at this time, including on growth, reproductive system or fertility.”
Warnings ignored
Notwithstanding warnings about COVID vaccine risks for children, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) followed up with an immediate endorsement of FDA’s EUA expansion, and CDC director Rochelle Walensky called on healthcare providers to begin administering the still-investigational vaccine to younger adolescents “right away.”
Incredibly, a CDC committee* also gave providers permission to administer the COVID vaccines with other childhood and adolescent vaccines “without regard to timing” — including “simultaneous administration of COVID-19 and other vaccines on the same day, as well as co-administration within 14 days.”
The CDC is basing this incautious advice on the unproven assumption that “adverse event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” even though the agency also admits that it does not know “whether so-called ‘reactogenicity’ increases with [vaccine] co-administration.”
The shockingly cavalier promotion of a no-holds-barred approach to COVID vaccination for America’s children flies in the face of global vaccine experts’ collective opinion (expressed at a World Health Organization meeting in December 2019) that vaccine safety science and safety monitoring are flawed and utterly inadequate.
No less an entity than the Institute of Medicine has stated that systematic research on “key elements of the entire [childhood vaccine] schedule — the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines” — has never been done.
Bypassing payment
Returning to the recruitment obstacles outlined in the 2011 Pediatrics article, it appears that in lieu of “payment” for participation in Pfizer’s mass vaccine trial, the strategy deployed by Walensky and others is to entice adolescents with sunny assurances of a “faster return to social activities.”
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock have likewise promised youngsters that COVID vaccination equals a return to a “sense of normalcy.”
These pledges seem to be just the ticket for socially starved teens who profess to be “all ready to get [the vaccine]” and “excited to get things going again” after being “locked up for a year.”
Six hundred thousand 12- to 15-year-olds rushed to get COVID jabs within the first week of the EUA expansion. Counting the 16- and 17-year-olds who had previously received Pfizer’s vaccine, the total number of injected adolescents (ages 12-17) now numbers 4.1 million, Walensky announced.
These teens and families were likely unaware of the serious adverse events — such as blood clots and Guillain-Barré syndrome — already being experienced by those 16 and older. After a 17-year-old Utah athlete developed blood clots in his brain one day after receiving his first Pfizer injection, the basketball player’s mother tearfully aired her buyer’s remorse, stating her son was “healthy and well before” and “the hardest thing was, I let him get that shot.”
Nor are most parents and teens focusing on the fact that accepting one COVID injection will not be the end of the story. COVID booster shots are already in the offing — introducing the prospect of recurrent and cumulative risks.
Bypassing parents
As the above-cited numbers suggest, a significant proportion of parents seem to be on board with their kids’ swift compliance. In April, just prior to the EUA expansion, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll tested the waters and found 30% of parents with children in the 12-15 age group were themselves chomping at the bit — ready to “get their child vaccinated as soon as a vaccine is available” — and another 18% were willing to do so if schools required it.
On the other hand, about half of Kaiser’s parent respondents stated that they either planned to wait or “definitely” would not be getting their child COVID-vaccinated. This is the group of parents that prompted the Ohio researchers in 2011 to scratch their heads and characterize “the need to obtain consent from parents” as a barrier to pediatric medical experimentation.
The “solution” seems to be to bypass troublesome parents altogether. Five states, heedless of the injections’ investigational status, are allowing healthcare providers and medical practices to dispense with parental consent requirements for COVID vaccines.
In North Carolina, adolescents who are 12 and up can provide their own consent if deemed able to understand and make decisions about their health. A representative of the state’s heavyweight health group UNC Health stated, “COVID vaccination is one of those medical treatments that North Carolina says that a child is able to consent for on their own.”
Three other states — Alabama, Oregon and Tennessee — are permitting adolescents 14 or 15 years of age and older to do the same, and Iowa is leaving consent requirements to the discretion of “each individual healthcare provider/health system.”
In March, in the face of heated public opposition, the District of Columbia enacted legislation enabling children as young as 11 to get CDC-recommended vaccines without parental consent or even knowledge.
Bypassing ethics
At the close of 2020, New York University (NYU) and Tulane researchers wrote in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about COVID vaccines and the “serious mechanistic concern” of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) — the phenomenon whereby vaccination worsens subsequent disease.
The conclusion reached by the researchers (not specific to, but certainly germane to adolescents) was that the risk of ADE “is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.”
Independent of the topic of ADE, the NYU/Tulane authors’ study demonstrated how difficult it is for the average adult — much less adolescent — to penetrate the risks “obscured” in consent forms and thus to achieve “truly informed consent.”
And if this is the case, how likely are teens (or their parents) to understand the distinction between relative and absolute risk when they consent to COVID vaccination? How many young persons can grasp that Pfizer’s relative-risk-based claim of a “100% effective” vaccine for 12-15 year-olds translates into an absolute risk reduction (“the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine”) that is “teensy-tiny”?
Using relative risk calculations, Pfizer declared its injection “100% effective” on the basis of trials with 2,260 younger adolescents. According to the company’s press release, 18 cases of COVID occurred in the placebo group versus zero in the vaccine group. Nowhere does Pfizer spell out that these numbers equate to a reduction in absolute risk of 1.59% (obtained by dividing 18 by the 1,129 teens allocated to the placebo group).
Moreover, in the analyses for its clinical trials with adults, Pfizer doctored its results by excluding thousands of participants who had symptoms identical to COVID but not confirmed by PCR testing. Did similar sleight of hand produce the magic “100%” result for adolescents? Access to “full datasets and independent scrutiny and analyses” are needed to answer that question.
Even assuming a straightforward analysis on Pfizer’s part, European scientists writing in The Lancet in April emphasized the importance of putting vaccine trial results “in context and not just looking at one summary measure.” When researchers omit information about absolute risk reduction and communicate only relative risk reduction numbers, “reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy” — raising questions about the investigators’ intent and integrity.
The lead author of the Lancet commentary admitted to Wired, “One of the main reasons why absolute risk reduction is not shown is because of the numbers. If you say, ‘It’s 95% effective’ — Wow! …But if your absolute risk reduction is like 0.8%…, so what?”
The Lancet authors also noted relative risks “should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time.”
This is a particularly crucial observation for children, whose “background risk” of developing serious COVID illness is minuscule, as evidenced by the fact that the CDC uses 5-17 year-olds as its “reference group” (the group with the lowest risk) when presenting risks of COVID infection, hospitalization and death for other age groups.
There are 74 million children in the U.S. So far, 282 have died from conditions “involving COVID,” producing a mortality rate of 0.00038%. At the May 12 meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC estimated 22.2 million children aged 5-17 had had COVID, and 127 had died — or 0.00057%.
As a University of Pennsylvania infectious disease specialist told the New York Times, “For the average kid, Covid is a negligible risk.”
By way of comparison, in 2019 (the most recent year for which data are available), 847 children in the 5-14 age group died in car accidents and 233 perished by drowning. In 15-24 year-olds, 2019 witnessed another 6,031 car accident deaths, 415 fatal drownings and 4,346 poisoning deaths.
In 2017, drowning deaths claimed nearly 1000 young people under age 20. From February 2020 through mid-February of this year, 5,738 children aged 5-14 and 36,900 adolescents and young adults aged 15-24 died from causes other than COVID-19.
In 1- to 17-year-olds, COVID ranks behind nine other causes of death (injury, suicide, cancer, homicide, congenital anomalies, heart disease, influenza, chronic lower respiratory disease and cerebrovascular causes).
Outsized risks
When announcing the expansion of its Pfizer EUA for 12- to 15-year-olds, FDA head Janet Woodcock told parents they “can rest assured that the agency undertook a rigorous and thorough review of all available data.”
However, as of May 7 (that is, just prior to the EUA expansion to younger adolescents), the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was already showing 694 post-COVID-vaccine adverse events in the 12-17 age group, including 14 rated as “serious” and three deaths.
The VAERS data released one week later, on May 14 (just after the 12-15 go-ahead), showed a sharp bump up in COVID-vaccine-related adverse events in the 12-17 age group: 943 total adverse events, including 23 rated as serious and the three deaths.
Two of the deaths reported before May 10 were in 15-year-olds, one after receiving the Pfizer vaccine and the other after receiving the Moderna vaccine. These adolescents must have been enrolled in the clinical trials, as their ages would have precluded them getting the vaccines legally under the EUAs in effect at the time.
With about 1,000 children in Pfizer’s clinical trial vaccine group in the 12-15 age group — and probably about the same number in Moderna’s trial — the death rate following either vaccination in this age group (assuming the two teens were trial enrollees) is approximately two in 2,000, or 0.1%. Available evidence strongly suggests, therefore, that COVID vaccines are much more dangerous to children than the disease.
Across all age groups, VAERS had received reports of almost 228,000 total adverse events between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 14, including more than 4,200 deaths. That this unprecedented trail of destruction was not cause for concern among the FDA and CDC committee members who enthusiastically recommended Pfizer’s experimental vaccine for young people is baffling.
Tragically, it is a virtual certainty that VAERS reports for children will rise in the coming weeks — leaving many parents as regretful as the Utah mom who let her son “get that shot.”
*Footnote: The 14 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) who unanimously voted to recommend COVID vaccines for 12- to 15-year-olds and also endorsed simultaneous administration of COVID and other vaccines are: Jose Romero (Arkansas Secretary of Health); Kevin Ault (University of Kansas); Lynn Bahta (Minnesota Department of Health); Beth Bell (University of Washington School of Public Health); Henry Bernstein (Cohen Children’s Medical Center); Wilbur Chen (University of Maryland); Matthew Daley (Kaiser Permanente Colorado); Sharon Frey (St. Louis University); Camille Kotton (Massachusetts General Hospital); Grace Lee (Stanford University); Sarah Long (Drexel University); Veronica McNally (Franny Strong Foundation); Katherine Poehling (Wake Forest University); Pablo Sanchez (Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Ohio State University); and Helen Talbot (Vanderbilt University). Consider reaching out to these individuals to ask them how they reached their reckless decisions.
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) today filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama requesting a temporary restraining order against the emergency use authorization (EUA) permitting using the COVID-19 vaccines in children under the age of 16, and that no further expansion of the EUAs to children under the age of 16 be granted prior to the resolution of these issues at trial.
The case will challenge the EUAs for the injections on several counts, based on the law and scientific evidence that the EUAs should never have been granted, the EUAs should be revoked immediately, the injections are dangerous biological agents that have the potential to cause substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease itself, and that numerous laws have been broken in the process of granting these EUAs and foisting these injections on the American people.
AFLDS Founder Dr. Simone Gold spoke about the reasons for filing the motion: “We doctors are pro-vaccine, but this is not a vaccine,” she said. “This is an experimental biological agent whose harms are well-documented (although suppressed and censored) and growing rapidly, and we will not support using America’s children as guinea pigs.”
She continued: “We insist that the EUA not be relinquished prematurely; certainly not before trials are complete – October 31, 2022 for Moderna and April 27, 2023 for Pfizer. We are shocked at the mere discussion of this, and will not be silent while Americans are used as guinea pigs for a virus with survivability of 99.8% globally and 99.97% under age 70.
“Under age 20 it is 99.997% – ‘statistical zero’.
“There are 104 children age 0-17 who died from COVID-19 and 287 from COVID + Influenza – out of ~72 million. This equals zero risk. And we doctors won’t stand for children being offered something they do not need and of whom some unknown percentage will suffer.”
AFLDS Pediatric Director Dr. Angie Farella explained: “My greatest concerns with the vaccination of children under the age of 18 is the fact that there is no prior study of these individuals before December of 2020.”
She went on to say: “Children were not included in the trials, and the adult trials do not have any long-term safety data currently available.”
AFLDS Legal Director Ali Shultz commented on AFLDS’ filing: “Not many people could have taken this on. Dr. Simone Gold is a doctor, and a lawyer, and a fierce warrior who will stop at nothing to protect humanity.
“She has a certain finesse in developing the right team to see this medical/legal mission through.”
To read the motion and all supporting documents, click here.
The “Covid Vaccine Magnet Challenge” is the new viral sensation on social media where vaccinated individuals place a magnet on their arm near the shot site to see if it will stick. Our Mom-on-the-Street, Carmen Estel, tested this out in the field with some pretty shocking results. Check it out!
