Note: In a number of articles, I’ve offered compelling evidence that the deaths attributed to COVID-19 can be explained without reference to a virus. Furthermore, whatever merits “alternative treatments” may have, I see no convincing evidence their action has anything to do with “neutralizing a virus.”
The entire tragic, criminal, murderous, stupid, farcical COVID fraud is based on a hundred years of Rockefeller medicine—a pharmaceutical tyranny in which the enduring headline is:
ONE DISEASE, ONE GERM.
That’s the motto engraved on the gate of the medical cartel.
—Thousands of so-called separate diseases, each caused by an individual germ.
“Kill each germ with a toxic drug, prevent each germ with a toxic vaccine.”
In the absence of those hundred years of false science and propaganda, COVID-19 promotion would have gone over like a bad joke. A few sour laughs, and then nothing, except people going on with their lives.
The overall health of an individual human being has to do with factors entirely unrelated to “one disease, one germ.”
As I quoted, for example, at the end of a recent article—
“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977
And Robert F Kennedy, Jr.: “After extensively studying a century of recorded data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Johns Hopkins researchers concluded: ‘Thus vaccinations does not account for the impressive declines in mortality from infectious diseases seen in the first half of the twentieth century’.”
“Similarly, in 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published their seminal work in the Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly on the role that vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive 74% decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century: ‘The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century’.”
“In this article, which was formerly required reading in U.S. medical schools, the McKinlays pointed out that 92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950, before most vaccines existed, and that all medical measures, including antibiotics and surgeries, ‘appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900 — having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances’.”
How the immune system (if it is a system) actually operates is beyond current medical hypotheses.
“T-cells, B-cells, neutrophils, monocytes, natural killer cells, proteins,” are welded into a breathless story about a military machine that attacks germ invaders. Push-pull. Search and destroy.
The notion that THIS is what creates health is fatuous.
Positive vitality is what keeps us healthy.
A few factors of positive vitality are on the tyrannical COVID list of what-should-be-squashed: financial survival; open mingling of friends and family; people looking (unmasked) at people; open communication without fear of censorship.
Nutrition and basic sanitation are key vitality factors, of course.
And then we have Purpose in Life: where are people pouring their creative energies?
Obviously, freedom from harmful medical treatment is necessary for vitality to flourish.
Suppression of LIFE, in order to stop a purported germ, is institutionalized death.
Modern medicine is sensationally exposed in a review I’ve mentioned dozens of time over the past 10 years: Authored by the late famous public health doctor at Johns Hopkins, Barbara Starfield, it is titled, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.
It found that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people.
Per decade, the death toll would come to 2.25 million people.
You won’t find that in CDC reports.
In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. I asked her whether the federal government had undertaken a major effort to remedy medically caused death in America, and whether she had been sought to consult with the government in such an effort.
Professor Thomas Seyfried has published over 150 peer reviewed studies in biology and cancer biology and has verified Nobel Prize Winner Otto Warburg’s assertation that cancer is a metabolic disease of the mitochondria, not a genetic disorder. If we misunderstand the origin of the disease, the treatment is going to be wrong as well, and this is exactly what has happened. Ever think about why the cancer rates have tripled in the past 40 years? Well, this is why.
Thomas N. Seyfried received his Ph.D. in Genetics and Biochemistry from the University of Illinois, Urbana, in 1976. He did his undergraduate work at the University of New England, where he recently received the distinguished Alumni Achievement Award. He also holds a Master’s degree in Genetics from Illinois State University. Thomas Seyfried served with distinction in the United States Army’s First Cavalry Division during the Vietnam War and received numerous medals and commendations. He was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Neurology at the Yale University School of Medicine and then served on the faculty as an Assistant Professor in Neurology.
Other awards and honors have come from such diverse organizations as the American Oil Chemists Society, the National Institutes of Health, The American Society for Neurochemistry, the Ketogenic Diet Special Interest Group of the American Epilepsy Society, the Academy of Comprehensive and Complementary Medicine, and the American College of Nutrition.
Dr. Seyfried previously served as Chair, Scientific Advisory Committee for the National Tay-Sachs and Allied Diseases Association and presently serves on several editorial boards, including those for Nutrition & Metabolism, Neurochemical Research, the Journal of Lipid Research, and ASN Neuro, where he is a Senior Editor.
Dr. Seyfried is also the author of the book, Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer (Wiley, 1st ed., 2012).
After two years of unprecedented government tyranny in the name of fighting a virus, the prime instigators of this infamy are walking free, writing books, and openly pretending they never said the things they clearly said over and over.
Take Trump’s White House Covid response coordinator Deborah Birx, for example. She was, as the Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker points out in a recent article, the principal architect of the disastrous “lockdown” policy that destroyed more lives than Covid itself. Birx knew that locking a country down in response to a virus was a radical move that would never be endorsed. So, as she admits in her new book, she lied about it.
She sold the White House on the out-of-thin-air “fifteen days to slow the spread” all the while knowing there was no evidence it would do any such thing. As she wrote in her new book, Silent Invasion, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.”
She was playing for time with no evidence. As it turns out, she was also destroying the lives of millions of Americans. The hysteria she created led to countless businesses destroyed, countless suicides, major depressions, drug and alcohol addictions. It led to countless deaths due to delays in treatment for other diseases. It may turn out to be the most deadly mistake in medical history.
As she revealed in her book, she actually wanted to isolate every single person in the United States! Writing about how many people would be allowed to gather, she said: “If I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’—the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”
She wanted to prevent even two people from meeting. How is it possible that someone like this came to gain so much power over our lives? One virus and we suddenly become Communist China?
Last week in a Fox News interview she again revealed the extent of her treachery. After months of relentlessly demanding that all Americans get the Covid shots, she revealed that the “vaccines” were not vaccines at all!
“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection,” she told Fox. “And I think we overplayed the vaccines. And it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization.”
So when did she know this? Did she know it when she told ABC in late 2020 that “this is one of the most highly-effective vaccines we have in our infectious disease arsenal. And so that’s why I’m very enthusiastic about the vaccine”?
If she knew all along that the “vaccines” were not vaccines, why didn’t she tell us? Because, as she admits in her book, she believes it’s just fine to lie to people in order to get them to do what she wants.
She admits that she employed “subterfuge” against her boss – President Donald Trump – to implement Covid policies he opposed. So it should be no surprise that she lied to the American people about the efficacy of the Covid shots.
The big question now, after what appears to be a tsunami of vaccine-related injuries, is will anyone be forced to pay for the lies and subterfuge? Will anyone be held to account for the lives lost for the arrogance of the Birxes and Faucis of the world?
Recently I joined a group of 20 doctors and scientists around the world who put their names to the “Settling the Virus Debate” statement. In this two-page document we suggested, “rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.” Some of the individuals who believe that the existence of pathogenic viruses is an established fact, proceeded to immediately disagree. One was Steve Kirsch, who attempted to distract from the central tenet of our statement, being that virology had failed to carry out scientific control experiments. In reality, it is clear that the virologists have not shown that their techniques of “viral” cultures, genomics, and clinical diagnostics are valid even on their own terms. Indeed, I have not seen Kirsch or anyone else provide evidence that the appropriately-controlled experiments we suggested in the statement have been performed.
Kirsch admitted, “this is not my field of expertise at all. I rely on other people around me who I trust.” I have written a previous article about why I think Kirsch should be careful about trusting other “experts.” However, he continues to favour this approach and one of his trusted parties includes the pathologist/virologist Dr Sin Lee. Lee wrote, “Tom Cowan claimed the virus has not been isolated. But the virus has been isolated by the CDC and marketed by ATCC as the control materials. I bought the virus as the control for my CLIA tests. Many others do.” We have covered the follies concerning these claims of “isolation” many times and the CDC certainly have no studies demonstrating the existence of a pathogenic particle termed ‘SARS-CoV-2’. The ATCC simply repeat the claim by the CDC that their listed product contains a “virus” – however as I outlined in my first “Warning Signs” article, following the trail back to the start does not lead to any evidence of a virus in the biological potions being passed around.
On 18 July 2022, Lee sent the following email to Dr Tom Cowan:
I have a Preprint manuscript currently under peer review as follows. ://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202206.0192/v1 There is irrefutable Sanger sequencing evidence that the virus exists and keeps mutating. If Dr. Tom Cowan disagrees, please write a critique to challenge my data and interpretation online in the open. I will respond. Other scientists can join in for the debate.
Dr Sin H. Lee, 18 July 2022
The preprint paper is titled, “Implementation of the eCDC/WHO Recommendation for Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants and Its Challenges.” To expose the problems of virology it is crucial to examine the methodology section of any publication and in this case it is no different. In the “material and methods” section Lee stated that, “five (5) selective nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected from non-hospitalized patients with respiratory infection, which were confirmed to be true-positive for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant by Sanger sequencing.” Here we are straight into the deep end of virology’s circular reasoning: the “virus” has been confirmed to exist on the basis of detected sequences from some nasopharyngeal swabs. There is nowhere in the paper that any evidence is provided for the existence of an actual virus, that is, a tiny particle that acts as an obligate intracellular parasite and is capable of causing disease in a host.
The claim that the specimens were, “true-positive[s] for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” simply means some sequences that were previously deposited on genetic databases, and fraudulently declared to be “viral,” were being detected again. It doesn’t make any difference which sequencing technique is used, in this case bidirectional Sanger sequencing because the crucial issue is the provenance and clinical relevance of these detected sequences. This is the foundational issue in the entire COVID-19 fraud: there is no virus, simply sequences falsely claimed to be evidence of an actual virus. The World Health Organisation helped orchestrate the deception when it declared that a confirmed ‘case’ of infection with the invented virus is simply the detection of some of these sequences. We have covered this absurd circular reasoning in much of our work including in Sam’s 2020 video “What Is A Covid-19 Case?” (And rapid antigen tests are covered here.)
Back to Lee’s paper and in the following paragraph of the “material and methods” section, he described the, “RNA Extraction from Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens,” as follows:
As previously reported [25-27], the cellular pellet derived from about 1 mL of the nasopharyngeal swab rinse along with 0.2 mL supernatant after centrifugation was first digested in a buffered solution containing sodium dodecyl sulfate and proteinase K. The digestate was extracted with phenol. The nucleic acid was precipitated by ethanol and redissolved in 50 μL of DEPC-treated water.
In other words, there was no step to demonstrate: (a) there were any “viral” particles contained within the samples, or (b) that the RNA came from such imagined viral particles. A reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was then applied to these undifferentiated samples to generate amplicons ranging from 398 to 707 nucleotides in length. Most of these sequences spanned the so-called ‘Spike protein’ gene of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome, as that was the area of interest for the study. In the next step it was stated:
The crude nested PCR products showing an expected amplicon at agarose gel electrophoresis were subjected to automated Sanger sequencing without further purification.
In fact, at no stage was an attempt undertaken to purify any entity from the crude nasopharyngeal specimens. The entire basis of the study was built on the unestablished premise that the genetic sequences detected were already known to come from inside a pathogenic particle.
The “results” section then detailed the nucleotide sequences of the various amplicons that were generated from the crude samples. Some of the codons (three-nucleotide units that encode a particular amino acid or stop signal) were described as “mutated” on the basis of comparisons to other sequences previously deposited on the genetic databanks. The use of the word ‘mutation’ is problematic in itself, because it implies that a genome has been altered. A genome must belong to a discrete biological entity, so virology is once again misusing terminology to imply that a certain proof has been established. Lee’s study was simply looking at RNA sequences in uncontrolled experiments.
Those of us that dispute the virus narrative point out that no RNA (or DNA) sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any specific identifiable particle that fulfils the definition of a virus. Thus all RNAs can only be said to be expressed by a known organism, introduced artificially (e.g. synthetic mRNA injections) or be of unknown provenance. The “mutations” only exist within in silico models that have not been shown to be independent entities in nature. There are other reasons why RNA sequences can and do vary in dynamic biological systems and I can’t imagine that any virologist would disagree with this fact. Simply detecting RNAs is not enough to draw conclusions about their provenance. Other experiments are required to make this determination.
In our first COVID-19 Fraud essay we documented the original invention of SARS-CoV-2 by Fan Wu’s team who assembled an in silico “genome” from genetic fragments of unknown provenance, found in the crude lung washings of a single ‘case’ and documented in, “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China.” Their in silico construct served as a reference for others to then “find” the same “virus” around the world, without evidence that such a particle actually existed.
In our soon to be published follow-up COVID-19 Fraud essay we will provide a more detailed explanation as to why detecting nucleic acid sequences per se in crude specimens or cell cultures does not provide the required evidence for “viruses.” In the essay we will also follow the trail back to the first ever declarations of “coronavirus genomes” in the 1980s and show that no viruses were demonstrated in any part of the trail. However, such sequence data is used to promulgate the illusion of “virus” family trees, or claimed “mutations” as discussed above.
Dr Lee’s paper does not even appear to be designed to demonstrate the existence of a postulated disease-causing particle. I sent him several questions including, “I have read the preprint and there does not appear to be a hypothesis presented – is that correct?”, “In your study there did not appear to be any controls (e.g. checking for selected sequences in other nasopharyngeal specimens from humans said not to have the alleged virus) – presumably that was by design?” and “What is your definition of a ‘virus’ in the paper?” Lee responded, “your questions are irrelevant to you [sic] intention to write a comment or critique on the manuscript involved,” and suggested I write something in the preprint website’s comment section.
Lee has provided a descriptive paper that omits a falsifiable hypothesis so it is unclear why he would present it as experimental evidence, let alone “irrefutable” evidence of the existence of SARS-CoV-2. His paper is inappropriately designed for this purpose and his claim engages in a circular reasoning fallacy: the genetic sequences are proffered as evidence of the virus, because it was presupposed that they come from the virus. We are asking, “where is the virus?”
Virology has a problem: It needs to show that “A” actually exists
It’s back to the drawing board for virology: it invented the theory of viruses, so whatever method it employs to prove their existence, it must satisfy that definition. In fact, do the virologists even have a theory? The definition of a scientific theory is:
an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroboratedin accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
Our “Settling the Virus Debate” statement proposes that the virologists need to employ the required scientific method as a starting point. It is not looking good for them because they have not even demonstrated any internal validity on their own terms. According to science they may not even have a theory. If they have a hypothesis, they need to specify an independent variable (in this case the postulated “virus”) and a dependent variable for analysis. Moreover, to even get started, the independent variable must first be shown to physically exist. I would implore Steve Kirsch to reconsider taking advice from these “experts” and to commence his own investigations into the house of virology. By scientific accounts, it is a house of cards.
Postscript
(Derived from: A. F. Chalmers, What is this thing called Science?, 2nd ed, 1982)
‘Observational statements are frequently presupposed by theory. Such statements are always made in the language of some theory and will be as precise as the theoretical or conceptual framework that they utilise is precise’. In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed. Scientists of the mid and late nineteenth century were preoccupied with the identification of imagined contagious pathogenic entities.
‘The observations of the naïve inductionist did not identify a virus a priori, and then set about studying its properties and characteristics. The extant presupposition of the time was that a very small germ particle existed that may explain contagion. What came thereafter arose to fulfil the presuppositional premise’.
‘A popular view of scientific knowledge is that it is proven knowledge and scientific theories are derived in some righteous way from the facts of experience acquired by observation and experiment. Science is based upon what we can see, hear, measure and touch. Science is objective and explicit. Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge’.
‘A realistic scientific theory will consist of a complex of universal statements rather than a single statement. Further a theory will need to be augmented by auxiliary assumptions, such as laws and theories governing the use of any instruments used, for instance’.
‘The premises from which the prediction is derived must also include the interconnected statements that constitute the theory under test, the initial conditions, and the auxiliary assumptions. Falsification of the theory also indicates the possibility of a failure of any number of the associated assumptions and conditions, and not necessarily of the theory itself’.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr M. C. McGrath (New Zealand) for his constructive criticisms and inspiration for the postscript.
After years of hearing about the planet’s overpopulation as a young woman, I made a very clear and conscious decision not to have children. I considered this my “contribution” to the earth, not to add an additional burden upon our natural resources.
Little did I know that I may have been duped like many other women I know who made a similar decision. Now, if I had known the truth, that our planet, particularly the US birth rates, have been in decline for… well, decades now, I may have made a very different decision.
A lagging US birthrate continues to be a little-known fact. Ask the average American, and they would swear to you that we are on a massive overpopulation curvature.
Dr. Carrie Madej tipped me off a year ago that the US was utilizing the tetanus shots as an undercover sterilization campaign. She told me that she knew firsthand that the more a woman receives a tetanus shot, the more likely she will be unable to conceive.
I had always suspected a host of reasons for the global population decline, most of which are environmental. However, it never dawned on me that tetanus shots could play a huge role.
Official U.S. birth data for 2020 showed that births have been falling almost continuously for over a decade. For 50 years now, the U.S. total fertility rate has remained near or below the “replacement” level of 2.1. The total fertility rate estimates the average number of babies a woman would have in her lifetime; 2.1 is the level needed for a generation to replace itself.
It wasn’t just Dr. Carrie Madej pointing out a correlation between infertility and tetanus shots.
A brouhaha had been stewing in Africa in the early 1990s when the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Kenyan Health Ministry were going head to head in a battle over the safety of a tetanus vaccine administered to women in the country.
In November 1993, a Catholic publication appeared claiming an abortifacient vaccine was being used as tetanus prophylactic. Catholic church leaders began accusing the WHO and UNICEF of nefariously lacing tetanus shots they had given to girls and women of childbearing age containing the anti-fertility drug human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).
We have been led to believe that one tetanus injection should protect for at least ten years. Yet, these tetanus protocols in Mexico and Africa targeted childbearing women to be injected every six months.
Continuously denying the accusation, in 2014, the WHO and UNICEF made a public statement expressing “their deep concern about the misinformation circulating in the media on the quality of the Tetanus Toxoid (TT) Vaccine in Kenya.”
They neglected to include in their statement that the WHO announced a “birth-control vaccine” for “family planning” in 1976 when WHO researchers had “conjugated tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), producing a “birth-control” vaccine. Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are [spontaneous] abortions in pregnant females and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility.”
Pub med article here, Tetanus vaccine may be laced with an anti-fertility drug. International / developing countries
Similar tetanus vaccines laced with hCG have been uncovered in the Philippines and Nicaragua. In addition to the WHO, other organizations involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine using hCG include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the Population Council, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and Ohio State universities.
(I know that “correlation does not imply causation,” but knowing what we know now, we need to consider this explanation as a possibility)
Once again, we have another criminal case of uninformed consent. Women who have no clue these shots have been preventing pregnancies or causing spontaneous abortions. The tetanus shots are possibly another example of medical malfeasance of the highest order.
How do we respond? First of all, know that the risk of a person contracting tetanus is very low unless he/she is an agricultural worker and working near animal manure. It’s not rust that gives us tetanus; it’s manure. The medical establishment never tells us this. If you are a young woman or girl that intends on becoming a mother someday, perhaps think twice about the tetanus shot. The more shots you receive, the higher the risk of not being able to conceive.
If you want more in-depth information, I recommend watching (and sharing) the newly released 30-minute documentary, “Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda.”
Lastly, spread the word. At the very least, let women know they should seriously investigate before deciding whether or not to take a tetanus shot. Knowledge is power.
I’ve just interviewed the one and only Jon Rappoport, who launched his website nomorefakenews.com over 20 years ago. Jon is now 84 years old but continues with his prolific output and is always at the forefront of exposing global scams.
We talked about:
identifying the COVID-19 fraud in early 2020
why he started investigating virology 35 years ago
why people need the virus narrative
the state of the health freedom movement
plus much more!
President Trump’s former Covid-19 adviser Dr. Deborah Birx has made several stunning admissions of late – first telling the Daily Mail that Covid-19 “came out of the box ready to infect” when it hit Wuhan, China in 2019 – and that it may have been created by Chinese scientists who were “working on coronavirus vaccines.”
But it goes further than that.
As Fox News’ Jesse Waters lays out, Birx admitted in her new book that she and Dr. Anthony Fauci were essentially shooting from the hip when it came to national directives such as “two weeks to stop the spread,” and social distancing requirements.
According to Waters, Birx “admitted to making things up,” adding that she and Fauci “were lying to the president and to the American people about their COVID protocols.”
With the first lie; ’15 days to stop the spread’ – Birx writes “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of the two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it.”
“So that 15 days to slow the spread was just a sneaky way to get their hooks into us, so they could lock us down for longer,” Waters opines. “And if you dared to leave your house, Birx told us, the only way to stay safe was to social distance.”
To that end, Birx writes that she “I had settled on 10 (feet) knowing that even that was too many, but I figured that ten would at least be palatable for most Americans – high enough to allow for most gatherings of immediate family but not enough for large dinner parties and, critically, large weddings, birthday parties, and other mass social events…”
Watch:
“Scarf Lady” committed scientific fraud and misled the president and the nation into unnecessary lock-downs and restrictions based on the false presumption that the virus spread among health people (asymptomatic spread) that was disproved by Cao et al Madewell et al. pic.twitter.com/Doeion4tu7
— Peter McCullough, MD MPH (@P_McCulloughMD) July 20, 2022
I was relaxing in our screened porch in our little cottage in the forest, feeling rather pleased with myself. It had been an arduous week of the usual combat for liberty, but there had been victories.
I was reading a decorating magazine (we all have our vices). The grass was dewy; birds were loud. The morning was glorious.
I was feeling pioneer-ish and independent. I was alone in the house; Brian was traveling. I enjoyed the narrative moment: “Lady in the woods.”
Then I heard a “thump” about eight feet away behind my head. It was an exasperated thump, like a teenager slamming the door to his room. Like, “Really??”
I glanced behind me and saw the enormous ears and forehead of a sizable brown bear, who was ducking insolently, clearly aware of me, to lower himself behind the trash cans.
I sped indoors, locking the door. I grabbed a weapon out of the hall closet. In my haste, I grabbed the weapon that looked like a rifle, instead of the actual rifle, which was in a case. Thus I found myself locked in an upstairs bathroom, cowering, armed with a BB gun.
I sort of knew this bear. Brian had captured on his trail camera about a year ago, what must have been this bear and his brother or sister, when the little ones were just adorable cubs. One of the cubs had nuzzled the trailcam til the mom had batted it away, urging her little ones to follow her deeper into the woods, far from the dangerous things of men. One of the cubs was now this massive creature, that bear-watchers call a “sub-adult.”
I saw, peering fearfully out of the window, that it was no longer cute and fat. It was was thin, but massively muscled, and looked disoriented. It must have been eight feet long.
I paced into the upstairs bedroom and secured the windows. The bear left the garbage cans, and followed me around the corner of the house. I could now see it pacing and sniffing directly opposite the bedroom windows, though on the ground level. There were windows all around the house on that level. Bears had been known to break into homes.
I looked under the bed: hiding there could not save me if the bear made it into the house. I realized I was holding a BB gun, and felt ridiculous. Even if I managed to shoot it, this would do nothing but enrage him. The thin bedroom doors that I had thought so rustic and charming, could be broken down by an angry animal of that size in no time.
My heart pounded as I realized that he was not leaving; he continued pacing and circling, no matter where I went.
I went back into the bathroom, and locked that door with its flimsy lock.
There he was again, outside on that side of the house, as if he was spotting me or as if he could scent me. Surely he could smell my fear.
I cowered behind the bathroom curtain. The bear paused in its ransacking of the trash, stood up again on hind legs, looked right at me — or smelled right at me — and bared its long, sharp yellow teeth.
If I had had sympathy for the hungry teenager abandoned by its mom (or “emancipated” by its mom, as the bear watching sites explain) it evaporated.
I was on the phone with Brian, frozen with fear.
“Make yourself big! Shout at him!” Brian instructed. That was impossible. I could not move. I could hardly breathe.
That would be it, surely, I thought, after he’d exhausted the trash bag. He’d leave now, surely. But no. He came back toward me again like a nightmare, and headed once more to circle the house.
I called the sheriff’s office.
Twice they told me that nothing could be done, and to stay inside. I don’t blame the Columbia County Sheriffs. They have issues to deal with more serious than a former city lady trapped in her house by a hungry bear.
But the bear kept circling right up against the walls of the house. This went on for an hour. Adrenaline poured through my bloodstream. I did wonder if I would die that day.
When I called back in spite of myself and begged the police for help, they told me to call again only if he managed to break into the house. (Thank you, ‘Defund the Police’ advocates…)
At certain points of extreme stress, I could not even bring myself any longer to look outside to see where the bear was. What if I looked and couldn’t see him because he was already in the house? I went right into a place that is familiar to those of us with PTSD – a traumatized place where you freeze, and where you engage in magical thinking.
If I don’t look at the bear he won’t be there. If I don’t meet his gaze he won’t see me or smell me. I am somewhere else. I am not really here.
Reader, after an hour I was saved when brave colleagues of mine, Craig Klein, Reinette Senum and Jamie Arrigo, who had been meeting nearby, drove down our wooded driveway, blowing their car horns. I raced down the steps, never so happy to see people in my life. Reinette laughed at the sight of me racing to open the door, still carrying my useless BB gun.
I think I was coherent, but I was in shock. An officer from the Sheriff’s department arrived at the same time, bless him. Humans saved me. The aggressor, the wild animal, had been scared away, and not by me. I’d been a wreck, hopeless.
For days, I ruminated about the sharp yellow teeth of that bear, exposed as he raised his snout into the air, sniffing, like a scene from a horrifying fairy tale.
Why do I tell this story?
Because – the bear had been growing more and more comfortable emerging from the woods; he grew more and more comfortable exploring our trash and then he took over territory in exploring our lawn; he was “habituated” ultimately, as bear watchers say; he had ownership of the lawn and was circling the house to mark his territory. He was comfortable at last in stalking the homeowners.
He was here because — I had done nothing to stop him. He was here because I let him slowly take over our home.
My not being able to look directly at the bear did not make me any safer. My denial put me in greater danger.
This all, of course, really happened. But that does not mean it is not also a metaphor.
The same week that this happened, I also finalized my reporting about the Pfizer vaccines, showing — what I knew for months I would eventually find.
The heart of the manufacture and distribution of millions of doses of the MRNA vaccines that are causing such a swath of death and destruction throughout North America and Western Europe, is enmeshed with the plans, methods and manufacturing infrastructure of our existential adversary.
The enemy is within our very bodies.
Since I first started reading the reports produced by the 3000 medical and scientific experts of the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers team, based on the 55000 Pfizer documents released under court order, I knew I was seeing not just medicine gone wrong, not just a greedy pharmaceutical company and a regulatory agency that was fully corrupted, but rather, or additionally, I was seeing a massive act of war. [https://campaigns.dailyclout.io/campaign/brand/cc3b3e5a-6536-4738-8ed6-5ee368c67240]
When I saw the eighteen months’ worth of sudden deaths, slow deaths, encephalies, strokes, heart attacks, pericarditis, myocarditis, Guillain Barre, Bell’s palsy, MS, blood clots, lung clots, leg clots, blue-green breast milk, spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, neonatal seizures, neonatal multi-organ system failure, liver damage, kidney damage, suppressed lactation, suppressed sperm count, disrupted menses, all detailed the Pfizer documents; when I saw the fact that 34,000 plus of the 42000 plus adverse events “cases” itemized in the worldwide rollout of the Pfizer injections, were sustained in the US — with the next largest group being sustained in Western Europe – and that the 56 countries around the world that also had Pfizer injections rolled out, amounted for only a bit over 7000 adverse events total — I knew I was seeing not just medicine gone wrong on a massive scale, but rather that I was seeing an act of war.
When I saw the doubling of neonatal deaths in country after country, the rise of 34% above normal in stillbirths and spontaneous abortions for vaccinated versus unvaccinated mothers; when I saw that 3816 vaccinated women in the VAERS database lost their babies — 57% of all the neonatal deaths in all the time that VAERS records had been kept — [https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/cdc-database-shows-death-risk-for-babies-of-vaccinated-mothers/]; when I saw that of 36 pregnancies followed in the Pfizer documents, 28 of the babies died [https://www.drpaulalexander.com/blogs/news/etana-hecht-israeli-scientist-researcher-vaccinated-women-fertility-signals-are-coming-through-the-fda-pfizer-actively-worked-to-keep-this-data-hidden-from-sight-for-our-lifetimes]; when I saw the rise of 40 per cent in death rates and the shocking rise in cases of disability in the West [https://journal.rajeshtaylor.com/further-disturbing-rates-of-disability-mortality-in-life-insurance-data-since-covid-vaccine-rollout/—] I knew I was not seeing just medicine gone wrong on a massive scale, but that I was witnessing an act of war.
When I saw that you could boost the lethality or the damage caused by the injection by simply changing how dilute the solution is, or simply by reassigning which brand you use – with Moderna (100 mcg) far more damaging than Pfizer (30 mcg) — I knew that I was seeing not just medicine gone wrong on massive scale, but an act of war.
When I saw a study out of Hong Kong in 2021 — a study that, of course, was answerable to the CCP — that revealed that a second dose (a “booster”) into the bloodstreams of mice, resulted in visibly enlarged hearts with white patches that could be seen by the naked eye, as well as cytokine storms and liver damage, I realized that the two-dose regime and then the “boosters” were slow but progressive ways to damage and then destroy the health of Western patients. The study concluded: “Post-vaccination myopericarditis is reported after immunization with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines.”
And yet with this CCP-overseen finding, that by injecting mammals with the MRNA vaccine, their hearts were visibly damaged, the worldwide injection program kept going.
[https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/74/11/1933/6353927; Intravenous Injection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccine Can Induce Acute Myopericarditis in Mouse Model, Can Li, Yanxia Chen, Yan Zhao, David Christopher Lung, Zhanhong Ye, Wenchen Song, Fei-Fei Liu, Jian-Piao Cai, Wan-Man Wong, Cyril Chik-Yan Yip, Jasper Fuk-Woo Chan, Kelvin Kai-Wang To, Siddharth Sridhar, Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung, Hin Chu, Kin-Hang Kok, Dong-Yan Jin, Anna Jinxia Zhang, Kwok-Yung Yuen; Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 74, Issue 11, 1 June 2022, Pages 1933–1950, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab707]
We were told that Pfizer/BioNTech is a German company. But it is actually a German-Chinese company. Since I first found that Pfizer/BioNTech had an MOU with Fosun Pharmaceuticals, a major CCP-linked pharmaceutical company based in Shanghai, to make the Pfizer/BioNTech MRNA vaccines, I knew that with a bit more digging I would find China at the heart of these acts of war.
BioNTech’s SEC filing shows that the MOU with Fosun Pharmaceuticals includes an equity investment by Fosun in BioNTech. In other words, the CCP is an equity investor in BioNTech: “As part of the strategic alliance with Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd (“Fosun Pharma”; Stock Symbol: 600196.SH, 02196.HK) whereby the two companies will work together on the development of BNT162 in China, Fosun agreed to make an equity investment which was received in mid-April 2020. The issuance of 1,580,777 ordinary shares with the nominal amount of k€ 1,581 was registered within the commercial register (Handelsregister) as of April 23, 2020.” Not only that but: “Ai-Min Hui, President of Global R&D, and Chief Medical Officer of Fosun Pharma said: ”We are closely working with BioNTech and regulatory authorities to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine candidate, in order to synchronize the development process in China with other countries, and to bring the vaccine to public as soon as possible, if the vaccine succeeds.” [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776985/000119312520210694/d54613d424b3.htm]
Fosun is not separate from the CCP; it is the CCP: Fosun acquired almost half of Sinopharm: “In 2003 Fosun Pharmaceutical acquired 49% stake of Sinopharm Group (Chinese: 国药控股). […] In 2008, a year before the initial public offering of Sinopharm Group, Fosun Pharmaceutical owned the direct parent company of Sinopharm Group, Sinopharm Industrial Investment (Chinese: 国药产业投资) instead; the majority owner of the joint venture was state-owned China National Pharmaceutical Group (Sinopharm).” 2003年年报 [2003 Annual Report] (PDF). Fosun Industrial. 24 April 2004. Retrieved 5 August 2018– via Shanghai Stock Exchange website. [^国药集团复星联合成立首家混合所有制药企. 企业观察报 (in Chinese (China)). 4 August 2014. Retrieved 5 August 2018 – via Sina; ^2009年年报 [2009 Annual Report] (PDF). Fosun Pharmaceutical. 25 March 2010. Retrieved 5 August 2018 – via Shanghai Stock Exchange website.; ^“Connection Transaction” (PDF) (Press release). Shanghai: Fosun International. 20 June 2008.]
Sinopharm, of course, as you see above, of which Fosun owns almost half, is owned in turn directly by the Chinese State and thus reports directly to the CCP.
The initial BioNTech/Fosun MOU seems to imply that all of the BioNTech/Fosun joint ventures’ activity is in China, or in regions aligned with or close to China. But is that now the case? Fosun Pharma did not stay in China.
It came here. Fosun Pharmaceuticals is now also Fosun Pharmaceuticals USA, with branches for R and D and product formulation in Boston, MA and Princeton, NJ: [https://fosunpharmausa.com/covid19/pcr/]
It is producing formulations and products in the US for distribution in the US and around the world. Fosun Pharma has built a “global operation strategy” for the manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 PCR tests and COVID-19 antigen tests:
“Fosun Pharma has built a strong root in China and developed a global operation strategy, with pharmaceutical manufacturing and R&D being the largest and core business segment, […]”
“In 2021, the revenue from new and sub-new products including COMIRNATY® (mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, also known as BNT162b2), […] accounted for over 25% of the revenue in the pharmaceutical manufacturing segment;
· Revenue from regions outside Mainland China and countries overseas reached RMB13,599 million, accounting for 34.86% of the total revenue, marking a step forward on globalization.” [Italics mine].
And more: “Continuously strengthening the global operation capability and making further enhancement for globalization, Fosun Pharma has formed a global operating system for R&D, manufacturing and commercialization, and continuously expands overseas markets. [..] Globalization capability is continuously strengthened. The second headquarters in the United States help to build a global business landscape with full coverage of R&D, manufacturing and commercialization.[…]
“By the end of 2021, Fosun Pharma’s overseas commercialization team with over 1,200 employees has built marketing platforms in the United States, Africa and Europe [italics mine]and has achieved direct sales of formulations to the U.S. market. […] The COVID-19 test kit by Fosun Diagnostics has been sold in over ten countries. […] Gland Pharma, a holding subsidiary in India, received approvals from the US FDA for 13 generic drugs in 2021.
“Leveraging the current global manufacturing capability and world-class manufacturing facilities […] Fosun Pharma has accelerated the acquirement of international GMP certification of domestic production lines, laying a solid foundation for exporting domestic products. In January and March 2022, Fosun Pharmaceutical Industrial obtained the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’s license to produce and supply the generic version of Merck’s oral COVID-19 treatment Molnupiravir and Pfizer’s oral COVID-19 treatment Nirmatrelvir, as well as the co-packaged product of Nirmatrelvir and Ritonavir of Pfizer [….]. The license includes both ingredients and the finished drug. Through this license, Fosun Pharma devoted itself further to fighting against the pandemic around the world.”
Fosun Pharma USA offers potential partners: “A global reach with a focus on the United States and China markets”. It offers “US Rights” and “Global Rights” as well as “China Rights.” [https://fosunpharmausa.com/innovative-medicine/]
The FDA Filing for the Fosun Pharma USA facility says the facility is authorized to “develop specifications,” including for the PCR tests and antigen tests it creates, and that the facility can also have US agents: [https://fda.report/Company/Fosun-Pharma-Usa-Inc]
This is crucial. Fosun Pharmaceuticals does not just partner with Pfizer/BioNTech to make the COVID-19 vaccines: they make, as noted, the PCR tests that are the one primary metric that determine the scale of the pandemic in North America and Western Europe and thus the “lockdowns” of whole countries, whole industrial sectors.
A CCP-run company, and CCP-created product, thus, decides — who can go to work or school, who must close his or her shop, who can or cannot travel — in all of Europe and the US: [https://fosunpharmausa.com/covid19/pcr/]. A CCP-run company decides the formulation of the PCR and antigen tests that go deep into the nasopharyngeal cavities of Westerners who are forced, week after week, to test and test and test with these products. This is what is on the Fosun Pharma USA’s product pages:
The following products are developed in the Princeton NJ Fosun Pharma USA facility:
So this CCP-owned hybrid entity is here now and it is creating the diagnostic instruments that determine the scale of the pandemic in the West. The CCP can thus dial it up or down.
It also makes: millions of the Pfizer/BioNTech MRNA injections, the Merck COVID-19 pill Molnupiravir, the Pfizer COVID-19 pill Paxlovid — for which Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla just signed a contract with the US government for 10 million doses and $5.29 billion dollars for 2022 [https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/pfizer-boosts-paxlovid-manufacturing-capacity-as-merck-s-rival-covid-pill-sees] — all this for the US and for ten other countries including the EU.
These are all formulated and distributed by a company leading directly to Chinese Communist Party.
When Pres. Biden does a deal with Pfizer/BioNTech in the millions of dollars, with our tax money, he is giving a substantial portion of the funds to China. When he spends a billion dollars via omnibus bills for PPE, including millions for PCR and antigen tests, he is writing checks to — China.
This is from Fosun Pharmaceutical USA’s website section “R and D”: look at the last three entries:
Is Fosun a squeaky clean CCP-run Pharma enterprise? In 2018 a whistleblower — and in China that is courageous thing to be — broke a scandal revealing that Fosun Pharmaceuticals had “massively” faked its data and also bribed regulators. Facilities were so chaotic that the US FDA sent the company a stern letter. [https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/fosun-pharma-massively-fakes-api-production-data-and-bribes-regulators-whistle-blower].
BioNTech’s SEC filing reports as 100 per cent achieved, a tech transfer to — China. Not to a “Chinese company” or a “Chinese individual” but to the country of — China:
[https://investors.biontech.de/node/12681/html]
Further, the SEC filing explains that it will effect the “technology transfer with China” after marketing approval has been granted. I don’t know what “Technology transfer” or “tech transfer” means in this SEC filing; SEC filing experts who have reviewed it for me have suggested that this can mean IP, manufacturing methodologies, formulas, data, or all four. But surely it is significant that the company BioNTech has declared as 100 % complete or in process, a “Tech transfer” to CHINA. It is not “sharing” the tech or “licensing” the tech — it is transferring the tech. That means that in some capacity, China will be or is in charge of some aspect of BioNTech’s technology, however that is defined here.
So take all of the above, and map it against the 150,000 plus adverse events in the Pfizer documents, the deadly harms to reproduction, the Western baby die-off, the babies in seizures; map it against the population drop, the rise in disabilities, map it against the rigid, cruel vaccine mandates aimed at Western defense forces (Canada’s, and Australia’s and all of Western Europe’s, as well as at the most powerful military in the world, that of the United States) — map it against the vaccine mandates aimed at our police, our health care workers, our firefighters, our pilots, our first responders, our kids, our babies — all this done by a White House captive, via Hunter Biden’s laptop, to the CCP. Add to all of this the evidence of birth rates declining, especially in the West, by 12-20 per cent:
How better to cripple the world’s other superpower than by destroying our American front lines and our American next generation, with tainted, murderous vaccines, flowed easily enough into the West via (not even that many) shell companies and cutouts? How easy to do the same to Western Europe, to Canada and Australia, as a whole?
Take all of the above and consider that the virus originated in China; and now all of the testing apparatuses, as well as millions of the vaccines, the catastrophically damaging or lethal “solutions” to the virus, also all originate from the same folks; the same leadership cadre who brought the world forced abortions, citizens welded into their homes, Uighur concentration camps, and organ harvesting.
I made the case in my new book The Bodies of Others that a transnational group of bad actors – including the WEF, The WHO, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, tech companies and the CCP — used the pandemic to crush humanity and in particular to destroy the West.
With the provenance of the vaccines and tests, you can see yet another mechanism, yet another core methodology of this warfare.
Mapping these points of evidence, I think you may start to see what I see.
This all means, of course, that we are staring into the abyss right now.
Traumatized or not, we all need to snap out of denial.
We let our adversary come too close to us. Into our very bloodstreams.
Why do governments salute when he predicts a pandemic and tells them to lock down their countries?
Does anyone care about his past?
Why does he still have a prestigious job?
Who is he connected to?
Note: I’m republishing this piece, from 2020, so people don’t forget the criminal and the crime…
Neil Ferguson, through his institute at London’s Imperial College, can call the shots on a major percentage of the global population.
He’s Mr. Genius, when it comes to projecting computer models of epidemics.
Fellow experts puff up his reputation.
According to the Business Insider (4/25/2020), “Ferguson’s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘herd immunity’ [letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK] could cost 510,000 lives, prompting an abrupt U-turn [massive national lockdown in the UK]…His simulations have been influential in other countries as well, cited by authorities in the US, Germany, and France.”
Not only cited, not only influential, but swallowed whole.
Business insider continues: “On March 23, the UK scrapped ‘herd immunity’ in favor of a suppression strategy, and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was responsible.”
There’s more. A lot more.
Same BI article: “Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”
Ferguson, instigator of LOCKDOWN. Stripping away of basic liberties. Economic devastation.
So let’s look at Ferguson’s track record, spelled out in the BI piece:
“Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial, in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.”
“It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and works with the UK National Health Service, the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems’.”
Getting the picture?
Gates money goes to Ferguson.
Ferguson predicts dire threat from COVID, necessitating lockdowns—thus preparing people to accept a vaccine. The vaccine Gates wants.
Ferguson supplies a frightening computer projection of COVID deaths—to the CDC and WHO. Ferguson thus communicates a rationale for the Gates vaccine plan.
National governments surrender to WHO and CDC. LOCKDOWNS.
Business Insider: “Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [mad cow] outbreak.”
“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”
“Similarly, he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.” HELLO?
“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”
So you have to ask yourself, why would anyone believe what Ferguson has been predicting in this COVID hustle?
Are his fellow experts that stupid?
Are presidents and prime ministers that stupid?
And the answer is: This is a monumental covert op; some people are that stupid; some are caught up in the op and are afraid to say the emperor has no clothes; some are aware of what is going on, and they want to destroy national economies and lead us into, yes, a new world order.
Gates knows he has his man: Ferguson. As the recipient of tens of millions of dollars a year from the Gates Foundation, Ferguson isn’t about to issue a model that states: COVID is nothing to worry about, let people live their lives and we’ll be all right. The chance of that happening is on a par with researchers admitting they never properly identified a new virus as the cause of illness in 2019, in Wuhan.
In order to justify injecting every man, woman, and child in the world with heavy metals, synthetic genes that alter genetic makeup, a host of germs, and who knows what else, Gates needs A STORY ABOUT A DEADLY VIRUS THAT NECESSITATES SHUTTING DOWN AND IMPRISONING THE PLANET, ACHIEVING A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE.
He’s got the story, all dressed up in a computer model, composed by a man with a past record of abject and devastating failures.
Neil Ferguson is the ghost in the machine. The machine is the World Health Organization and the CDC. The man behind the ghost is Bill Gates.
ICAN has filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA calling on the agency to reverse its reckless course on Covid-19 injections for teenagers. The Petition demands that the FDA revoke its emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s product in children aged 12 through 15 and deny Moderna any future EUA for children aged 12 through 17.
The document, submitted through ICAN’s legal team, spans 20 pages, cites dozens of medical studies, and includes 94 footnotes and roughly 1,500 pages of sources, but it boils down to a few simple principles: There never was any emergency with this age group in the first place, rendering EUAs illegal under federal law; the clinical trials relied upon to authorize the vaccines were woefully deficient; almost all in the 12-15 age demographic currently have natural immunity to Covid-19; and the injury risks from injection are catastrophically higher than any purported benefit.
The Petition cites a Lancet article of March 2021 that found Covid’s death toll among children was a negligible 0.17 per 100,000 population. Since then, a large U.K. study posted in July 2021 found a Covid-19 fatality rate of just 0.005% among all those under 18. “Based on these facts, the current EUA for Pfizer’s vaccine for this population is without legal foundation or necessity,” the Petition observes, “because COVID-19 does not present a current emergency for children.”
Furthermore, the population has been developing robust natural immunity against the disease. As of February 2022, according to a study published on the CDC’s website, 75% of children aged 12-17 had developed infection-induced antibodies. NIH data showed an even higher percentage of natural protection, at 89.4%, for all children under 18. And that percentage could only have increased since.
But the gaps in FDA logic do not begin and end with its misappropriation of the word “emergency,” nor with its selective blindness on natural immunity. As our Petition reminds the agency, quoting international scientists in an August 2008 PLOS Medicine paper, “inadequately powered studies should themselves be considered a breach of ethical standards.”
The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s injection rests on a trial in which only 1,131 children received the experimental product. Yet, even among that small and statistically insignificant group, at least seven recipients “had at least one serious adverse event.” Among them was Maddie de Garay who, at 12 years old, was paralyzed from the waist down after receiving her second shot. Among a multitude of horrific injuries, she became incontinent, and can now only receive nutrition through a feeding tube.
But Pfizer recorded her life-altering reaction as mere “functional abdominal pain” in the safety-evaluation data it turned over to the FDA and has since failed to ensure adequate medical care, including an appropriate diagnosis and treatment.
Nor has the safety profile for the mRNA shots improved since their problematic trials. As early as June 2021, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) examined the growing issue of vaccine-induced myocarditis, where the heart muscle becomes inflamed and thereby weakened, especially in individuals under 30 years old. Moreover, as the Petition points out, “Moderna’s vaccine presents an even higher risk profile to this age group than Pfizer’s vaccine.”
Meanwhile, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), though vastly understating the full extent of injection injuries, had accumulated 31,549 reports of adverse events among children under 18 as of May 6, 2022. Of these, 1,812 were rated as serious and 44 were deaths. This is to say nothing of the long-term effects.
And, if the glaring safety signals were not enough for the FDA to revoke its EUA for minors, the Petition also points out that several studies now show there is virtually no benefit from these shots since their efficacy wanes dramatically within just months or even weeks after inoculation.
The FDA has played very fast and extremely loose with its EUA powers when it comes to children’s health, invoking an emergency that never existed and accepting data that was never adequate. Moreover, it has continued doubling down on its failed approach in spite of the overwhelming case against it. Numerous additional VRBPAC meetings are scheduled to discuss authorizations for additional vaccines and age groups and ICAN plans to file as many petitions as are necessary to address the concerns of each.
The FDA’s increasingly reckless actions have prompted ICAN to file several Petitions with the FDA. These include demands the agency adhere to federal law requiring promotional material for EUA vaccines to “clearly and conspicuously” state the product has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but only authorized for emergency use. We have also called on the FDA to publicly clarify an individual’s statutory right to refuse medical products without coercion, penalty, or retaliation of any kind, and we have demanded that it obtain proper data before vaccine approvals. On all counts, the FDA has failed miserably and ICAN will continue to hold its feet to the fire.
If there is a silver lining to the catastrophic Covid experience for us here in New Zealand it is the very clear and indisputable exposure of the political establishment. The green clean smiling benevolent face of the New Zealand government is nothing more than a mask – yes, a mask – behind which is harsh dictatorial mien of a government that feels no need to answer to the needs of the people it purports to govern.
During the brief but compelling and compellingly beautiful gathering of the people at Parliament earlier this year, repeated calls for governmental officials simply to meet and simply to discuss issues of import, such as their imposed mandates and societal apartheid that resulted from them, went blithely and purposefully unheeded. Not one single politician from the Prime Minister’s office on down fulfilled their good-faith political obligations by engaging with those from whom they derive their political power.
Furthermore, on the eve of the brutal and unnecessary invasion of Parliament grounds to clear the protesters, it became clear that those in office never had a wish to engage. I was a member of a small task force who the afternoon before, at 1:30 PM to be precise, had gathered in Wellington to negotiate a settlement of the impasse. The police representative who was to join us cancelled at the last minute.
Later that same afternoon I sat as an observer at a meeting of the Human Rights Commission as a number of petitioners presented evidence of the harm against fundamental human rights, evidence of police abuses and other poignant testimony about the harsh consequences of the mandates. An honest Human Rights Commissioner would have taken up the mantle of protecting those whose rights had been violated and would be violated further by violence. He didn’t.
These past two and a half years have seen those who were, during that first harsh lockdown, lauded and thanked for being ‘essential workers’ terminated from their roles as physicians, nurses, midwives and other health-care practitioners for deciding personally and for their own reasons of health and conscience that a hastily concocted genetic inoculation masquerading as a vaccine was not for them.
As a psychiatrist who worked within the system in the general Wellington region and saw firsthand the tenuous nature of mental health services – services characterised by endemic staff shortages, variable levels of skill, and a form of management style emanating from the top which I can only describe as peculiarly vicious, corrupt and inept – the termination of much-needed and highly competent colleagues was a strange, sad and ironic testament to irrationality and a cold heedlessness of the public weal.
I remember working as a psychiatrist during the first lockdown, making home visits, volunteering time at a local primary care facility when I was on leave, and generally carrying on as one would expect a doctor to do: it was no big deal and I bristled at the division of society into ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’. This division, however, was a template for the later division of New Zealand into a veritable apartheid society comprised of the jabbed and the unjabbed or, psychologically speaking, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’, the ‘clean’ and the ‘unclean’, remnants of which we may see among those who mask and those who don’t.
I note, in looking at the past, that no-one in government provided any actual evidence that could justify the extraordinary measures imposed upon the entire country: lockdowns, distancing or masks. Nor have they provided any evidence to justify their demand that all healthcare workers be inoculated to be able to work face to face with clients. Nor, of course have they been able to justify, nor can they justify or explain rationally, the imposition of an inoculation that circumvented the laborious and necessary trials over time, and that have already produced an astonishing legacy of adverse events, including death. There is not nor can there ever be a substitute for time in the testing and approval of a medical intervention. Heaven knows what will transpire among the inoculated in the years to come.
Physicians who have from the beginning set about to explore the treatment of those who were afflicted by Covid found themselves in very lonely terrain, and worse. The New Zealand government, its Ministry of Health, and allied organisations such as the Medical Council, never once encouraged prevention or treatment. When I brought the issue of treatment up at my local hospital, I was referred to a specialist who told me, simply, that there was no evidence that any treatment worked. When I took the effort to send him quite a lot of substantive evidence, he was silent.
Over these past two and a half years the foundational principles of Medicine have been obliterated by our official organisations and our Ministry of Health: the principles of informed consent, individualised treatment and doing no harm. When physicians attempted to act in accordance with these principles they were hounded, derided and officially sanctioned, losing their licences and their jobs. When physicians attempted to discuss natural immunity, the irrationality of attempting to eliminate a respiratory virus, the necessity of early treatment; when physicians attempted to engage with public officials to discuss pertinent matters of science and medicine – they were persecuted and rebuffed.
As of today there are nearly thirty thousand doctors in the Medical Council’s register. Of those thirty thousand a pittance have joined with New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out for Science (NZDSOS) to stand up for these foundational principles of our profession. I am certain that if a mere ten percent of practicing physicians in New Zealand publicly affirmed the basic principles of Medicine we would not be living through the hell of the tyranny imposed by the government in the name of what they call ‘Medicine’ but which every physician understands is merely an Orwellian caricature.
Our government’s Medicine is a world where suffering patients go untreated, where a one-size-fits-all jab that neither prevents infection nor transmission of the pathogen for which it was engineered is safe as water, where informed consent is unnecessary and where masks, despite their inefficacy, should be worn to safeguard health despite the absurdity of how they have instructed people to use them, and despite the consquences of eliminating personal identity and depriving people of their quintessentially human features and means of emotional and expressive communication.
I am repeatedly asked how so many people can participate in cruelties and absurdities, how so many people can be persuaded to overlook what their eyes and ears and hearts tell them, how so many people can go along with what is so obviously destructive to us all. The comprehensive answer might require a long essay or a book to elucidate. But here I will offer an abbreviated response.
Psychological operations like Covid work successfully by creating shock and awe, instilling fear, and inducing a response akin to something that is supernatural, that draws upon our emotionally regressive attitudes towards the miraculous, which transcends the laws of common sense or reason. The origins story of Covid and the incessant and inescapable drumbeat of deceptive case counts and death by the mainstream media worked wonders on a mainly gullible and trusting population. The inclusion of ‘supernatural’ elements, clearly seen by any analysis of the ridiculousness of the rituals of masking, are purposeful, for it is these supernatural elements that grip us unconsciously. Masking is itself a propaganda tour de force; and propaganda is, at bottom, an act of violence.
I will conclude my ruminations with two quotations, which may help to frame my remarks. The first is from Freud who, in his work on group psychology, wrote:
“ … in a group the individual is brought under conditions which allow him to throw off the repressions of his unconscious instinctual impulses. The apparently new characteristics which he then displays are in fact the manifestations of this unconscious, in which all that is evil in the human mind is contained as a predisposition.”
“ … any explanation that fails to acknowledge the actors’ capacity to know and to judge, namely to understand and to have views about the significance and morality of their actions … cannot possibly succeed in telling us much about why the perpetrators acted as they did.”
The State, as all collections of Power tend, would like nothing better than absolute control over a faceless and masked citizenry of submissive digital peasants marching in lockstep to their pronouncements.
Many people, perhaps the great majority, relatively ignorant of history and politics, are primarily occupied with ekeing out an existence amidst the harsh realities of daily living. Trusting in government, they will accept the pronouncements of mainstream media and authorities as Gospel.
There is another group who see quite clearly through the captivating irrationalities and the Siren song of propaganda, and who willingly participate in falsehoods and cruelties not only to save their skins but also to derive pleasure and profit at the expense of others.
And then there are those who speak out.
We, as inherently free and autonomous individuals, are blessed with the responsibility of choice.
Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand.
The original source of this article is Global Research
When we’re dealing with a controversial topic, it’s a good item to start with something we know and go from there. What is something that we know for sure about Covid-19 vaccines? They kill people.
Jon Rappoport pointed this out a year ago: “A new May 4 report by independent researcher, Virginia Stoner, reveals US vaccine-death figures. The report is titled, ‘The Deadly Covid-19 Vaccine Coverup.’
Stoner uses the US government’s own numbers.
Here are key quotes from her report:
‘There has been a massive increase in deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) this year. That’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’, that’s an indisputable fact.’
‘We’re talking about a huge and unprecedented increase—so massive that in the last 4 months alone, VAERS has received over 40% of all death reports it has ever received in its entire 30+year history.”
‘The increase in VAERS death reports is not due to more vaccination.’
“Most recently, the death count went from 2794 on April 5, to 3005 on April 12, to 3848 on April 26….1054 deaths in 21 days.’
‘One hypothesis…is that the elderly and infirm, many in long-term care facilities, were the first to be targeted by the COVID-19 vaccine campaign, and they are much more likely to die coincidentally. These coincidental deaths then lead to an increase in suspected vaccine-induced deaths reported to VAERS.’
‘VAERS data just does not support that hypothesis. First, because all age groups—not just seniors—had a dramatic increase in VAERS death reports from COVID-19 vaccines…Across the board, all age groups experienced a dramatic increase in deaths reported to VAERS from the COVID-19 shots—even the under 18 group, which has had very few COVID-19 shots (so far).’
Stoner constructs a chart showing reported deaths from vaccinations in years prior to COVID, and deaths reported so far from COVID vaccines.
For prior years, we’re talking about roughly 100 deaths a year from somewhere between 250 million and 350 million vaccines administered. On the other hand, we’re talking about 3800 deaths from about 150 million COVID shots—not in a full year; in only four months.
The experts would say neither death figure (100 or 3800) is alarming, given the huge number of vaccines administered. But this is a deception.
Over the years, much has been written (even in the mainstream) about what sits behind REPORTED vaccine injuries and deaths. Estimates of TRUE injury numbers range from 10 to 100 times greater than the reported figures.
3800 reported deaths from COVID vaccines would skyrocket when you estimated the true figure.
As Stoner points out in her report, public health officials, in Orwellian fashion, keep repeating, ‘The vaccine is safe and effective.’ A straightforward analysis of their own numbers completely contradicts their stance.
Likewise, the mainstream press, politicians, corporations, and celebrities are on an all-out push to convince the public that the vaccine is a) necessary and b) a marvel, if only the ‘hesitant’ people would ‘follow the science’ and see the light.
Well, some cults are small; that one is huge.
Virginia Stoner’s report is a stark refutation of the conspiracy theory the cult is promoting.
When the entire population is being subjected to a vast experiment deploying a never-before-released RNA technology; when the shot in the arm is actually a genetic treatment; when the entire field of genetic research is riddled with pretense and lies and alarming miscalculations, leading to ripple effects in overall genetic structures; what else would you expect?
Vernon Coleman asks the appropriate question: exactly how many people has the Covid vaccine killed? “No one knows how many people the vaccines are killing – or how many they will kill.
But although I haven’t seen the mainstream media mention most of these deaths, people have already died or been injured after being given the vaccine:
SHOCKING – The latest covid jab deaths and injuries from VAERS (infants, teenagers and young adults are dying after the vaccine)
openvaers.com covid data (it is estimated that only 1% of vaccine adverse events is reported)
Note: The following paragraph has now been added to the UK’s Pfizer analysis data print, ‘A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine…’ In my view, this is yet another attempt to draw attention away from the very real problems associated with the vaccines. We note that when patients die 60 days after a positive covid test, they are added to the covid death figures but if someone were to die 60 minutes after a covid vaccine, then it is just a coincidence.
PFIZER (UK data) – Some of the Injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, Bell’s Palsy, sepsis, paralysis, psychiatric disorders, blindness, deafness, shingles, alopecia and covid-19.
The following paragraph has now been added to the UK’s AstraZeneca analysis data print, ‘A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine…’ In my view, this is yet another attempt to draw attention away from the very real problems associated with the vaccines. We note that when patients die 60 days after a positive covid test, they are added to the covid death figures but if someone were to die 60 minutes after a covid vaccine, then it is just a coincidence.
ASTRAZENECA (UK data) – Some of the many injuries include: blindness, strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, sepsis, paralysis, Bell’s Palsy, deafness, shingles, alopecia and covid-19.
Derek Sloan MP raised concerns on covid-19 vaccine censorship of doctors and scientists (video – bitchute)
Moderna begins first human trials for flu shot based on new mRNA technology used to make the company’s covid-19 vaccine (article – Daily Mail)
The following is the FDA’s draft working list of possible covid vaccine side effects (see page 16 of document). This was published in October 2020 BEFORE the jab roll-out began.
Canadian whistleblowers expose 13 stillborn deaths in 24 hours at Lions Gate Hospital caused by covid-19 vaccines (article – dailyexpose.uk)
Paul Dimattina: Australian football league legend rushed to hospital after sever reaction to Pfizer booster shot (article – the covidworld.com)
Sithipol Bovornkittipaisal: 26-year-old man dies 1 day after receiving Moderna covid-19 vaccine, investigation launched (article – thecovidworld.com)
As reports of injuries after covid vaccines near 1 million mark, CDC, FDA clear Pfizer, Moderna boosters for all adults (article – childrenshealthdfense.org)
29,034 deaths 2,804,900 injuries following covid shots in European database of adverse reactions – corporate journalists have pericarditis after Pfizer shots (article – vaccineimpact.com)
Pfizer secretly adds dangerous ingredient to injection for 5 to 11-year-olds as Taiwan stops Pfizer shots for 12 to 17-year-olds (article – vaccineimpact.com)
You might wonder, even if the Covid-19 vaccine kills people, doesn’t it also save lives? But in fact it is ineffective in warding off the so-called Covid “pandemic.” Vasko Kohlmayer says, “’Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine is just 39% effective in Israel where the delta variant is the dominant strain according to a new report from the country’s Health Ministry’ we read in a CNBC report.
Astonishment is one’s first reaction when coming across this piece of information, since it was not so long ago the vaccine manufacturers claimed their products were 92 to 98 percent effective.
The manufacturers’ initial claims, however, have been steadily revised down as real-world data has been coming in. In March of this year news came from South Africa that ‘AstraZeneca vaccine doesn’t prevent B1351 Covid.’ A couple of months later, the Hill ran a piece by a Baylor School of Medicine virologist who observed:
‘A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine provides only 51 percent protection against B.1.351 of South Africa.’
Just a couple of weeks ago, we learned that recipients of the Sinovac Biotech’s vaccine have no antibodies after six months. This effectually means that merely half a year after being injected into people’s bodies the vaccine has zero percent efficacy in protecting against Covid-19.
Even factoring for the variants, the hard data makes it quite clear that the initial claims of vaccine effectiveness were greatly exaggerated. This, of course, comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the dynamic of the pharma industry. Drug manufacturers tend to wildly overstate the efficacy of their products, while doing their very best to understate their side effects. It is for this purpose they conduct trials that are manipulated to obtain the results they wish for. Sadly, they too often get away with it because of the corruption of the system by what is called regulatory capture. This is why the outcomes of manufacturers’ trials are almost never replicated by independent trials or real-world data.
This is what has apparently happened with the Covid vaccines. The manufacturers used the sense of emergency brought on by the Covid pandemic to conduct rushed and incomplete trials which were designed to yield the results they wanted to see. There is every reason to believe that the effectiveness of their injections was nowhere close to the 92-98% range they initially claimed even for the variants that were in circulation at that time.
Needless to say, one has a strong suspicion that even the meagre 39 percent figure is still overstated. This would only be natural, since everyone involved in the vaccination enterprise – the manufacturers, politicians, regulators, the medical establishment and corporate scientists – is trying their best to save face and reputation in the face of this fiasco. Bad though the data is, we can be quite sure that it has been massaged to soften the blow.
You can clearly observe this tendency at work in the CNBC piece which claims that even though Pfizer is only 39 percent effective, it still protects against serious disease. But this is simply not true, which you can easily see if you take the trouble to look into the data put out by the Israeli government. At roughly the same time that CNBC filed its report, the Israeli Ministry of Health published a bulletin which reported on Covid cases in the country. According to their data, there were 137 serious cases in Israel of which 95 were fully vaccinated and 42 unvaccinated or partially vaccinated (see here and here). In other words, the bulk of the serious cases was comprised of those who had received their shots. If the vaccine was as effective in protecting against heavy illness as the article claims, the numbers would look completely different. The figures published by the Israeli Ministry of Health shows that the claims of Pfizer’s efficacy of protecting against serious Covid are simply untrue.
This has been confirmed by the testimony of Dr Kobi Haviv, Director of Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem. In a recent TV interview, Dr Haviv stated that the fully vaccinated people account for about 90 percent of hospitalizations. Given that less than 90 percent of the Israeli population is fully vaccinated, it would appear that the vaccination not only does not prevent you from contracting the disease, but actually increases one’s chances of becoming a serious Covid case. Observes Dr Haviv: ‘yes, unfortunately, the vaccine… as they say, its effectiveness is waning.” And so it is, indeed. Dr Haviv’s interview is on YouTube so you can hear the truth straight from his mouth. It will be interesting to see how long it will take for the Establishment Censors to take it down.” See this.
But there is worse. Everybody knows how sensitive and delicate small children are. Now the monsters want to give them the killer jab too! Let’s listen to Kohlmayer again:” “’CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccine boosters down to age 12,’ says a recent CBC news headline.
The article opens as follows:
‘Millions of Americans between the ages of 12 and 15 can now get a booster shot of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, after the CDC formally adopted new recommendations backed by a majority of the agency’s outside vaccine advisers. The CDC now says that Americans as young as 12 who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine should receive a third dose as early as five months after their first two shots. The agency’s officials said that enough time has passed for around 5 million adolescents to be eligible’
‘Why in the world are they doing this?’ one asks in disbelief.
Three basic facts have been well established by data and studies:
Healthy children are at virtually zero risk of serious Covid.
The vaccines will not prevent children from contracting the virus.
Covid injections carry risk of serious side effects.
According to a cost-benefit analysis conducted by Toby Rogers, Ph.D., in the 5 to 11 age range, 117 healthy kids will have to die of vaccine-related side effects in order to save one child from perishing of Covid 19.
A study from Japan has shown that young people are seven hundred percent more likely to be killed by Pfizer jabs than by Covid.
We have been repeatedly told that we must follow facts and science when dealing with this pandemic.
The science on vaccinating children against Covid-19 is in, and it could not be any clearer: while healthy children are at negligible risk from the disease itself, they are at real risk from the shots.
Since the vaccines do not stop infection and transmission, they will protect neither children nor their communities from the spread of the virus.
It makes not scientific or medical sense to give them these shots. Vaccinating children for SARS-CoV-2 violates both the tenets of good medicine and evidence-based science.
According to Dr Robert Malone, who is one of the world’s preeminent vaccine scientists, the cost benefit analysis is not even close.
Those who want to vaccinate children follow neither the science nor logic. Subjecting children to Covid jabs needlessly exposes young lives to potentially grave risks.
The incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis may be as high as 1 in 317 in the young, especially boys, and increases further with each additional dose.
Then there is a danger of deadly blood clots as well as several other serious conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Astonishingly, scores of children have already been injected with two doses that turned out to be ineffective, which is the reason a booster is now required.
The booster, however, already looks to be even more useless than the original offering. The booster, in fact, appears to have negative efficacy which means that those who receive it seem to be more likely to contract the virus.
Soon we will have a multitude of 12-year-olds who will have received three of these pointless and dangerous shots without any medical justification whatsoever.
Robert Kennedy, Jr. said that injecting children with the Covid vaccines is a crime. He is not incorrect.
A number of children have already been killed by the vaccines.
Historic Decision Against Mandatory Vaccination by Italian Court — Judge Declares in Her Decision That Covid Vaccines Are Producing Very Serious Adverse Effects & Thousands of Deaths
On July 6th, 2022, the court of Florence has approved a sentence annulling the measure taken by the Order of Psychologists of Tuscany against one of its members, the reason being: ‘the suspension of the exercise of the profession risks compromising primary individual rights such as the right to a livelihood and the right to work’.
The judge ruled that the psychologist doesn’t need to be vaccinated in order to do his job by establishing that:
these substances don’t prevent infection and transmission. Therefore, in front of the Italian law, there can not be an obligation.
She also recognises that these substances provokes severe adverse events. Therefore, it even less legitimate to force anybody to be injected.
The judge put the dignity of the human being at the centre and referred twice to the period of Nazism and Fascism. Mandatory vaccination is possible if there is informed consent. For Covid injections, she explained that an informed consent is not possible as we don’t know the ingredients and the mechanisms of these substances because of industrial and alleged military secret.
This interim decision is grounded in serious conclusion: there is no right to suspend a citizen from the right to work based of this illegal request of vaccination with these experimental substances.
With this historic court decision, “the Risk to human genome is now legally established” Renate Holzeisen, attorney for the plaintiff, said in an interview for an Italian radio.
“This could be a milestone” said Reiner Fuellmich during the Corona Committee 113, interviewing Renate Holzeisen.
No Obligation as the official data show that these experimental substances don’t prevent infection and transmission amongst people treated with 3 or more Covid shots.
First of all, the judge declares that based on the datas published by the Ministry of Health, AIFA (Italian Medicines Agency) and the SSN (Italian Health Services), it is very clear that these substances (aka Covid vaccines), defined several times by the judge as “experimental”, don’t prevent infection from the virus. For a mandatory vaccination, the substances should be proven to work.
Therefore, as they don’t work, in front of the Italian law, there can not be an obligation.
Doctor leading the intensive care in Verona has declared in television that all Covid patients in intensive care are people treated with 3 Covid shots.
Nobody can be forced to be injected as these substances provoke severe adverse events and this is based on official public data regarding adverse events.
In the court decision, the judge also recognises that these substances cause very serious side effects that can even lead to death, and also refers to the risk of genetic mutation.
Therefore, it even less legitimate to force anybody to be injected.
The Dignity of the human being is at the centre. Mandatory vaccination is not possible because there is NO informed consent due to industrial and alleged military secret regarding the ingredients and the mechanism of these injections.
Even if these substances would work to prevent these infection, after the Nazi and fascism period, it can not be a mandatory without an informed consent.
The judge stated that there is no benefit for these substances BUT even if there was a benefit, we can not sacrifice the individual right in the name of the common interest, and put the dignity of the human being at the centre.
The judge referred twice to the Nazi and fascism period, to the Italian Constitution article 32 highlighting that there is a reason why Dignity is at the centre of the first article of the German constitution.
She explained that an informed consent is not possible as we don’t know the ingredients and the mechanisms of these substances (industrial and alleged military secret).
We should recall a group of Human Rights Italian activists who presented a Freedom of Information Act to the EMA and to the Italian Cares Authority asking for clear informations about the ingredients and the safety of these experimental substances aka Covid injections. As an answer, the EMA said that no information can be shared as there is a military secret in place.
In his decision, the judge stated it: no information are available about these substances and even if we ask for information publicly, we don’t receive it. There is no informed consent.
In this historic decision, the Tuscan judge concluded that based on all these, the discrimination of this psychologist and his suspension from work is totally illegal. Without hearing the other part (Chamber of Psychologist in Tuscany), she declared that there is no time to spend anymore for this psychologist who has been suspended last October 2021. Evidence is so clear.
This interim decision is grounded in serious conclusion: there is no right to suspend a citizen from the right to work based of this illegal mandatory vaccination with experimental substances. A future court hearing will take place on September 15th, 2022, when the judge will rule based on what the chamber of psychologists will present. But the judge shows as well that there is no need to go to the constitutional court as we know that these substances (aka Covid-19 vaccine) don’t prevent infection. In front of the Italian law regarding mandatory Covid vaccination, it is enough to say the suspension from labour of healthcare workers is illegitimate because these substances don’t do what the constitution request.
During the last 2 years, we saw incredible decisions where judges says that they can not take decisions going against governmental decisions. Mandatory vaccination for all workers and people over 50 are already in place in Italy, even if official data regarding severe adverse events show the danger of these substances. This happens in a country where ongoing advertising campaigns sell Covid vaccines as “safe and effective” – ie. Prime Minister Mario Draghi and President Sergio Mattarella, have declared several times that only people who get these treatments will survive and the others will dye and be responsible of the Covid deaths.
After two years of Covid pandemic – in which many have fought to defend their freedom and rights – ‘a great judge and a great sentence’ open a new glimmer of hope. This is the first decision with which an Italian judge declared the material truth and the imposition of the treatment is radically illegitimate.
In this short advocacy documentary piece, narrator Lawrence Fox explains a disturbing trend which has crept into children’s education in the West, as he exposes the worrying degree to which politicised, divisive ideologies – including gender theory, critical race theory, queer theory and “transgender toolkits” – are being taught to our children through Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PSHE). How has this been allowed to happen, and what can parents do about it?
Reclaim the Media has provided the documentary at their YouTube channel (watch above). Because YouTube eventually censors so many videos that challenge the controlled agenda, we are sharing a mirrored copy (courtesy of QR Archive on Odysee) as an alternative platform for viewing the video.
Guitarist Who Lost 8 Fingers After J&J Vaccine Tells Rfk, Jr.: People Have to Be Held Accountable
On a recent episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” guitarist Jeff Diamond described having eight fingers amputated and losing his singing voice after developing blood clots about a week after getting the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.
On July 9, 2021, Jeff Diamond, a professional musician, vocal instructor and backup guitarist, got the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine.
About a week later, Diamond was found unconscious in his apartment and taken to a local hospital in Minnesota, where he remained in a coma for three weeks.
The condition caused doctors to amputate eight of his fingers, without his knowledge or consent, while he was still in a coma.
Diamond, a guest on the July 5 episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” told Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., he got the vaccine only because he’d been performing at an event in Atlanta, and didn’t want to risk infecting his mother.
“I was taking care of my mother, and that’s the only reason I got the shot in the first place,” Diamond said.
When Diamond awoke from the coma, he also found himself intubated, which impaired his singing voice.
With his kidneys barely functioning and his balance thrown off by all the medications he was prescribed, Diamond lay in the hospital for another three weeks until he was able to go into a nursing home.
While in the nursing home for six weeks, Diamond’s feeding tube burst open and he was rushed to an emergency room. “Blood was gushing out of my stomach,” he told Kennedy. It “almost killed me.”
A doctor in Minneapolis saved his life, but Diamond told Kennedy he’s been “in pain with these fingers ever since.” Diamond was fitted with prosthetic fingers, but while “they may look great,” he said, “they’re not working out for playing the guitar.”
Diamond’s singing voice has “bounced back a bit,” he said, but not all the way.
And it’s “all from, I believe, the Johnson & Johnson shot,” Diamond said.
Now, a year after he was injured, Diamond said he’s taking things day by day, and hopes to someday play guitar again.
More importantly, though, he wants to get the word out about what happened to him.
“What happened to me … I don’t want to see this happen to anybody else,” Diamond said. “I think it’s a crime … People have got to be held accountable.”
Watch the podcast here:
Rachel Militello has worked extensively as a legal assistant at law firms and newspaper companies. She is also a self-published author of poetry that is geared toward mental health awareness.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
In a move Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland called “head-spinning,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.
In an FDA press release, the agency said full approval of Comirnaty follows a “rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data,” and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”
Pfizer’s press release announcing the approval said the Comirnaty vaccine has been available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) since May 2021 for the adolescent age group.
Yet, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S for any age group and is not the same formula as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine currently authorized under EUA and being distributed as a “fully approved” vaccine.
“The approval of Comirnaty for adolescents 12 to 15 is head-spinning,” said Mary Holland, president and general counsel for Children’s Health Defense.
Holland added:
“The FDA failed to convene an expert committee and failed to appropriately weigh the risk-benefit profile of this vaccine for this age group. Even Vaccine cheerleader Dr. Paul Offit acknowledged FDA decisions are being made based on political pressure, not science when, in commenting on the agency’s vote last week to allow reformulated booster shots, he said it felt like ‘the fix was in.’”
Holland said that at base, “this is a move by pharma to ensure liability protection” under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Some states likely will attempt to put Comirnaty on the childhood vaccine schedule, despite the myriad known and unknown risks, Holland said.
“Pfizer‘s fraud and collusion with government is becoming more evident by the day,” Holland said. “CHD, already challenging the authorizations for those six months through age 11, will be at the forefront of challenging this approval for teenagers.”
Efficacy claims based on old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds — before Delta, Omicron variants
Pfizer said Friday’s approval is based on data from a Phase 3 clinical trial of 2,260 participants ages 12 through 15.
About half of the participants, “elicited SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs)” demonstrating “strong immunogenicity in a subset of adolescents one month after the second dose,” Pfizer said.
It is unknown what happened to antibody levels after one month, but peer-reviewed research suggests vaccine protection conferred by second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine wanes rapidly against the Omicron variant.
“Our study found a rapid decline in Omicron-specific serum neutralizing antibody titers only a few weeks after the second and third doses of [the Pfizer-BioNTech] BNT162b2,” said the authors of a May 13 study published in JAMA.
To further support its claim that Comirnaty is effective in the 12 to 15 age group, Pfizer used an old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds conducted before the Delta and Omicron surges.
“The efficacy analysis was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021, which was before the Delta and Omicron surges,” and the “only SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern identified from the confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was Alpha,” Pfizer said in its press release.
FDA experts question neutralizing antibodies as standard for vaccine effectiveness
During a June 28 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), vaccine experts raised concerns that neutralizing antibodies did not correlate to clinical protection — noting Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had a two-fold increase in neutralizing antibody levels compared with Pfizer’s vaccine during clinical trials, but it did not translate into a clinically significant difference in terms of protection against severe disease.
Dr. Ofer Levy, VRBPAC member and infectious disease physician at Boston Children’s Hospital, said during the meeting there is still “no established correlate of protection,” referring to the level of antibodies needed to confer protection.
“You have a lot of data now,” Levy told Pfizer. “What is your relative protection?”
“I would say there is no established correlate of protection,” Kena Swanson, Ph.D., vice president of viral vaccines at Pfizer, told Levy.
Levy said:
“I would like to hear from FDA what their overall approach will be around improving our understanding of correlate protection. We spend a good amount of time reviewing antibody data. We have no doubt antibody data is important. We don’t have a level of antibody that anybody is comfortable stating is correlated [with] protection.
Levy, who said antibodies are important, but T cells are more important, called for federal leadership to establish a “standardization of the T-cell assay and encourage or in fact require the sponsors to gather that information.”
“So what is the effort to standardize the pre-clinical assays?” Levy asked. “This is an effort that’s critical not just now but for future cycles of vaccine revision. If we aren’t able to define a standard for correlate protection we are fighting with one arm behind our back.”
Dr. Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, acknowledged the importance of Levy’s question and said they are “having conversations” with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health and throughout government about how they might move forward, but it is something they “don’t have an answer to yet.”
Marks said as vaccines are developed in the future, it will “become even more important” to define a standard of correlate protection because “we won’t be able to have a large naive population to vaccinate with newer vaccines.”
“We will need to understand the T-cell response better,” Marks said. “I take your point, it’s just that we haven’t solved the problem yet.“
Comirnaty not available in the U.S.
According to Pfizer’s press release, Comirnaty was previously made available to the 12 to 15 age group in the U.S. under EUA and 9 million U.S. adolescents in this age group have completed a primary series.
“The vaccine, sold under the brand name Comirnaty for adults, has been available under an emergency use authorization since May 2021 for the 12-15 age group,” Reuters reported. “It will now be sold under the same brand name for adolescents as well.”
Yet, Pfizer’s information hotline says it has no specific information on when Comirnaty will be available.
The FDA said Friday the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be, authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”
The CDC’s website states that Comirnaty is “not orderable.”
A branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services overseeing the Strategic National Stockpile indicated Comirnaty was not available because Pfizer did not have time to change the labels.
According to FDA documents, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S. and nobody has received a fully approved and licensed COVID-19 vaccine.
“Comirnaty has not been made available under EUA,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, physician and senior science editor for The Defender.
Setty added:
“The FDA and Pfizer have already stated very quietly, that they have no intent of manufacturing Comirnaty for distribution. Everyone is getting the non-licensed formulation that carries no liability for pharmaceutical companies.”
The CDC website confirms this, stating the Comirnaty formulation “will not be manufactured or made available in the near term even if authorized.”
CHD challenged FDA on Comirnaty ‘approval’ for adults
As The Defender reported, there were “several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval” that proved confusing — which led to CHD suing the FDA over its approval of Comirnaty.
The FDA acknowledged that while Pfizer had “insufficient stocks” of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine, there was “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under EUA — still available for use.
The FDA said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under EUA should remain unlicensed but could be used “interchangeably” with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.
The FDA also said the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were “legally distinct,” but proclaimed their differences did not “impact safety or effectiveness.”
Yet, there is a “huge real-world difference” between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.
EUA products are experimental under U.S. law and cannot be mandated. A licensed vaccine, such as Comirnaty, can be mandated by employers and schools.
Although Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine can be mandated, it has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say “Comirnaty” on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.
Only COVID-19 vaccines distributed under EUA — which in the U.S. includes Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — have liability protection under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP).
Under PREP, the only way an injured party can sue a pharmaceutical company for an injury caused by an EUA vaccine is if he or she can prove willful misconduct and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.
Comirnaty cannot receive liability protection unless it is fully approved for children and added to the CDC’s immunization schedule bringing it under the auspices of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty vaccines aren’t interchangeable
The FDA on Oct. 29, 2021, authorized a manufacturing change to allow an additional formulation of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) used in the originally authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
The FDA on Dec. 16, 2021, approved a supplement to the Comirnaty BLA to include a new 30 mcg dose formulation that uses the Tris buffer instead of the PBS buffer used in the originally approved vaccine.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may contain either the PBS buffer or tris buffer, except for the 5 to 11 age group. The Comirnaty vaccine contains the Tris buffer.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine used for the 5 to 11 age group uses a Tris buffer, despite clinical trials having been conducted using Pfizer’s vaccine containing the PBS buffer.
According to Pfizer’s July 8 press release, the FDA relied upon studies conducted prior to the formula change to justify the approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine for adolescents ages 12 to 15.
The type of buffer used in a COVID-19 vaccine can affect the potency of the vaccine, how it is stored and the propensity to develop potential adverse events, TrialSite News reported.
It is unknown if tromethamine will harm an unborn baby, but animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus, and there are “no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans.”
“The FDA-evaluated manufacturing data [to] support the change in this inactive ingredient and concluded it did not impact the safety or effectiveness of the product,” Marks, said during an October 2021, press briefing.
According to the FDA’s Letter of Authorization, reissued on Oct. 29, “analytical comparability assessments” revealed the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine formulations containing Tris and PBS buffers were “analytically comparable.”
Yet, no human or animal trials were conducted to determine the safety or efficacy of the new formula.
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
TCTL editor’s note:
Brief excerpt from the interview:
Dr. David Rasnick:
The prevalence of cancer, the increase of cancer worldwide is due to the increase in carcinogens in our environment…
Jerm (Jeremy Nell):
Hold on, Dave. So, are you saying that, for example, during the time of the Roman Empire, cancer would have been… cancer prevalence would have been very low?
David:
Yeah. Pretty close to zero.
Jerm:
Wow. Okay. That’s interesting.
David:
Even before the industrial revolution it was pretty close to zero,
The industrial revolution increased carcinogens, pollutions in the environment. Almost all cancer, almost all cancer, is due to environmental carcinogens — poisons that we put in the environment.
Jerm:
And could those poisons also be perhaps childhood vaccinations?
David:
Oh, Lord, yes… My goodness yes. Our environment includes what we breathe, what we eat, what we’re exposed to, what we inject in ourselves…
David Rasnick is a biochemist with decades of research in AIDS and cancer, and returned to my podcast to discuss cancer and why most of what we’re told is wrong.
Cancer is an extremely complex subject, so I’d recommend reading his summary article in which he outlines, in fairly layman language, the foundation of his argument.
Basically, it’s known as Aneuploidy Theory, and it is in stark contrast to the current Big Pharma model of cancer. Obviously, Aneuploidy Theory is “discredited” and dismissed, as a result. But, as pharmaceutical scientist Mike Donio said, the pharmaceutical industry is untrustworthy and thrives on sick people and unscientific methodology.
David’s conversation is worth watching because he used slides, but it’s possible to get by with audio only.
Uruguay suspended COVID-19 vaccines for children under 13 after a judge on Thursday issued an injunction halting vaccinations in that age group until government officials turn over its contracts with Pfizer.
Uruguay suspended COVID-19 vaccines for children under 13 after a judge on Thursday issued an injunction halting vaccinations in that age group until government officials turn over its contracts with Pfizer.
Uruguayan government officials and Pfizer were ordered on Wednesday to appear in court after judge Alejandro Recarey gave them 48 hours to present detailed information on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine while the court considered an injunction request to halt COVID-19 vaccinations for children 5 and older.
The government said a confidentiality clause in the contract prevents it from producing the documents, The Washington Post reported.
According to ABC News, the judge received answers to 18 questions about the safety and chemical composition of COVID-19 vaccines, signed by Health Minister Daniel Salinas, but did not turn over the contracts.
It is unknown whether the answers provided by government officials adequately addressed the questions posed by the judge, who ultimately ordered an injunction based on what was provided.
Salinas, after the court’s ruling, strongly defended the government’s vaccination plan and criticized the judge for questioning the safety of vaccines.
Alvaro Delgado, the secretary of the presidency, said the halt is a threat to public health.
“We’re convinced that it’s crazy to suspend voluntary vaccination because it has a strong scientific backing,” Delgado said at a news conference.
Vaccinations for those older than 13 will continue, the Health Ministry said in a statement.
The government plans to appeal the decision, according to ABC News.
As The Defender reported Wednesday, judge Recarey of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal used his inquisitorial powers to demand the Uruguayan Ministry of Public Health, State Health Services Administration and the President’s Office submit all information regarding the contracts for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, including contractual information related to any clauses of civil indemnity or criminal impunity of the suppliers in the event of adverse effects.
Uruguayan government officials and Pfizer were ordered to appear in court Wednesday to provide documents for review regarding vaccine ingredients, adverse effects and contracts shielding the pharma giant from liability.https://t.co/A9RZs1FXyA
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 7, 2022
The judge is seeking, among other things, to know whether there are clauses in the contracts that promised pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer civil and criminal immunity for adverse effects caused by their vaccines.
Judge Recarey posed a series of questions to government officials and Pfizer regarding the chemical composition, efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, and required Pfizer to state whether it has “admitted, in any area, internal or external to it and its partners, the verification of adverse effects” of its COVID-19 vaccines in children.
Biotech/Pharmaceutical Chemist Mike Donio on the Tyranny of Medical Dogma: Exposing the Corruption, Lies, and Medical Fraud in the Pharmaceutical Industry
to California State University’s Leemon McHenry exposing pharmaceutical companies who buy medical journals in order to peer-review their own research, in order to invent fake diseases, in order to sell unnecessary products (such as the HPV vaccine),
America’s most cited cardiologist, Peter McCullough, said this week that he no longer trusts any Flu shot, due to the unbelievable corruption within the pharmaceutical industry.
But the fact that humanity is in an abusive relationship with its governments, is only one part of the problem. There’s a long history of cults infiltrating polite society. The cult of personality of Lenin and later Stalin once captured an entire nation. But never in history has the entire world fallen to a cult.
Del Bigtree has revealed how the American government (including the CDC and FDA) collude with Big Pharma for monetary gain, particularly where safety trials are concerned. Or rather, the lack of safety trials.
Roman Bystrianyk co-authored a book called Dissolving Illusions, in which they use official data to show how, over the last century, no vaccine has worked in the way promised by the pharmaceutical industry and governments. Every vaccine was introduced way after its respective disease was on its way out. Measles, for example, was around 97% eradicated before its vaccine hit the market.
The point is that the pharmaceutical industry is untrustworthy, and few scientists are as close to the action as Mike Donio.
The Army confirmed on July 1 that tens of thousands of military Guard and Reserve soldiers can no longer participate in training or receive benefits, as Army faces recruiting crisis.
About 60,000 Army National Guard members and Army Reserve soldiers who refused to comply with a Department of Defense (DOD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate are no longer allowed to participate in their military duties and were cut off from some of their pay and benefits, Army officials announced July 1.
Of the more than 40,000 members of the Guard who remain unvaccinated, 14,000 have said they do not intend to ever receive a COVID-19 vaccine, Guard officials told CBS News.
Approximately 22,000 Reserve soldiers have refused to get vaccinated.
“Soldiers who refuse the vaccination order without an approved or pending exemption request are subject to adverse administrative actions, including flags, bars to service and official reprimands,” an Army spokesperson said in a statement.
If the soldiers continue to refuse to get vaccinated, the consequences could be even more severe.
“In the future, Soldiers who continue to refuse the vaccination order without an exemption may be subject to additional adverse administrative action, including separation,” the Army spokesperson said.
Despite the military’s deadline, the services said they wish to continue to work with the remaining holdouts as commanders face increased anger from critics concerned over a recruiting crisis that has left Defense Department officials struggling to fill the ranks.
According to Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), the Army is having “significant trouble filling its ranks” while simultaneously discharging soldiers who refuse to get vaccinated.
As of mid-April, the Army had “discharged 255 soldiers for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine and is on track to give another 2,500 to 3,000 the boot before the end of the year — a number roughly equivalent to two or three Army battalions,” Johnson wrote on his website.
Six Army officers, including two battalion commanders, have been relieved of command, while 3,330 active-duty soldiers have been issued written reprimands for refusing to get vaccinated.
“The Army priority remains vaccinating all soldiers to maintain readiness. In determining this policy, Army leaders considered the unique realities of each component,” Reserve spokesman John Bradley told U.S. News & World Report.
“Reserve component commanders are working through a deliberate process in as few as two days per month with geographically dispersed Soldiers to ensure they become fully vaccinated.”
Soldiers will be allowed to come on duty and earn their pay if it’s for the purpose of getting vaccinated or to take part in separation procedures. Part-time soldiers with a pending medical or religious exemption request may train with their units and collect pay and benefits, but exemptions are not being approved.
To date, only six Guard soldiers across all states and territories have received medical exemptions out of 53 who submitted requests, according to Army data. No Reserve soldiers have received a medical exemption.
No Guard or Reserve soldiers have been approved for a religious exemption despite nearly 3,000 requests.
The Army National Guard and Army Reserve deadline to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was June 30 — the final deadline among all the service branches subject to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s mandate issued last August.
According to internal documents shared with The Defender, 280,678 Army National Guard members are fully vaccinated (84.6%), and 7,735 have received one dose (2.3%) leaving 43,269 (13%), who have not yet received a single dose.
In some states, such as Oklahoma, the vaccination rate for Guard members is as low as 74.11%.
The document lists 15,698 members as “refusals” and 6,749 (2.0%) as going through an exemption process — with 6,257 (1.9%) requesting a religious exemption and 492 (0.1%) requesting a medical exemption.
The document also notes that 80% of unvaccinated Guard members are age 32 or younger, with an average age of 26.2 and median age of 24.
According to CBS News, vaccine compliance among Army National Guard members is the lowest in the U.S. military — the rate among active-duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps is 97% or greater and the Air Guard uptake is about 94%.
Pfizer Ordered by Uruguayan Judge to Report Composition of Covid-19 Vaccines Including Any Presence of “Graphene Oxide” or “Nanotechnological Elements”
According to a recent ruling by an Uruguayan judge, the government and the pharmaceutical company Pfizer must provide all the information they have on the COVID vaccine’s biochemical composition, including any evidence of “graphene oxide” or “nanotechnological elements,” as well as proof of the vaccine’s efficacy and safety.
Administrative Litigation Court (TCA) Judge Alejandro Recarey made the order in response to a request to suspend the immunization of children from 5 years of age in Uruguay.
According to the court order released on Saturday, Judge Alejandro Recarey ordered the Presidency, the Ministry of Public Health, the State Health Services Administration (ASSE), and Pfizer to present all the information on Covid-19 vaccines within 48 hours, El Observador reported.
“A hearing will be held on Wednesday at 9:00 am where representatives of all the agencies and the company must appear,” the news outlet added.
According to the decision, the Executive and the US laboratory must provide documentation on the composition of the vaccines, including the possible presence of “graphene oxide” or “nanotechnological elements”.
Data is also requested that demonstrates the “harmlessness” of “the substance called messenger RNA” and that proves with studies by the US agency of the United States, the FDA, “the experimental nature” of the vaccines.
The magistrate asks that the authorities “explain whether alternative anticovid-19 therapies have been studied” and “if not, clarify why these solutions were not explored,” according to the document.
The contracts signed between the government and Pfizer are also subject to scrutiny to see if they contain clauses “for civil indemnity or criminal impunity for suppliers regarding the occurrence of possible adverse effects,” among other details.
The court decision also requires explanations as to whether studies have been carried out “aiming to explain the notorious increase in deaths from covid-19 as of March 2021 in relation to the previous year.”
“Very especially, Pfizer will be instructed to state within 48 hours – with the provision of documentary data if applicable – if the company has admitted (…) the verification of adverse effects of vaccines against the so-called Covid-19. In general, and also in detail regarding the child population,” says the document.
Although originally ignored as cell debris, it is increasingly evident that exosome release is regulated and occurs via an energy-dependent pathway. Exosomes are believed to ferry proteins, mRNA, and miRNA cargos through the bloodstream and other body fluids, shielding them from enzymatic degradation—a process that some retroviruses may hijack to travel beneath the immune system’s radar.”
During the past two plus years, exosomes have become a hotly discussed topic among those questioning the “virus” lie. This is primarily due to Dr. Andrew Kaufman bringing them to prominence in his original video questioning the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” Even though these entities have been known about for the last 40 years, many people, including myself, had either never heard of these particles or had not paid much attention to them. Dr. Kaufman did a great job showcasing how the particles known as exosomes are the exact same particles associated with “SARS-COV-2” as seen in EM images. They were just given different names and functions.
With this new spotlight on exosomes, many people who had begun questioning the “viral” narrative replaced the “virus” concept with the exosome concept. It appeared to them that this was just a case of mistaken identity. The harmful pathogenic “viruses” were being misidentified this whole time and were in fact just beneficial exosomes carrying information between the cells.
While they rightfully questioned the evidence for the existence of “viruses” and also understood that the same particles are used as representation for both “viruses” and exosomes, these people latched on to the belief that the evidence for the existence of exosomes somehow passed the scientific smell test. They believe that, unlike “viruses,” exosomes have been purified, isolated, characterized, and that their functions have been scientifically proven. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Exosomes/”Viruses:” Same Particles, Same Faulty “Science”
I have written many articles on the inability to completely purify and isolate exosomes from “viruses” and other particles of similar size and density. This is a fundamental problem for exosome and “viral” research as without being able to separate the particles assumed to be exosomes from those claimed to be “viruses,” there is no way to be able to study either independently, distinguish them from any of the other particles, nor to characterize the particles properly. This problem was expressed in the article Extracellular Vesicles and Viruses – Two Sides of the Same Coin?:
“How can we be sure that we are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped viruses present in thesample? Equally, how can viral researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized non-viral vesicles or empty vectors during vaccine production?”
Somehow, people are under the impression that exosomes can be completely separated from everything else. While it is true that exosome researchers will put their samples through greater purification steps than those seen in “virus” research, it is admitted regularly by these researchers that complete separation can not be achieved by the current methods, even with the “gold standard” ultracentrifugation:
“Unless more specifically defined, it is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry viral proteins, host proteins, and viral genomic elements from enveloped viral particles that carry the same molecules.”
“Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension [56,57]. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs [56,58,59]. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.”
“Since it is near impossible to separate EV from virions by biochemical methods, the absence of EV is typically demonstrated by the absence of EV protein markers.”
Even if the researchers combine purification methods, they are unable to entirely separate the particles claimed to be exosomes from everything else. If they are unable to get the particles they claim are exosomes away from “viruses” and other similar particles of the same size, density, and morphology, this would mean any electron microscope image of the particles in question are useless as they could potentially be anything, as I have shown in numerous articles discussing these problematic images. Yet an even bigger problem is that due to the nature of EM, the particles called exosomes can only be seen in a dead state. As we can not peer into the body to see these particles at work, their functioning can not be observed. What they do or if they even float around in the body as presented is anyone’s best guess, as pointed out in the opening quote to this article as well as in numerous other sources:
“Exosomes, once thoughtto be biomarkers of a diseased state are now thought to be biologically active and some of the paracrine effects of stem cell therapy.”
“First, they are thought to provide a means of intercellular communication and of transmission of macromolecules between cells. Second, in the past decade, exosomes have been attributed roles in the spread of proteins, lipids, mRNA, miRNA and DNA and as contributing factors in the development of several diseases. And third, they have been proposed to be useful vectors for drugs because they are composed of cell membranes, rather than synthetic polymers, and as such are better tolerated by the host.”
“Yet despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology.”
As can be seen from the above sources, the role that the particles claimed to be exosomes play in the human body is thought to be one of intercellular communication and transport. They have been attributed roles and have had functions proposed. However, even after decades of research, researchers still do not know what these particles do. They only have guesses, assumptions, and hypotheses. In fact, the particles now called exosomes were originally regarded as nothing more than cellular debris created through the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“They were initially thought to be “cellular dust” or served as a mechanism by which cells actively dispose of their own waste [3].”
When cells die, they go into a programmed cell death known as apoptosis where the cell begins to break apart and collapse which then releases tiny particles of cellular debris and waste. This process is separated into 5 main steps:
The last step listed above is the release of what are called apoptotic bodies. What are apoptotic bodies?
“Apoptotic bodies, “little sealed sacs” containing information and substances from dying cells, were previously regarded as garbage bags until they were discovered to be capable of delivering useful materials to healthy recipient cells (e.g., autoantigens) [23].”
The particles called apoptotic bodies, which can range in size anywhere from 50 to 5000 nm, were considered “garbage bags” containing information from dying cells until they were “discovered” to carry useful materials to healthy cells. Where have I seen this description before?
Exosomes: Revisiting their role as “garbage bags”
“Fifteen years ago, we proposed that one physiological function of exosomes could be a clearance process, whereby exosomes would serve as a quality control system to verify the “recyclability” of membrane molecules.”
“At first exosomes were thought to function as “cellular garbage bags”, but now these nano-sized extracellular vesicles are being studied for their role in progression and metastasis.”
This description of tiny particles which were considered garbage bags that also transport information and cargo between cells can be applied to both exosomes and apoptotic bodies. In fairness, these particles both fall under the larger umbrella term of extracellular vesicles. However, there is much more blurring the lines between these particles other than their definitions. It is stated that they both fall into the same size range (along with ectosomes and “viruses”) and that understanding and completely distinguishing these entities based on their differences has been overlooked:
“There are other types of microvesicle, including apoptotic bodies and ectosomes, which are derived from cells undergoing apoptosis and plasma membrane shedding, respectively. Although apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomesare all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain ‘gulps’ of cytosol, they are different species of vesicles and understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked.”
This blurring of the line does not stop there. In an article from January 2020, it is discussed that exosomes are in fact released by apoptosis thus showing that exosomes and apoptotic bodies are both created from the same cell death process. This is further evidence that they are in fact the same exact particles just at different stages and given different names and functions:
“Apoptosis, a type of programmed cell death that plays a key role in both healthy and pathological conditions, releases extracellular vesicles such as apoptotic bodies and microvesicles, but exosome release due to apoptosis is not yet commonly accepted. Here, the reports demonstrating the presence of apoptotic exosomes and their roles in inflammation and immune responses are summarized, together with a general summary of apoptosis and extracellular vesicles. In conclusion, apoptosis is not just a ‘silent’ type of cell death but an active form of communication from dying cells to live cells through exosomes.”
They want you to believe that the slightly bigger circle is different from the slightly smaller ones.
Why is this connection between apoptotic bodies and exosomes important? As both have been coined garbage bags and considered cellular debris/waste that occur during cell death, it can be seen that these particles, if they represent anything at all, are just waste material from dying cells which serve no purpose whatsoever. This makes much more sense logically rather than assigning functions which can not be observed onto these dead particles which can only be seen after heavy sample altering processes such as fixation, dehydrating, staining, and embedding which are used for electron microscopy preparation. It is important to note that exosomes, like “viruses,” are regularly “isolated” through the process of cell culture. Many of us who challenge the evidence for the existence of “viruses” state that the particles seen in EM are most likely nothing more than cellular debris created through the culturing process. While the cell is kept outside the body in unnatural conditions, it is bombarded with antibiotics, antifungals, foreign DNA/materials, minimal nutrients, and physiologically unsuitable conditions. After being incubated for days, the cell is usually blasted with fresh heapings of many of the previously listed components and incubated further until the cell begins to break apart. While the cellular breakdown observed has been coined the cytopathogenic effect, it is a part of the process of cell death that is blamed on the invisible “virus.” And it is a fact that this very process of cell culturing can lead to the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“Apoptosis is a genetically regulated process by which cells can be eliminated in vivo in response to a wide range of physiological and toxicological signals. Cells in vitro may be induced to die by apoptosis, e.g., by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media.”
Hmmm…those particles coming from both healthy and apoptotic cells sure look similar…
Thus, it should be easy to see that these particles which have been called exosomes, apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, “viruses,” etc. are created from the very cell destroying processes that the cell is put through in order to find the particles later in EM imaging. They are not the cause of the cell death but are the effect; a creation resulting from the process. Once the sample is put through purification steps such as ultracentrifugation and ultrafiltration, the bigger cellular debris particles are broken apart and eventually separated into smaller particles through unnaturally high g-forces and various chemical means. These particles are further altered during preparation for EM imaging and are presented as many different entities with varying theoretical functions applied to the same dead waste products.
The Exosome Concept
We already know that “viruses” began first as an idea in the early 1900’s once it was discovered that bacteria were unable to be blamed for every disease and were also found regularly in healthy subjects. It was assumed that there must be something smaller than bacteria in the fluids causing disease. The concept of the “virus” came before there was ever any evidence submitted for the existence of this invisible entity. Over 100 years later, we still have no direct evidence as to the existence of “viruses,” only indirect evidence used to infer their existence. And so it goes with exosomes which also started off as a concept before the entities were ever indirectly inferred into existence:
“The concept of exosomes was first proposed by Trams et al (1) in 1981, while soon after, exosomes were identified in a study of reticulocyte differentiation as a consequence of multivesicular endosome fusion with the plasma membrane.”
As I was intrigued by how the idea of exosomes came about, I decided to break down the 1981 Trams paper in order to see what I could find out. What you will see, upon reading this study, is that just like their “viral” counterparts, the particles claimed to be exosomes were first visually recognized in cell culture fluids. In this study, many cell lines were used to look for the particles eventually picked as the representation for exosomes. They included:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
The researchers noticed that in their studies on two enzymes, ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases, these enzymes were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. Due to their measuring of these two enzymes in the cultured cell media, the researchers decided to go looking for a cause. They proceeded to passage many cell lines and regularly tested the enzyme levels. The researchers eventually filtered the superfusate and subjected it to electron microscopy. After fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde, they discovered two populations of vesicles; one which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter and another within the larger vesicles which was a population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm. They then determined that these particles were the cause of their enzymatic effect without ever directly proving this by utilizing the scientific method.
Interestingly, upon finding these various particles, the researchers admitted that the vesicles could be fragments from the dying of lysed cells. Lysis is the breaking down of the membrane of a cell which is said to be caused by “viral,” enzymic, or osmotic mechanisms. In other words, these particles claimed as exosomes were possibly caused by the same process which creates “viral” particles when the cell breaks down as well as that which releases apoptotic bodies as the cell dies from apoptosis. This means that exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, etc. are all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experimentation. They were just given different names and functions by different researchers.
Trams et. al attempted to state, through indirect compositional differences based off of enzymatic readings of unpurified preparations, that these particles were not the product of lysed cells. However, they admitted that their smaller particles resembled vesicles “purified” from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resembled C-type “virus” particles. In other words, exosomes resembled “viruses” (which come from lysed cells) and the same exact particles were being found everywhere, not just in virology studies. These particles were being found in entirely healthy cell lines and in cultures containing no “viral” material whatsoever. Oddly enough, upon trying to find these same particles in the blood, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles were present in the circulation. As the results came only from the cell culture process, the researchers wondered if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo (i.e. within a living organism)?
Obviously, this revelation of finding “virus” particles in healthy cultures would destroy the cell culture technique as being valid for “viruses” (even though John Franklin Enders admitted to finding measles “virus” particles in cultures without measles material). This type of study actually shows that “virus-like” particles are found within cell cultures without “viral” material, thus serving as a control of sorts for virology, the likes of which it regularly ignores. This obviously could not stand so these particles had to be something new. While no proof for the functioning of these particles was provided, a hypothesis was established. The researchers concluded that the intercellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which they harvested from cell culture superfusates. As this could be a possibility, they decided to refer to these particles as exosomes rather than “viruses.” Thus the exosome concept was born.
The full 1981 Trams paper is presented below:
Exfoliation of membrane ecto-enzymes in the form of micro-vesicles
“Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell lines exfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture. The ratio of 5′-nucleotidase to ATPase activity in the microvesicles indicated that cellular ecto-ATPase was conserved in the exfoliative process. Phospholipids of the microvesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and total polyunsaturated fatty acids. It was concluded that the shedded vesicles constituted a select portion of the plasma membrane. Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm and often contained asecond population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter. As much as 70% of the plasma membrane ecto-5′-nueleotidase activity of a culture was released into the medium over a 24-h period. Phosphoesterhydrolases from C-6 glioma or N-18 neuroblastoma microvesicles dephosphorylated cell surface constituents when in contact with monolayer cultures. Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes.
Introduction
Plasma membrane ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases have been found and characterized in a variety of eukaryotic cells and it is probable that each enzyme subserves more than one function on the cell surface. Both enzymes exhibit a broad specificity for the base moiety of nucleotide substrates [1] but it is not established that ATP or AMP are the predominant endogenous substrates. Ecto-ATPases have the properties of glycolipoproteins and are rather firmly bound to the plasma membrane, while ecto-5′-nucleotidases are composed of glycoprotein which appears to be collocated with sphingomyelin in situ and can be removed from the membrane matrix by fairly mild procedures [2]. During our investigations on the functional roles of these two ecto-enzymes we have observed that ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) and 5′-nucleotidase (EC 3.1.3.5) were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. We established that this release was not caused by cytolysis of moribund cells. The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which are probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo has not been established.
Methods and Materials
Cell cultures. Cell lines employed in this study were established cultures (e.g. mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3; rat glioma, C-6; mouse melanoma, B-16), or derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures (rat aorta, RA-B; mouse astroblast, D-34) or grown from biopsy material (human melanoma, CL; human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN). Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks (Falcon Plastics, Oxnard, CA) or on 530 cm 2 NUNC Bioassay dishes (A/S NUNC, Roskilde, Denmark). Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subcultured by trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels. In particular, we have used the term ‘low passage’ for the rat glioma cell line C-6 when the parent cell was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD) at the earliest available passage (P-38). During repeated passage of this line we have observed over a number ofyears that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased. The term low passage is used for the C-6 line for P-38 to P-55 and high passage for passages P-65 to P-160.
Enzyme assays. ATPase activity was assayed on intact monolayer cultures or on isolated vesicles by a modified method of Weil-Malherbe and Green [3] by addition of [r 32p] ATP (New England Nuclear Corp., Boston, MA) to a superfusate buffer or to the vesicle suspension. The activity of 5′-nucleotidase was determined in a similar manner with [32p]AMP as substrate (New England Nuclear Corp.). Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component. Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media. We have used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured.
Lipid analyses. Phospholipid distribution in intact cells or extruded vesicles was estimated by two-dimensional TLC of a chloroform-methanol extract (2:1, v/v) according to Rouser et al. [4]. After development of the chromatogram, the TLC plates were charred with 50% (NH4)HSO4 and phosphate content of individual spots was determined by the method of Nelson [5]. For fatty acid analysis, aliquots of total lipid extracts were evaporated to dryness and methylated with BFa in methanol according to Morrison and Smith [6]. The fatty acid methyl esters were resolved and quantified on a Hewlett Packard 5840 gas chrom7atograph employing an SP 2330 column operated at 190°C.
Results
We have found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells. When a comparison was made between the ratio of ecto-5′-nucleotidase to ecto-ATPase activity in several cell lines and the activity of the two enzymes released into medium over a 24-h period, it was found that there was a proportionately larger release of 5′-nucleotidase (Table I). As we shall demonstrate below, the released enzymes had been derived from the corresponding plasma membrane ecto-enzymes. The relative preponderance of 5′-nucleotidase over ATPase in the microvesicles, compare ratios (1)/(2) to (3)/(4), indicated that either the ATPases were more labile, or that they had been conserved. When the decay of the catalytic activity of the released enzymes was measured by continued incubation in cell-free medium, it was found that 5′-nucleotidase lost from 3 to 20% of its activity in 24 h while the released ATPase averaged a catalytic loss of about 33% in the same period. Therefore, while the ATPases were somewhat more labile than the 5′-nucleotidases, the 2- to 13-fold enrichment of 5′-nucleotidase in the released microvesicles suggested a conservation of plasma membrane ecto-ATPases.
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% ofmeasured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number. With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed. While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable tostatistical treatment.
The results diplayed in Table II on the release of 5′-nucleotidase from a variety of cell lines should be viewed as representative. Release of the enzyme was found to be low from the NB-41A3 mouse neuroblastoma clone and highest in a primary culture derived from neonatal mouse astroblasts (D-34). Only in superfusates from mouse melanoma B-16 was there no measurable enzyme activity released into superfusates, but there was also no detectable ecto-5′-nucleotidase in the monolayer cultures. The rate of enzyme accumulation in the superfusates was linear with time in low density cultures but increased somewhat when cell density was high as shown for two separate duplicate experiments on the rat glioma cell line (Fig. 1). The rate of ATPase accumulation (not shown in Fig. 1) was very similar to that obtained with 5′-nucleotidase. The C-6 glioma culture generally exhibits a high ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity at low passage but the specific activity of the ecto-enzyme does not change substantially over a 30-h period (Fig. 1).
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium. The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds; in C-6 glioma cultures the extrusion of enzyme was inhibited by 93 +_ 3% in the presence of 10-6M concanavalin A. With 10 -s M cycloheximide, inhibition was 32 + 24% over a 24-h period. An increase of enzyme extrusion was found in the presence of 10 -6 M colchicine (141 + 35% over control) or when the medium contained 0.5 ug. m1-1 of cytochalasin B (95 -+ 43% over control).
Filtration of superfusates showed that from 97 to 99% of 5′-nucleotidase activity was retained on 0.22 um filters while about 80% passed through an 0.45 um filter. The released enzyme activity was particulate and the particles could also be harvested by centrifugation. In Fig. 2, we show residual medium ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase after subjecting superfusate from glioma cultures (C-6) to increasing centrifugal forces. Cellular debris and unattached cells sedimented at or below 5 • 10^3 • gh (Sorvall SS-34 rotor at 10 a Xg for 0.5 h). The particulate enzymes contained in those supernates could be collected by centrifugation at high speeds. For routine collections of extruded enzyme, the Sorvall supernates were centrifuged for 90 min in a Spinco Ti-70 rotor at 310 000 × g. The small gelatinous pellet could be removed in toto or resuspended in buffer. ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous. Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles, one of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1 000 nm in diameter. Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm (Fig. 3).
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case. Analysis of a representative high speed pellet of 6.5 mg protein from rat glioma superfusates yielded 5′-nucleotidase activity of 1.003 panol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • mg -1 protein, while marker enzymes for other subcellular particles were virtually absent. Activities of glucose-6-phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.9), cytochrome c oxidase (EC 1.9.3.1) and N-acetylhexosaminiclase (EC 3.2.1.52) were nil and (Na ÷, K+)-ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) was low (25 nmol • min -1 • mg -1 protein). The 5′-nucleotidase/LDH ratio in C-6 conditioned medium was several fold higher than in cell homogenates and there was no DNA detectable in sedimented vesicles. A comparison of the optimal requirements for divalent cations of the released ATPase showed that stimulating and inhibitory concentrations of Mg 2+, Ca 2+ and Mn 2+ were identical with those required for the respective monolayer ecto-ATPase. Ecto-5′-nucleotidases have a high binding affinity for concanavalin A and about 70% of the nucleotidase activity of C-6 conditioned media was retained by a Sepharose-4G-Con A column, suggesting also a similarity between the ecto-enzyme and the released enzyme. Analysis of vesicle pellets from glioma superfusates disclosed an RNA content of about 5% and lipid content of 30 to 40%. Two-dimensional TLC of vesicle phospholipids [4] gave a pattern which was different from that of lipid extracts of whole cells and from plasma membrane preparations in which 5′-nucleotidase was enriched about 8-fold (Table III). The vesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and decreased phosphatidylinositol. Comparison of total lipid fatty acid composition of whole cells with vesicles showed that the latter contained increased palmitic acid and total polyunsaturated fatty acids and decreased oleic acid. These compositional differences were further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells.
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude (Table I).Both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation ofATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggests that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Another plasma membrane marker GM 1 (as measured by cholera toxin binding) was not conserved (Salem, N., Lauter, C.J. and Trams, E.G., unpublished results). This may indicate, that ecto-5′-nucleotidase and ecto-ATPase do not serve an interdependent function on the cell surface, as for instance in the catabolism of translocated cytoplasmic ATP [2].
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them. Cells transfer substances to target cells in order to support discrete functions and examples of trophic substances are fibroblast- or nerve growth-factors [7,8].
Our working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role ina recognition and/or transport process. For instance, the carbohydrate moiety of ecto-5′-nucleotidase might serve as an address which was recognized by a recipient cell and the catalytic moiety of the enzyme would serve to dephosphorylate a receptor constituent and thereby facilitate a transfer mechanism between vesicle and cell. To test this hypothesis, mouse neuroblastoma cells (N-18) were incubated with 32Pi-containing medium with the intent to label cell surface phosphorous-containing compounds. After removal of the isotopic incubation medium, the N-18 cultures were first washed with unlabeled medium and then vesicle suspensions harvested from C-6 glioma conditioned medium were added; normal culture medium served as a control. There was a significant increase in 32p release into the medium (over background 32p diffusion from the cells) when gila-derived vesicles were in contact with the neuroblastoma monolayer cultures (Table IV). In another experiment, 32P-prelabeled C-6 cultures were superfused with either C-6 or with N-18 vesicles. There was a larger release of 32p when glioma cells were incubated with N-18 derived vesicles than when they were incubated with homologous vesicles which suggested that there were either quantitative or qualitative differences between the two experiments. We have no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but the experiments indicate that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place.
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which we have studied so far, we conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation. Plasma levels of 5′-nucleotidase may be elevated significantly in several diseases [9,10] and the enzyme might normally or pathologically be derived from plasma membranes. We assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma. We assayed heparinized blood from 16 randomly selected patients and found plasma 5′-nucleotidase activities ranging from 3.4 to 26 nmol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • m1-1 plasma. Only a minor fraction of that activity was sedimentable, however, or retained on Millipore filters and there is at present no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation.
Discussion
Our observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells. The accumulation of as much as 70% of plasma membrane 5′-nucleotidase in microvesicular form in the medium over a 24-h period suggests a fairly high membrane tumover. This is not extraordinary, because it has been calculated that macrophages and L-cells were capable of interiorizing the equivalent of their cell surface every 33 and 125 min, respectively [11]. Replacement of apical plasma membrane in the lactating mammary gland requires formidable capapcity for membrane synthesis [12] and replacement of exfoliated membrane is a requirement that presumably is easily met by most cells. We have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells. The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggests that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane. The substantial enrichment of sphingomyelin in the microvesicular fraction supports this contention. A similar fmding of increased sphingomyelin in extracellular membranous vesicles associated with a murine ascitic leukemia was reported by Van Blitterswijk et al. [13]. Microvillous membrane accumulation in media of cultured chick embryo intestines was observed recently by Black et al. [14] and extracellular membrane-invested vesicles have been described by Anderson [15]. The latter particles appear to play a role in mineralization processes and they have been referred to as matrix vesicles. Their size ranged from 300 to 1000 nm and it was postulated that they were derived from the plasma membrane of chondrocytes by budding [15]. Their lipid composition was very similar to that of chondrocyte plasma membrane [16] and similar to the lipid composition of the vesicles which we have collected from rat glioma cultures. The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from our rat glioma culture superfusates suggest that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin. The smaller population has some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain [17] or from calf, rat and rabbit brain [18], while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type virus particles (Todaro, G., personal communication).
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells. We also have recently found that isotopically labeled constituents of the microvesicles can be transfered to recipient cells (Trams, E.G., Lauter, C.J. and Salem, N., unpublished results) and the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo? Inter-cellular transfer of a quantum of material by means of vesicles has been recognized in neurochemical transmission and there is evidence that metabolic cooperation by packaged transfer of substances may occur elsewhere, such as the transport of macromolecules between glia and neurons [19-21]. It is also conceivable that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell. Such an effect was observed when exfoliated vesicles from a B-16 mouse melanoma subline were fused experimentally with cells from another B-16 subline [22]. Attempts are made currently in several laboratories to design packaged substances for targeted therapeutic use. As an example, liposomes are provided with an organ-specific address [23] and it is hoped that such models will find application, for instance in the treatment of metabolic dystrophies by enzyme replacement. Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments. The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates. In a preliminary report we have suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes [24].”
doi: 10.1016/0005-2736(81)90512-5.
All the same particles created from the same process.
In Summary:
Exosomes and “viruses” can not be separated from each other(as they are the same particles) which has created a problem for researchers: 1. How can exosome researchers be sure that they are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped “viruses” present in the sample?
2. How can “viral” researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized “non-viral” vesicles or empty vectors?
It is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry “viral” proteins, host proteins, and “viral” genomic elements from enveloped “viral” particles that carry the same molecules
To date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation of these particles does not exist
Exosomes have been disregarded as cellular debris and as garbage carriers and were once thought to be biomarkers of a diseased state
They are now thought to be biologically active
Despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology(i.e. it is all guesswork)
Other particles said to be garbage bags as well as carriers of cellular information are apoptotic bodies created during apoptosis, a process of cell death:
Cell shrinks
Cell fragments
Cytoskeleton collapses
Nuclear envelope disassembles
Cells release apoptotic bodies
Apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomes are all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain cytosol
Understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked
Cells in vitro (i.e. cell culture) may be induced to die by apoptosis,e.g.,by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media
The exosome concept was created by Trams et. al in 1981
Exosomes were first “discovered” in cell cultures and were admitted to potentially be cellular debris
In other words, exosomes=”viruses”=apoptotic bodies=cellular debris
Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell linesexfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture
Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm andoften contained a second population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter
Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes
In other words, the particles came from cell cultures and ranged anywhere from 40 to 1000 nm, showing that these were not purified preparations of a single substance
During the investigations on the functional roles of two ecto-enzymes, the researchers stated that they “observed” that ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines
They claimed to have established that this release was not caused by cytolysis (the dissolution or disruption of cells, especially by an external agent)of moribund cells
The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which were probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo(in the living body)had not been established
In other words, they found particles in the size range of “viruses” which they decided were not a product of cell disintegration by pathological means and assumed they were different and provided functions without direct proof
Cell lines employed in this study were:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks
Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subculturedby trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels
During repeated passage of the rat glioma cell line C-6, they observed over a number of years that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased
Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component
Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media
They used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured
They found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% of measured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number
With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed
While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable to statistical treatment
In other words, the results related directly to the cell line used and the amount of passages performed and duplication was not satisfactory after a few months
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly(i.e. there was a change) by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds
Thus we can see that adding compounds can alter the results obtained
ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous(i.e. it was a mixed population of different particles)
Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles:
One of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter
Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm
FYI: exosomes are said to be anywhere from 30-150 nm meaning this was not strictly the presumed exosomes in the mixture, i.e. not purification/isolation
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but they excuse this conclusion due to the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h as they claim this would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case
They looked to compositional differences to provide further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells(yet, without purifying and isolating the particles, how would compositional differences be ascertained…?)
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude
They claim both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are said to be classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation of ATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggested that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them (i.e. the particles looked the same as those found in cultures from the brain)
The working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role in a recognition and/or transport process
They carried out two experiments to test this hypothesis and concluded that they had no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but they felt the experiments indicated that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which were studied, they conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation
They assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma
After testing, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation
The researchers felt that their observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells
They claimed to have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells(which they admitted to be a conceivable possibility)
The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggested that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane
The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from their rat glioma culture superfusates suggested that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin
The smaller population had some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type “virus” particles
In other words, they found the exact same particles seen in animal brain cultures as well as “viruses” but assigned them a different name and function based on indirect chemical results from mixed unpurified preparations coming from cell cultures
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells
They stated that the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo?
In other words, they did not know whether the process they created in their culture soup actually occurs within a living organism
It is also conceivable(i.e. capable of being imagined) that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell(sounds like a “virus…”)
Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments
The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates
In a preliminary report they suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes
“Viruses” and EV’s sure seem to blur the lines here.
“Since vesicles resemble viruses, the question of course is whether the first extracellular vesicles were primitive viruses and the viruses learned from extracellular vesicles or vice versa.”
“Viruses can replicate and vesicles cannot. But there are many variants in between. Where do viruses start, and where do extracellular vesicles start?”
We need to be careful replacing one fraudulent theory with another. Sadly, many have fallen into this trap of scraping the “virus” concept and replacing it with the exosome concept. What they do not realize is that these two concepts are built upon the same fraudulent foundation. Both are tied to the cell culture process and come from the same cell death initiated by toxilogical overload. This is why researchers are having a hard time separating not only the particles but also their theoretical functioning from each other. When the lies become overly complicated, they begin to entangle with each other and the illusion begins to fall apart.
Whatever name you want to call them, the broken down cellular debris known as exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, etc. are all the same particles consisting of the same size, density, and morphology. They are assigned different names and functions based on the researchers looking at them. While they are claimed to be separate entities, the particles are unable to be purified and isolated from everything else in order to be independently studied and characterized. Their functioning can not be observed within a living organism thus the same particles are given theoretical roles within the body based on the researchers performing the experiments. None of these particles have met the burden of proof of being established through rigorous testing and adherence to the scientific method. As they can never be observed in nature and must be created to be “seen,” they fail the very first criteria. As they can not be separated, they fail at being a valid independent variable. Without a valid independent variable, cause and effect can not be determined. This means that the scientific method can not and is not being applied to these particles. Thus all of the indirect evidence accumulated for this cellular debris assuming multiple identities is nothing but pseudoscientific fairy tales.
Yates Hazlehurst, who developed autism after receiving his childhood vaccines, was the first and only vaccine-injured plaintiff to make it to a jury. The 20-year process revealed major flaws in a system that is supposed to compensate children for vaccine injuries.
In a riveting legal battle spanning two decades, William Yates Hazlehurst (“Yates”) on Feb. 2, 2022, became the first vaccine-injured person with a diagnosis of autism to reach a jury since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 (the Vaccine Act) became law.
In a medical malpractice case filed in the Madison County Circuit Court in Tennessee, attorneys for Yates argued the clinic and physician who administered Yates’ vaccines, including the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on Feb. 8, 2001, should be held liable for medical malpractice and the neurological injuries Yates developed after being vaccinated.
Although the jury decided in favor of the physician — who Yates’ father said failed to adequately inform the parents of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had an active ear infection — the case exposed major flaws in a system designed to protect children and shield pharmaceutical companies and physicians from liability for vaccine injuries.
“In the fight to end the autism epidemic, we were all hoping for the one knockout punch that would bring the truth to light and help end the autism epidemic,” Yates’ father, Rolf Hazlehurst, said.
“This medical malpractice trial was the only opportunity in the last 35 years for a jury to hear evidence in a court of law regarding whether a vaccine injury can cause neurological injury, including autism.”
Hazlehurst, who is a senior staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said “unless the Vaccine Act is repealed, my son is probably the only vaccine-injured child with a diagnosis of autism who will ever reach a jury.”
The Hazlehurst case was a medical malpractice case against the doctor who administered the pediatric vaccines that, in the opinion of the world’s top experts, sent Yates, now 22, spiraling into the depths of severe, non-verbal autism.
Although the case was originally filed in 2003, it didn’t receive its day in court for 19 years because a separate case involving Yates’ injury first had to work its way through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
When Yates’ medical malpractice case was finally heard, the trial exposed alarming evidence about autism and vaccines, the low standard of care practiced by physicians administering pediatric vaccines and financial conflicts of interests between pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines and government agencies entrusted with vaccine safety.
During the trial, the world’s top experts in the field of autism and mitochondrial disorder explained how the administration of “routine” childhood immunizations can cause autism, brain injury, and many other disorders.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, autism is a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how people interact with others, communicate, learn and behave. Symptoms can be severe and usually manifest before a child turns 3, which coincides with the age children receive the most childhood vaccines.
Increasing evidence indicates a significant proportion of individuals with autism have concurrent diseases such as mitochondrial dysfunction, abnormalities of energy generation, gastrointestinal abnormalities and abnormalities in the regulation of the immune system.
Yates’ medical malpractice trial illuminated how vaccines can cause autism in children with mitochondrial disorder and showed how the Vaccine Act — which is designed to ensure informed consent and compensation to injured children — is an abject failure because it’s largely unenforceable.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. , Lane Hodges and Yates Hazlehurst.
Yates was normal until he received his 12-month vaccines
During the first year of his life, Yates developed typically and met all of his developmental milestones.
“He was a happy, healthy and normal child,” his father said.
After his 6-month shots, Yates experienced a severe screaming episode approximately 24 hours after receiving the DTaP, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines.
In the days following his vaccinations, Yates began to experience seizure-like shaking episodes.
But his parents didn’t realize their son’s symptoms were consistent with a severe vaccine adverse reaction because they were not given a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at their pediatrician’s office.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a VIS is an information sheet produced by the CDC that explains both the benefits and risks of a vaccine to recipients.
“Federal law requires that healthcare staff provide a VIS to a patient, parent or legal representative before each dose of certain vaccines,” the CDC website states.
Instead of providing the VIS, Yates’ physician told his parents any adverse event to a vaccine would be “almost immediate” — within 5 to 15 minutes after vaccination.
Before Yates’ first birthday, his mother and aunt took him to the doctor because he had been sick, and his parents wanted to make sure it was okay for Yates to have a birthday party.
Hazlehurst told The Defender this appointment was not a scheduled well-child check. It was a sick visit. At the appointment, Yates was diagnosed with an ear infection and prescribed an antibiotic.
As the pediatrician turned to leave, he stated Yates would receive his shots, as it was close to his first birthday. A woman returned to the room who portrayed herself to be a nurse, but Hazlehurst later found out was only a medical assistant.
Yates’ mother asked the “nurse” whether their son should receive his shots despite being sick and was told he should.
Once again, they were not given a VIS form informing them of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had a fever and an active ear infection.
“By administering vaccines to a sick child, the doctor and his clinic could charge a “modified double bill” Hazlehurst said.
That day, on Feb. 8, 2001, Yates received the MMR, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines. Twelve days later, Hazlehurst said his son experienced a high fever, rash and vomiting consistent with a vaccine adverse reaction.
Hazlehurst called the clinic where his son received his vaccine and talked to the doctor on call who asked him which vaccines Yates received. Hazlehurst responded, “whatever you get when you’re a year old.”
Hazlehurst was told his son was having an adverse reaction to the antibiotic and the doctor wrote him a prescription for a different antibiotic and an anti-fungal medication.
Soon after, Yates began to lose the skills he once had and began developing abnormally. He lost his speech, started running wild, was constantly on the go and would knock things off the table.
“He was visually ‘stimming’ off the falling objects and running with his head down for the visual stimulation,” Hazlehurst said.
He explained:
“It was not like he got the shots and boom, the next day he was autistic. That’s not the way it happened. The mitochondria produce the energy to the connecting tissue in the cells in the brain, and if they don’t get enough energy for a short period of time (as short as 6 seconds), cellular death occurs.
“The brain keeps developing, but it cannot develop normally because the connecting cellular tissue has been damaged. That’s why it takes time to manifest. It’s like watching grass grow. It’s happening, but you don’t realize it’s happening.”
Yates’ condition worsened. He developed an obsession with spinning objects, became a picky eater, started hand-flapping and toe-walking, became unable to sleep and exhibited gastrointestinal and multiple other medical and neurodevelopmental issues, Hazlehurst said.
Hazlehurst searches for answers to his son’s autism
According to federal law, there are specific recording requirements for vaccine medical records, and healthcare providers must provide records to a parent upon request.
Hazlehurst, on June 21, 2002, requested a copy of his son’s original vaccine records so other physicians could evaluate, diagnose and treat Yates.
Hazlehurst had questions about the American Academy of Pediatrics’ standard of care and wanted to know why his son was vaccinated while he was sick with a fever.
In response to Hazlehurst’s request and questions about Yates’ care, the pediatrician rushed out of the room and called his attorney, Hazlehurst said.
The doctor and clinic denied Hazlehurst’s requests to review and receive copies of his son’s original vaccine records, forcing him to petition the court for Yates’ records.
The court granted the request, and the local sheriff’s department seized Yates’ medical records from the doctor’s clinic.
Hazlehurst quickly realized there were problems with his son’s vaccine record, which was on an unsigned consent form that had a billing code sticker placed over the language regarding the risks and benefits of vaccines and vaccine information materials.
Hazlehurst said he never received a VIS form and Yates had been vaccinated without informed consent.
Hazlehurst files claim with the NVICP for son’s vaccine injury
Hazlehurst, like many parents of vaccine-injured children, pursued a claim with the NVICP as federal law requires. The process took nine years — from 2002 to 2011.
In order to bring a case in a court of law, the parents of a vaccine-injured child must first file their case with the NVICP.
The NVICP is a special, no-fault tribunal housed within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that handles injury claims for 16 federally recommended vaccines. To date, the court has awarded more than $4 billion to thousands of people for vaccine injuries.
In the NVICP, America’s legal system is replaced by a “special master.” The special masters who review claims are government-appointed attorneys, many of whom are former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys.
Under the NVICP, the parents of vaccine-injured children are forced to sue the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for compensation. HHS is represented by DOJ attorneys.
It is exceptionally difficult to obtain compensation within the NVICP, Hazlehurst said. The proceedings are often turned into drawn-out, contentious expert battles and the backlog of cases is substantial. Because of this, a single case can drag on for over a decade.
Payouts, including attorneys’ fees, are funded by a 75-cent tax per vaccine. There is a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering and death benefits.
The Vaccine Act established the NVICP, and the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al later guaranteed vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other vaccine administrators almost always have no legal accountability or financial liability in civil court when a government-recommended or mandated vaccine(s) causes permanent injury or death, Hazlehurst said.
The NVICP ultimately denied Yates’ claim, but his case against HHS became a central part of the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.
Yates’ case in the NVICP was part of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), in which 5,400 claims submitted to the NVICP were consolidated to determine if vaccines cause autism and if so, under what conditions.
“HHS whittled down the thousands of cases to six “test cases,” one of which was Yates’ case,” Hazlehurst said. “If HHS could find a way to deny NVICP compensation to the test cases, the agency would be able to deny compensation to all 5,400 families.”
Hazlehurst said HHS and the DOJ “took advantage of the fact that the rules of evidence, discovery and civil procedure mechanisms available in a regular court do not apply in the so-called vaccine court, and perpetrated fraud upon the special masters, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The special masters on Feb. 12, 2009, in the so-called vaccine court, denied Yates’ petition for compensation and those of the five remaining OAP “test cases” involving children who developed autism after receiving their pediatric vaccines.
HHS makes key concession in Hannah Poling case
The potential fourth test case — Hannah Poling’s — was quietly conceded in 2007, in a corrupt coverup to conceal the opinion of the HHS expert witness, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, the world’s leading expert in autism research, Hazlehurst said.
When Poling was 19 months old, she was vaccinated against nine diseases at one doctor’s visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and Haemophilus influenzae type b. In total, she received five vaccines.
Prior to receiving her vaccines, Poling was described as normal, happy, healthy, interactive, playful and communicative. But two days after being vaccinated, she was lethargic, irritable and febrile, and within 10 days she developed a rash consistent with vaccine-induced chicken pox.
Over the course of several months, Poling stopped eating, didn’t respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, developed neurological and psychological disorders and was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by an underlying mitochondrial disorder.
In 2003, Poling’s father, Jon, a physician and trained neurologist, and mother, Terry, an attorney and nurse, filed an autism claim against HHS under the NVICP for their daughter’s injuries.
During the OAP, in the Poling case, the government quietly conceded vaccines caused “regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
According to CBS News, Poling received more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care, lost earnings and pain and suffering for the first year alone. After the first year, the family was supposed to receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Poling’s care, which is estimated to amount to $40 million over her lifetime.
Jon Poling on March 6, 2008, said, “the results, in this case, may well signify a landmark decision with children developing autism following vaccinations.”
Prior to the Poling case, federal health agencies and professional organizations had reassured the public vaccines didn’t cause autism. The Poling case challenged that narrative, which is why the case was conceded and in essence sealed.
HHS’ concession that Poling developed autism as a result of a vaccine injury briefly became international news. Yet, only a handful of people knew why the government conceded Hannah’s case.
When news of the concession in Poling v. HHS was made public in March 2008, Dr. Julie Gerberding, then-director of the CDC, in an interview with CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta said:
“We all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids, so if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, then if you are predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage — some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”
If HHS had not conceded her case, the truth as to how vaccines cause autism in some children with an underlying mitochondrial disorder would have been exposed by the world’s leading expert witnesses in the spotlight of the OAP, Hazlehurst said.
“The vaccinations Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
Zimmerman was an expert witness for the government defending vaccines in the NVICP. In 2007, during the hearing in the first test case, he told the government vaccines could cause autism in “exceptional” cases, but said the government later hid that information and misrepresented his expert opinion.
In a 2018 letter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel, and Hazlehurst meticulously described the DOJ’s fraud pertaining to the misrepresentation of Zimmerman’s opinions in the OAP and requested an investigation.
“The Office of Inspector General passed the buck to the DOJ Department of Ethics,” Hazlehurst said. “The DOJ investigated itself and wrote a highly misleading letter absolving itself of any wrongdoing.”
“Shortly after I clarified my opinions with the DOJ attorneys, I was contacted by one of the junior DOJ attorneys and informed that I would no longer be needed as an expert witness on behalf of H.H.S. The telephone call … occurred after the above-referenced conversation on Friday, June 15, 2007, and before Monday, June 18, 2007. To the best of my recollection, I was scheduled to testify on behalf of H.H.S. on Monday, June 18, 2007.”
As a result of his firing, Zimmerman was not present for the Hazlehurst OAP proceedings, which allowed DOJ attorneys to misrepresent Zimmerman’s statements related to a separate autism case and apply them to all cases of autism, including Yates’ case.
Over the years Hazlehurst has repeatedly stated, “I want to be very clear, neither the Polings nor Dr. Zimmerman did anything wrong.”
“But,” he added, “if I did to a criminal, in a court of law, what the United States Department of Justice did to vaccine-injured children, I would be disbarred and I would be facing criminal charges.”
Zimmerman did testify as an expert witness on behalf of Yates in the medical malpractice case filed against Yates’ doctor, which was finally heard by a Tennessee court in February 2022.
Research by Zimmerman and others determined that at least 30%-40% of children with a diagnosis of regressive autism suffer from a mitochondrial disorder, which is a condition with which Yates was later diagnosed.
Yates in ‘perfect position’ to file lawsuit after exhausting remedies in NVICP
After exhausting all remedies under the NVICP — a process that took 25 years — the legal floodgates were then open, Hazlehurst said.
But because no one could sue the vaccine manufacturer, the only vaccine-injured child — out of thousands of cases originally included in the OAP — left with legal standing was Yates Hazlehurst and his claim of medical malpractice against the pediatrician who oversaw the administration of his vaccines.
Ultimately, the same medical experts, including Zimmerman and Dr. Richard Kelley, former director of the Genetics Department at Johns Hopkins Medical Institute — whose testimony HHS and the DOJ relied on in the Poling concession — concluded that what happened to Hannah Poling is what also happened to Yates Hazlehurst.
In an affidavit which was not admissible in the 2022 medical malpractice trial, Kelley stated:
“I also find, with a high degree of medical certainty, that the set of immunizations administered to Yates at 11 months while he was ill was the immediate cause of his autistic regression because of the effect of these immunizations to further impair the ability of his weakened mitochondria to supply adequate amounts of energy for the brain, the highest energy-consuming tissue in the body.”
Zimmerman’s expert opinion on the cause of Yates’ neurological condition was consistent with Kelley’s opinion.
Throughout the medical malpractice case, opposing counsel representing the pediatrician continuously echoed the CDC slogan, “vaccines do not cause autism.”
Hazlehurst said:
“In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof that the defendant deviated from the local “standard of care” or the defendant failed to obtain informed consent and that the deviation from the standard of care or failure to obtain informed consent caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
“The plaintiff must prove the standard of care, breach of the standard of care, the standard for informed consent and lack of informed consent through the testimony of an expert witness.”
“The issue of informed consent was hotly contested,” Hazlehurst added. “To a large degree, the trial was about whether and to what extent the federal laws applied at all to the standard of care.”
Yates’ father alleged the pediatrician deviated from the standard of care by administering vaccinations when his son had contraindications to being vaccinated.
Hazlehurst alleged the standard of care would include taking a sick baby’s temperature before administering vaccinations and believes the doctor failed to recognize that the “shaking episodes” as recorded in the medical records were consistent with a vaccine adverse reaction that should have been considered before further vaccinations were administered.
“Most people would be shocked if they witnessed the evidence presented by the defense to the jury as to just how low the requirements for informed consent and the standard of care are for the administration of childhood immunizations,” Hazlehurst said.
The defense experts testified the standard of care did not require taking a sick baby’s temperature before administering a vaccine, that he could be vaccinated even while ill and with an active bilateral ear infection, while on antibiotics and after suffering screaming and shaking episodes following previous vaccinations, he added.
Yates prohibited from presenting key expert witnesses
Medical malpractice cases are very difficult to win, and finding a pediatrician who is willing to testify in a vaccine injury case like Yates’ is extremely difficult, Hazlehurst said.
“Through the course of Yates’ long medical and legal journey, several doctors expressed that Yates should not have been vaccinated in his condition,” Hazlehurst told The Defender.
“However, they would not agree to testify. Most of the experts who refused to testify expressed fear of the negative professional consequences if they testified in an autism case,” he said.
Yates was also limited on the expert witnesses he could call due to Tennessee rules that determine which experts may testify about the local standard of care.
“These rules along with an extreme reluctance of pediatricians to testify in an autism case severely limited Yates’ ability to prevail,” Hazlehurst said.
Although Zimmerman was able to testify in Yates’ medical malpractice case, Kelley was not allowed to testify as to the standard of care and was not allowed to give an opinion as to how the defendant was negligent or why Yates should not have been vaccinated.
“The court granted an exception to allow Dr. Kelley’s causation testimony because his testimony was so highly specialized that another expert witness in the field of genetic metabolic disorders was obviously not available in Tennessee or a contiguous state, but his opinion as a pediatrician was not allowed,” Hazlehurst said.
Hazlehurst attempted to compel the CDC to allow whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the CDC, to testify in Yates’ case, but the agency prevailed and blocked Thompson from testifying.
Thompson in 2014 admitted to omitting “statistically significant information” in a 2004 study he co-authored with other CDC scientists that claimed the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.
But the omitted data suggested that a sub-group of males who received the MMR vaccine were at a significantly increased risk of autism.
“Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed,” Thompson said in a statement.
“Any reference to Dr. William Thompson or the CDC whistleblower was later specifically excluded by the court in Yates’ medical malpractice trial,” Hazlehurst said.
“Likewise, the jury was not allowed to hear any reference to the concession in the Poling case and specifically the comments of Gerberding,” who in 2010 left the CDC and became the chief patient officer and executive vice president of Merck — the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine.
Due to the substantial length of time between the alleged malpractice and trial, several expert and fact witnesses passed away.
A critical fact witness and two doctors willing to testify on Yates’ behalf, passed away before trial. Two other doctors who initially gave sworn testimony as to negligence and causation backed out, leaving Yates without the experts needed to bolster his position.
The same was not true for the defendant, who had no difficulty finding expert witnesses to testify on his behalf, Hazlehurst said.
“The array of experts the defense called left little doubt as to the importance of this potentially precedent-setting case and raised the question of what forces were at play behind the scene,” he said.
“Yates was not just up against the local doctor and clinic, and David does not always beat Goliath,” Hazlehurst said.
The verdict in Yates’ medical malpractice case
At the end of the trial, the jury answered two questions based on the evidence it was allowed to consider and the instructions provided by the court.
Yates’ attorneys asked for a jury instruction quoting the language in the Vaccine Act that a VIS must be given to the parents of the child prior to the administration of a vaccine.
Although the judge originally approved the instruction prior to the start of the trial, the judge later reversed his decision and removed the critical instruction before jury deliberation, Hazlehurst said.
The first question the jury answered was, “Did the defendants provide the requisite information to Yates Hazlehurst’s parents to allow Yates Hazlehurst’s parents to formulate an intelligent and informed decision on authorizing or consenting to Yates Hazlehurst receiving his childhood immunizations on February 8, 2001?”
The jury answered, “yes.”
The second question the jury answered was, “Did the defendants deviate from the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in this medical community or a similar medical community in his/their treatment of Plaintiff Yates Hazlehurst when administering vaccines to Yates Hazlehurst on February 8, 2001?”
The jury answered, “no.”
Although the jury never addressed the issue of whether a vaccine can cause neurological injury, including autism, valuable evidence was discovered and preserved during Yates’ legal battle.
The world’s top experts in the field of autism and mitochondrial disorder, on video, explained how the administration of “routine childhood immunizations” can cause autism, Hazlehurst told The Defender.
“These were the same medical experts who compelled HHS and DOJ to secretly concede the case of Hannah Poling during the OAP in the so-called vaccine court,” he said.
The trial exposed compelling evidence of the incredibly low standard of practice being taught to medical students and doctors and illuminates how the laws contained in the Vaccine Act — designed to ensure a patient receives informed consent — are unenforceable and largely meaningless, Hazlehurst said.
Many of the reasons Yates lost his case are the same reasons underlying the autism epidemic, he added.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Aud Hazlehurst, Yates Hazlehurst, Lane Hodges, Rolf Hazlehurst, Anne Hazlehurst Garrard, David Riley, Marry Garrard, Anne Elizabeth Garrard, Tammy McCoy and Kevin Cox.
Hazlehurst told The Defender he has sincere gratitude to everyone who has helped Yates over the past 20 years in both his medical and legal struggles.
“Regardless of the jury verdict, exposing the evidence which came to light in the legal cases of Yates Hazlehurst will be a powerful tool towards the ultimate goal of bringing the truth to light and ending the autism epidemic,” he said.
CHD and Hazlehurst said they will continue to fight for vaccine-injured children.
In the words of Winston Churchill, “Now is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning,” Hazlehurst said.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
If you worked for a federal agency that was studiously ignoring a kill-rate of 100,000 Americans a year, every year, like clockwork, and if you knew it, wouldn’t you feel compelled to say or do something about it?
At the FDA, which is that federal agency, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.
Let’s shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn’t you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?
Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the report] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”
The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”
And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”
Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.
And for the past 10 years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death in 2011, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.
Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, why shouldn’t the DHS investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization?
How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?
Do we need 100,000 smoking guns every year? Do we need relatives of the people who’ve all died in the span of merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, bringing corpses to the doors of FDA headquarters?
And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?
I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be lining up and hovering outside every health-food store and nutritional supplement manufacturer in America.
All those fake stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art medical research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.
The buck stops at the FDA.
Except in the real world, it doesn’t. Which tells you something about the so-called real world and how much of it is composed of propaganda.
No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That’s the rule. The FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade. The FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what’s going on. This is mass murder. Not accidental death. Murder. A holocaust.
Do you want another citation?
Here are a few horrific quotes. I’ll discuss the source afterwards:
“…appropriately prescribed prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death…About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the US and Europe.”
“They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more [6.6 million per year] hospitalizations, as well as falls, road accidents, and about 80 million [per year] medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others.”
“Deaths from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.”
In other words, the 330,000 deaths per year, the 6.6 million hospitalizations per year, and the 80 million “medically minor” problems per year…all of this stems from CORRECTLY PRESCRIBED medicines.
The quotes come from the ASA [American Sociological Association] publication called Footnotes, in its November 2014 issue. The article is “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author of the article is Donald W Light.
Donald W Light is a professor of medical and economic sociology. He is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.
It’s been my policy to quote medical analysts who have mainstream credentials, when it comes to adding up the results of medical-drug destruction.
I do this to show that, in refusing to fix the holocaust, the federal government, medical schools, and pharmaceutical companies can’t claim their critics and detractors are “fringe researchers.”
Believe me, the officials who should have been fixing the enormous tragedy for at least the past 15 years are intent on hiding it.
When you stop and think about the meaning of these medical numbers, one of the things you realize is: this massive destruction of life envelops whole countries.
It not only maims and kills, it brings emotional turmoil and loss to the families, friends, co-workers, and colleagues of those who are killed and maimed: the 330,000 who are killed and the 6.6 million who are hospitalized and the 80 million whose productivity is hobbled or whose ability to care for others is significantly diminished.
If you consciously set out to bring a nation to its knees;
to kill it;
to make it unable to function at any reasonable level;
you would be hard pressed to find a more effective long-term method than exposing the population to the US/European medical-drug cartel.
The Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees will remain blocked until at least September after a federal appeals court on Monday agreed to reconsider its previous decision to reinstate the mandate.
The Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees will remain blocked until at least September after a federal appeals court on Monday agreed to reconsider its previous decision to reinstate the mandate.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans will revisit its April ruling by a three-judge panel that the administration has the legal authority to require federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19, The Associated Press reported.
The new injunction will remain until the case can be argued before the full court’s 17 judges. According to The Epoch Times, the court has tentatively scheduled the en banc oral arguments for the week of Sept. 12.
Back-and-forth rulings on federal worker vaccine mandate since January
Biden introduced Executive Order 14043 in September 2021, requiring more than 3.5 million federal executive branch workers to undergo vaccination unless they secured approved medical or religious exemptions. The order did not allow workers to choose regular testing in place of getting the vaccine.
Other parties to the lawsuit included the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 918, a union representing employees in the Federal Protective Service and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and several other individuals and federal contractors.
The groups sought to block two COVID-19 vaccine mandates: one covering federal employees and the other for federal contractors.
Lawyers representing the Biden administration argued the Constitution gives the president, as the head of the federal workforce, the same authority as the CEO of a private corporation, and that therefore mandating vaccination was under the president’s authority.
The plaintiffs disagreed, countering that such action oversteps a president’s powers.
“The main thrust of the argument [of the plaintiffs],” attorney Bruce Castor Jr. told The Epoch Times in February, “is that the president doesn’t have the authority to issue an order like this, pursuant to the powers granted him in Article Two of the United States Constitution, and that’s the same argument that won the day in the Supreme Court regarding the 100 or more employees; the president doesn’t have that authority.”
“Instead of going through the checks and balances of congressional approval, which includes feedback from the public, the executive order cuts all that out. It just says, ‘My way or the highway.’
“Certainly, the Constitution grants powers like that to the president in foreign affairs and protecting the nation from aggression from foreign powers. But he doesn’t have the authority, with a sweep of the pen, to affect the lives of millions of people, bypassing Congress.”
In January, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown blocked the mandate, stating in his 20-page ruling that the president and his administration did not have the authority to impose such a mandate.
Brown questioned the president’s power to mandate federal employees undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment, writing in his decision:
“This case is not about whether folks should get vaccinated against COVID-19 — the court believes they should. It is not even about the federal government’s power, exercised properly, to mandate vaccination of its employees.
“It is instead about whether the president can, with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress, require millions of federal employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment.
“That, under the current state of the law as just recently expressed by the Supreme Court, is a bridge too far.”
But after hearing arguments in March, a different panel of judges ruled 2-1 in early April that Brown did not have jurisdiction in the case, overturning the lower court’s Jan. 21 injunction against the mandate and ordering the district court to dismiss the case.
I have a two-sentence introduction before we get to the guts of this story:
Whenever a typical “liberal” college educated parent hears a doctor or medical bureaucrat utter a pronouncement, the parent, like a doomed trained monkey, AUTOMATICALLY replies, “Well, this evidence certainly has some merit…”
God help the child who has such a parent.
Gateway Pundit has the story. Here are quotes; then I’ll have comments.
“Joe Biden’s transgender Assistant Health Secretary Dr. Rachel (Richard) Levine spoke at a DNC pride month event on Friday.”
“On Friday, Dr. Levine said sex reassignment surgery (castration) and puberty blockers (chemical castration) for KIDS is ‘lifesaving, medically necessary, age appropriate, and a critical tool’.”
“Levine recently said that there is no debate about ‘gender-affirming’ care for kids.”
“’There is no argument among medical professionals — pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine physicians, adolescent psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. — about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care,’ Levine said.”
“According to the American College of Pediatricians, no single long-term study demonstrates the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for transgender-believing youth.”
“Puberty blockers may cause depression and other emotional disturbances related to suicide. The package insert for Lupron, the number one prescribed puberty blocker in America, lists ‘emotional instability’ as a side effect and warns prescribers to ‘Monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment’.”
OK. The big takeaway from these statements is: we’re supposed to believe we’re talking about a MEDICAL condition and MEDICAL TREATMENT.
Once that bell is rung, all bets are off. “Well, the doctor says Jimmy has gender dysphoria, a medical/psychiatric condition, and his desire to transition to a girl needs treatment. The treatment allows him to make the transition.”
As with other issues, the word from on high is, the science is settled.
Forget the fact that the American College of Pediatricians disagrees. Ultimately, what is and isn’t science is decided at a political level.
Forget the fact that gender dysphoria has no defining physical diagnostic test. No blood test, no urine test, no hair test, no genetic assay, no brain scan. Its existence as a condition is backed by zero evidence.
Forget the fact that the treatments are toxic and destructive.
The medical/political colossus has spoken. Doubters are now referred to “the science.”
This is how medical dictatorship operates. You might recall that’s how it operated with a little thing called COVID.
Dr. Rachel Levine is trying out for the role of Anthony Fauci.
Civilians everywhere want to argue against children undergoing transition to another gender, but the authorities want to head that off at the pass by claiming “it’s all medical and we have the knowledge and you don’t know anything. Case closed.”
If parents huddle in the dark, afraid of a scornful look from a doctor or a medical bureaucrat, the war is over. It’s lost. The war against children will be scorched earth and scorched lives.
I can hear that college educated parent I referred to saying, “Well, to be reasonable, there is some merit to the argument that certain young children have a need to transition, and we have to discern these cases carefully and consider the medical evidence…”
This is what all losers say just before the enemy pours tons of gasoline on the fire and the city burns down.
The theory that “Covid” originated in a bio-lab has been back in the headlines over the last few weeks, serving as a prime example of the type of fake binary OffG has been warning you about.
The “lab-leak theory” – which pushes the idea Sars-Cov-2 was bio-engineered in a lab as a “gain-of-function” program, and then either accidentally or deliberately released on an unsuspecting population – first came to the front pages as early as January 2020.
At the time it was deemed a “racist” “anti-china” conspiracy theory by the vast majority of the media, and it fell away from the narrative.
It had a resurgence in 2021, suddenly & inexplicably becoming not racist anymore.
In February 2021 the World Health Organization published a report finding the lab origin for Covid19 “extremely unlikely”. But WHO chief Tedro Adhanom was obviously keen not to let the idea die completely, publicly stating “more investigation was needed”.
Overall, around this time, it suddenly became much less taboo to suggest the “virus” originated in a lab.
Then, in December 2021, the Daily Mail reported that Dr Alina Chan had told the UK’s Science Select Committee that it is ‘reasonable to believe [the] virus was engineered in China’ and that “the lab origin is more likely than not”.
But after a brief furore over that, it again faded from the front pages.
Now it’s back. And gaining momentum.
In May, 18 scientists (including Chan) published an open letter in the Science journal demanding authorities properly “investigate the origins of Covid19”.
Two weeks ago the World Health Organisation released a report that they were still investigating the origins of Covid, and that no hypothesis had been completely ruled out.
On June 15th, the WHO chief told reporters at a press conference that ruling out the lab-leak theory had been “premature” and there had been a “push” to do so. He called on China to “be transparent, open and cooperate, especially on the information, raw data that we asked for at the early days of the pandemic.”
This time China responded, dismissing the lab leak theory as “lies” and “anti-China propaganda”, whilst suggesting that the real lab leak likely came from the US bioweapons lab in Fort Detrick.
Then, on June 18th, The Daily Mail reported that despite maintaining public neutrality Tedros Adhanom “privately believed” that Covid had originated in a lab.
In short, two apparently oppositional camps are springing up – the West is laying the groundwork to blame China for the pandemic, whilst China (and probably Russia, down the line) blame the USA.
This is a textbook fake binary.
What you need to notice is that both these allegedly opposing sides agree on the most important aspect of the pandemic lie – that Covid is a unique new and dangerous disease which needs be treated with masks, lockdowns and vaccines – and only disagree violently about where this “real and deadly new disease” might have come from.
You are supposed to take your cue from them.
They want you to forget “covid” is just a meaningless new name for an old familiar cluster of “seasonal” symptoms. They want you to forget the whole thing was a scam – and to instead take a “side” in a scripted & noisy & totally phony “origin” debate.
The minute you sign up for it they have you – because by agreeing to debate where “it” comes from you have accepted “it” – ie a deadly new pathogen – exists & needs to be dealt with.
And that is all they want from you.
We think you should politely decline this staged “controversy”. Because however real the East-West divide actually is in other areas, when it comes to covid both sides are the same side & pushing the same story.
And it suits both East & West to encourage this fake binary – and “bioweapon” fear porn – at the expense of wider and more honest enquiry.
At the end of April, Dr. Jordan Grant gave a remarkable 2-part lecture breaking down the various philosophical issues related to our modern healthcare system. He deconstructed the germ theory of disease and brilliantly showcased why it is based on pseudoscience rather than natural science. Dr. Grant has been at the forefront of calling out virology for its inadherence to the scientific method and he has pinpointed the many logical fallacies surrounding the germ theory fraud.
I have been anxiously awaiting the time that I could share his presentation with you. If you know Dr. Grant, you would understand why. I am fortunate enough to call Jordan a friend. We crossed paths at the beginning of this pandemic through the Infectious Myth Facebook group created by the late David Crowe. From reading Jordan’s conversations with others in our group, I immediately realized that this was a man who carried a wealth of knowledge and he was someone from which I could learn a great deal from. He may not realize it, but Jordan has been a mentor to me in various ways and I am grateful for all of the knowledge I have gained from our conversations. My hope is that you are able to come away with many nuggets of wisdom from this excellent series! At the very least, you will learn one thing you may have never known that can kill a guinea pig.
The Philosophy of Modern Medicine
What Makes Us Ill and How Can We Optimize Health? The modern medical-industrial complex has its focus on drugs and symptom suppression. It is a “sick care” system. We need to understand this philosophy and then empower ourselves with information on true causes of “illness” in order to better understand ways to optimize our health.
The Philosophy of Modern Medicine – Dr. Jordan Grant (2022 Conference) – Delivered 04/30/2022 – Dr. Jordan Grant – Berean Bible Church –
Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease
For over 150 years, the “germ theory” of disease has dominated mainstream thought regarding many illnesses. Is this theory scientific? Are there holes in the paradigm? We will explore what “science” means, first and foremost, and then apply that to dogmas surrounding contagion and infection.
Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease – Dr. Jordan Grant (2022 Conference) – Delivered 04/30/2022 – Dr. Jordan Grant. – Berean Bible Church –
If you are interested in joining the Infectious Myth Facebook group (there are a few due to censorship) to converse with Dr. Grant and many other amazing like-minded people, you can find us here:
An active-duty senior Army official told The Defender, on condition of anonymity, the U.S. Army is strongly considering pushing the June 30 deadline for compliance with the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate far into the future — but will not announce the date change until closer to, or even after, the upcoming deadline.
As the June 30 deadline nears for compliance with the U.S. military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, U.S. Army officials publicly claim a very small percentage of its members are unvaccinated, reporting 96% or more of its members are fully vaccinated.
However, the Army’s vaccination rate is in fact significantly lower than 96%, an active-duty senior Army official with access to senior-level information told The Defender — so low, that if the Army were to enforce the deadline, the loss of up to 120,000 service members would render it “combat-ineffective.”
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Army is strongly considering pushing the June 30 deadline much further into the future — but will not announce the date change until closer to, or even after, the upcoming deadline.
Concern about the number of unvaccinated service members was the topic of recent senior-level briefings, according to the official.
He said he’s blowing the whistle now because many service members who remain unvaccinated and/or who are “on the fence” about getting the vaccine may feel compelled to do so to meet the June 30 deadline — unaware the deadline may soon change.
He said by going public with this information now, service members who have not yet been vaccinated but who are feeling increasing pressure to get the COVID-19 vaccine may reconsider.
Real numbers of unvaccinated Army members ‘higher than anybody thought’
As far back as December 2021, an article on the U.S. Army website stated 96% of the Army’s 461,209 members were fully vaccinated.
In March 2022, as the Army began to announce the initiation of separation procedures for unvaccinated soldiers, officials again claimed 96% of its service members were fully vaccinated.
Later that month, an article on the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) website claimed “the entire force may be vaccinated for COVID-19 by early summer.”
According to the whistleblower though, the “real numbers of unvaccinated service members are way higher than anybody thought,” adding that while “everyone thought” the number of unvaccinated in the Army was approximately 8,000-10,000 members, it is actually around 120,000.
To confirm that number, the official confidentially shared an internal U.S. Army document, dated June 2022.
According to the document, in the Army National Guard (ARNG), there are 280,678 members who are fully vaccinated (84.6%), and 7,735 who are partially vaccinated (1 dose) (2.3%) — leaving 43,269, or 13%, who have not yet received a single dose.
In some states, such as Oklahoma, the document shows the vaccination rate for members of the ARNG is as low as 74.11%. Of those, the document lists 15,698 members as “refusals” and 6,749 (2.0%) as going through an exemption process — with 6,257 (1.9%) requesting a religious exemption and 492 (0.1%) requesting a medical exemption.
The document also notes that 80% of unvaccinated soldiers in the ARNG are age 32 or younger, with an average age of 26.2 and median age of 24.
The document adds that “unvaccinated soldiers in their first 1-3 years of service and 4-7 years of service represent the greatest risk to readiness” for the ARNG, and that “Infantry, Maintenance, Engineer and Transportation career fields represent the greatest areas [of] concern for the ARNG.”
The document also states “projected losses could drive [the ARNG] below 70% available strength.”
According to the document, “Current forecasts project unprogrammed, vaccination mandate-related losses to range from … 3-6% of assigned strength,” which would require an anticipated “seven-year effort at 1,500-2,000 ramp per year to restore [the] End Strength necessary to meet required Force Structure.”
The same document also provides figures for the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), stating that 157,390 members are fully vaccinated (87.9%), with an additional 1,411 members partially vaccinated with one dose (0.8%), leaving 19,872 members (11.3%) fully unvaccinated.
Among the unvaccinated, 7,623 members (4.3%) are listed as “refusals” and 4,100 (2.3%) are listed as undergoing an exemption process, with 3,982 members (2.2%) having requested a religious accommodation, and 118 (0.1%) having requested a medical exemption.
In some states, such as Wyoming, the vaccination rate in the USAR is as low as 80.9%, according to the document.
The document also notes 65% of unvaccinated soldiers in the USAR are age 30 or younger, with an average age of 28 and a median age of 26.
“Supply and Services, Mechanical Maintenance, Engineer and Transportation career fields represent the greatest areas [of] concern for the USAR,” the document states.
The document recommends commanders counsel “every unvaccinated Soldier,” “explore [the] impact of Bars to Reenlistment” and “publicize [the] Novavax option as [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] approves” as it “may appeal to some seeking religious exemptions.”
The number of unvaccinated service members in the ARNG and USAR is confirmed in a second document — an internal “information” document — that the whistleblower shared with The Defender.
According to the whistleblower, this leaves approximately 56,000 unvaccinated service members in the U.S. Army itself.
These figures refer only to the Army, the whistleblower said. He does not know the figures for other branches of the armed forces, such as the Navy, Marines and Air Force.
The reason most members of the Army thought the number of unvaccinated was much smaller, aside from the information provided via the Army’s official channels, is that the Army has been “very tight-lipped” about these figures, “not leaking [them] to anybody, even internally,” according to the whistleblower.
“Those who are not vaccinated are segregated, so it is hard to find out who isn’t vaccinated,” he said. “The Army has done a very good job of not letting that information be leaked across the service.”
As a result, according to the whistleblower, “sometimes you feel you’re the only one, that there’s only a few people left” who have not received the COVID-19 vaccine.
However, those who are unvaccinated and who are privy to the real figures are, as the whistleblower described it, “re-energized and encouraged” by these numbers.
Army will be ‘combat-ineffective’ unless it moves June 30 deadline
The whistleblower told The Defender the DOD still plans to separate the unvaccinated soldiers, but instead of enforcing the June 30 deadline, “what they are going to do is hold off on separating soldiers on July 1,” and “will most likely push that into 2023 at the earliest.”
The June 2022 Army document confirms this, as it proposes that a “phased approach to involuntary separation” for unvaccinated service members would begin on October 1, 2022, with a “mandatory bar to reenlistment,” while “mandatory involuntary separations for COVID vaccine refusal” would begin January 1, 2023, and “last up to approximately 2 years.”
The document also recommends “separations for Soldiers start in FY23 [fiscal year 2023] with a phased approach.”
The whistleblower said the later date and “phased approach” are necessary because the Army is having a difficult time recruiting new troops, as “recruiting numbers have tanked over the past six months.”
The June 2022 document confirms this, describing an “extremely challenging recruiting environment.”
Moreover, the whistleblower claims that “the Army knows they cannot separate 120,000 soldiers,” as the Army would become “combat-ineffective,” which the whistleblower states is another reason why the real figures have been tightly guarded.
“Strength is in numbers,” he said.
Instead of getting the high numbers of vaccinated soldiers the DOD was hoping for, it appears the military now has to manage a larger-than-expected number of service members who have refused the COVID vaccine.
“The Pentagon knows that too many [service members] have said no and that there is not much they can do about it,” said the whistleblower.
Service members, unaware of an impending change to June 30 deadline, face a ‘very hard’ decision
While the DOD may be ready to move the June 30 COVID-19 vaccination deadline to a later date, the whistleblower said officials are keeping this information under wraps for the time being.
“Between now and July 1, nothing will change with the guidance,” he said, adding the new deadline will be announced at a later date.
However, in the period between now and June 30, unvaccinated service members who remain unaware of this possible change will “have to make a very difficult decision: Get the vaccine or be separated,” the whistleblower said.
Separately, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) last week called for the DOD to reinstate all troops discharged from any branch of the U.S. military, with their same rank, benefits and back pay.
And Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) last week once again demanded the DOD turn over all documents related to management of the military’s medical database between 2016 and 2020, following accusations by other DOD whistleblowers that the database was altered in order to obscure evidence of injuries related to the COVID-19 vaccines.
In this interview, French lawyer Diane Protat representing the group Navigants Libres, explains their fight in court defending pilots, flight attendants and all flight personnel who have experienced the severe and deadly effects of the Covid -19 vaccine shots and mandates.
Due to the life-threatening consequences of not just those commandeering flights but the entire population of airline passengers, it is crucial to evaluate these cases and stop the government regulations that continue to pose un-safe and grave consequences.
Serious health incidents and factual medical data coming from flight personnel is also being questioned worldwide through other international aviation organizations. The Global Aviators Coaliton, is partnering with Navigants Libres, and others who areworking to reveal that theses health risks and dangerous outcomes of the mandatory vaccines are being experienced globally within the airline industry.
Protat sites several cases where flights were forced to perform emergency landings due to pilot and co-pilot death or illness after the vaccine and the accounts of many pilots who have been grounded due to new health issues not allowing them to pass routine health examinations.
Flight crew members such as flight attendants have suffered female reproductive issues that pose serious problems and prevent them from returning to work in this sector. Because of this specific phenomenon with women, Protat has also been heard in the Senate representing the woman’s groups “Where is My Cycle” and a collective of Midwives called, “Key Woman”, where thousands of women members are reporting reproductive health issues after the Covid vaccine.
Protat argues that these mandatory vaccines present too high a risk and evidenced hazard for aviation employees and citizens around the world who embark on airplane travel, and that measures must be taken immediately to prevent any further risk.
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is asking the company that manages the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database to turn over records after the company failed to fully comply with a previous request seeking information about its “awareness of potential data problems” with the military’s database.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is asking the company that manages the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DOD) Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) to turn over records after the company failed to fully comply with a previous request seeking information about its “awareness of potential data problems” with the military’s database.
This is the second time Johnson has requested the records from Unissant Inc.
The DMED is the military’s longstanding epidemiological database of service members.
Claiming the DMED data for 2016-2020 was incorrect, the DOD temporarily disabled the database — after whistleblowers came forward — then updated it with accurate figures, which resulted in less of an increase in medical conditions that potentially could be related to the vaccines.
The DOD said the DMED system was taken offline to “identify and correct the root cause of the data corruption.”
Given what Johnson said was the DOD’s lack of transparency, the senator asked his staff to contact Unissant to discuss its “awareness of potential data problems in DMED.”
Johnson, a ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, first sent a formal letter to Unissant on March 7, requesting records related to its management of the DMED.
Unissant responded by stating it was prohibited from answering Johnson’s questions or “providing any details about the work it performs for the Defense Health Agency.”
Johnson’s staff provided Unissant with information from the DOD stating the company did not need the DOD’s consent to answer questions from Congress. A DOD contracting officer informed Unissant that “when it comes to Congressional or Senatorial inquiries, you don’t need my permission” to respond.
Despite approval to release information to Johnson’s office, Unissant requested written approval from its DOD contracting officer to release the information.
“Our letter explains why we are making this request even though you’ve stated we do not need your permission,” the email stated.
The DOD on May 2 gave Unissant permission to provide responsive documents to Johnson’s initial March 7 request, but Unissant’s letter detailing why it needed the DOD’s written permission was omitted from the records provided to his office.
“The records Unissant has provided to date as well as the company’s unclear explanation for requesting DOD’s approval to respond to Congressional inquiries raise additional questions,” Johnson said in a June 14 letter to Kenneth Bonner, president and chief growth officer of Unissant.
Johnson asked Unissant to provide the following additional information no later than June 28.
Johnson wrote:
1. Does Unissant agree with DOD’s claim that “the data in DMED was corrupt for the years 2016-2020 when accessed after September 2021?” If so, please explain why the DMED data for registered diagnoses of certain medical conditions from 2016-2020 was incorrect.
2. Please explain why registered diagnoses of myocarditis in 2021 decreased from 1,239 registered cases as of August 29, 2021, to 273 registered cases as of January 10, 2022. Please explain why the average annual registered diagnosis of myocarditis from 2016-2020 increased from 216 as of August 29, 2021, to 559 as of January 10, 2022.
3. Unissant claimed that on February 10, 2022, DOD discovered the need to “fix DMED monthly data for 2021.” However, emails produced by Unissant show that on Jan. 31, 2022, Unissant’s Vice President Stephen Gehring wrote that, “the team worked over the weekend to identify and resolve the issues” with DMED. Later that day, a DOD employee confirmed that “DMED access was restored after the data was corrected.”
Did Unissant identify the issues discussed on January 31, 2022, in its list of issues relating to DMED (see enclosure)? Were the issues discussed on January 31, 2022, different from the issue identified on February 10, 2022? Did DOD or Unissant discover the issues discussed on January 31, 2022? Please provide all communications showing this.
It does not appear that Unissant provided communications referring or relating to the DMED issue discovered on February 10, 2022 (as requested in the March 7, 2022 letter). Please provide those documents.
4. Provide a list of communications and documents discussing the “need to fix DMED monthly data for 2021” and the communications relating to the DMED issues discovered on Feb. 10, 2022, that Unissant failed to disclose with the previous request.
5. On January 31, 2022, Unissant Vice President Stephen Gehring noted that his team had “worked over the weekend to identify and resolve the issues” with DMED. He added that “the team uncovered other findings in testing that need to be addressed.” What were those “other findings”? Did those finding [sic] relate to issues with DMED? If so, were those findings identified in Unissant’s chart regarding issues relating to DMED (pursuant to the March 7, 2022 letter)?
If these findings were not identified, please provide a description of those findings, when Unissant communicated those findings to DOD, and the status of any corrective action(s).
6. In a March 3, 2022 email provided by Unissant, a Unissant representative informed Unissant officials Kenneth Bonner and Stephen Gehring that as recently as August 2021, DOD and Unissant were aware of problems with DMED but still let it “go live” with those problems. What were the problems? Why did Unissant allow DMED to “go live” if it knew it had problems?
7. On April 22, 2022, Unissant’s President Kenneth Bonner attached a letter to an email to DOD Contracting Officer Kevin Hodge regarding DOD’s permission to release information to Sen. Johnson. This attachment was not included in Unissant’s May 4, 2022 production. Please provide this letter.
8. Unissant’s May 4, 2022 production included several emails between the company’s representatives and DOD officials regarding DMED issues in August 2021. It does not appear those issues were identified in Unissant’s production Exhibit 3 or Exhibit 4 (enclosed). What were those issues, who discovered those issues and when, how long did those issues exist in DMED and when were those issues corrected?
9. Unissant’s May 4, 2022 response noted that because its employees use DOD email addresses to communicate with DOD employees referring or relating to DMED, “Unissant does not have access to these documents and communications.” Does Unissant not maintain records of its employees’ communications between and among Unissant and DOD employees regarding their contracted work?
When performing work on behalf of the federal government, how does Unissant ensure that its employees are following federal record preservation requirements if Unissant cannot access its employees’ documents and communications?
DOD changes DMED data on myocarditis after whistleblowers come forward
The first COVID-19 vaccine was authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on December 14, 2020. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Aug. 24, 2021, issued a memorandum mandating service members receive COVID-19 vaccinations.
According to downloaded data from DMED provided on Aug. 29, 2021, to Johnson’s office, there were 216 cases of myocarditis reported from 2016 to 2021 — an average of 43.2 diagnoses per year.
There were 1,239 cases of myocarditis in 2021 alone — a 2,868% increase over the 2016-2020 average.
According to a spreadsheet based on a complete DMED data set provided by whistleblowers to Johnson’s office in January 2022, figures for myocarditis had changed dramatically since the August 2021 download.
“Total myocarditis diagnoses 2016-2020 increased to 559 from 216 causing the annual average to increase to 111.8 from 43.2 diagnoses per year,” Johnson’s June letter to Unissant stated.
“For the year 2021, myocarditis diagnoses decreased from 1,239 to 263 causing the annual percentage increase to decline from 2,868% to 235% over the 2016-2020 average.”
In other words, after the DOD enforced its vaccine mandate, the database was altered to reduce the increase in myocarditis cases in 2021, compared to the previous four years.
Attorney exposes DMED data at January panel discussion led by Johnson
Attorney Thomas Renz in January told experts during a panel discussion on COVID-19 vaccines and treatment protocols that was led by Johnson, that data provided to him by three whistleblowers showed COVID-19 vaccines were causing catastrophic harm to members of the U.S. military while not preventing them from getting the virus.
Data from DMED provided by whistleblowers — who knew they would face perjury charges if they submitted false statements to the court in legal cases pending against the DOD — showed miscarriages increased 300% in 2021 over the previous five-year average, cancer increased by 300% and neurological disorders increased 1,000% in 2021 over the past five-year average — increasing from 82,000 to 863,000 in one year.
Malignant neoplasms of the esophagus: 894% increase.
Multiple sclerosis: 680% increase.
Malignant neoplasms of digestive organs: 624% increase.
Guillain–Barré syndrome: 551% increase.
Breast cancer: 487% increase.
Demyelinating: 487% increase.
Malignant neoplasms of thyroid and other endocrine glands: 474% increase.
Female infertility: 472% increase.
Pulmonary embolism: 468% increase.
Migraines: 452% increase.
Ovarian dysfunction: 437% increase.
Testicular cancer: 369% increase.
Tachycardia: 302% increase.
Renz also said DMED data showing registered diagnoses of myocarditis had been removed from the database.
Renz told the panel a “trifecta of data” from the DMED and Project SALUS, the DOD’s military-civilian integrated health database, along with human intelligence in the form of doctor-whistleblowers, suggest the DOD and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention withheld COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data since September 2021.
Following Renz’s presentation, attorney Leigh Dundas reported evidence of the DOD doctoring data in DMED to conceal cases of myocarditis in service members vaccinated for COVID-19.
Johnson demands DOD respond to whistleblower claims
Johnson asked the DOD in February what it was doing to investigate whistleblower reports of big spikes in miscarriages, neurological disorders, cancer and other illnesses among members of the U.S. military since its rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.
Johnson also asked if the DOD had removed reports of vaccine-induced myocarditis from the DMED.
The Defense Health Agency on Jan. 26 created and preserved “a full backup of the DMED,” at Johnson’s request.
On Jan. 28, a DOD spokesman told PolitiFact there was a glitch in the DMED database that “gave the false impression that there was a huge spike in miscarriages, cancer and other medical issues among military members in 2021.”
The spokesman said the database had “been taken down to identify and correct the problem.”
In a groundbreaking article for Children of God For Life, titled “Forsaking God For the Sake of Science,” [1] [1b] Debra Vinnedge outlines how the Rockefeller-Harriman eugenics movement gave rise to the practice of medical abortions for research purposes, including live births during which the infant was murdered and its organs harvested:
“…Abortion wasn’t legal yet; this was 1936. But abortion was most certainly legal and acceptable [to eugenicists] if it meant ending the life of a child who would be born to a ‘feeble-minded’ woman, one who might end up less than perfect or who might have to rely on society to pay for their care.”
And therefore, why not perform abortions for medical research? Behind closed doors, out of view, this was happening in several countries, including the US.
Consider this research report: “Human embryos of two and one-half to five months gestation were obtained from the gynaecological department of the Toronto General Hospital…No macerated specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”
Here is the citation [2]: Joan C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245. [June 1952]
The authors are certainly describing an infant who was taken from the womb alive, and after cells were harvested, was killed. For research on “growing virus in cell culture.”
Here is another research report that indicates the infant was born alive, its tissues taken, and then killed:
“Embryos of between 12-18 weeks gestation have been utilized. Rarely tissues were obtained from stillborn fetuses, or from premature infants at autopsy…In the experiments 3 sorts of embryonic materials were used: elements of skin, connective tissue, muscle; intestinal tissue; brain tissue…Whenever possible the embryo was removed from the amniotic sac.., transferred to a sterile towel and kept at 5 C until dissected.”
The citation [3]: Thomas H. Weller, John F. Enders, Studies on the Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Tissue Culture : I. The Propagation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Suspended Cell Cultures of Various Human Tissue; Journal of Immunology 1952;69;645-671. [June 1952]
Again, the infant’s tissue was used, in the lab, to “grow virus in cell culture.” The cells were from the infant.
My readers know that, for the past year, I’ve been exposing virologists’ absurd claims that they’re isolating viruses in their labs. [4] [4b] [4c]
In fact, they create soups in dishes, containing toxic drugs and chemicals, monkey cells and human cells, and a mucus sample from a patient. When the cells start dying, they claim this is proof the virus is in the mucus, in the soup, and is deadly.
Of course, this is nonsense, because the toxic drugs and chemicals are perfectly capable of killing the cells; and the cells in the soup are being starved of nutrients, which would also lead to cell-death.
The isolation of viruses is no isolation at all. It’s a fraud.
But it never occurred to me, until now, that some of these human cells in the soup in the lab came from infants, taken from the mother’s womb alive, for harvesting, who were then killed.
This completes a circle of evil.
Of course, out of the virological research fraud and infant murder come THE VACCINES, including the COVID vaccines, which are causing huge numbers of injuries and deaths across the world.
People of faith everywhere must see that declaring a religious exemption from the shots is a DUTY, whether or not the authorities allow the exemption.
The last time I looked, appealing to Pontius Pilate for an exemption didn’t work, and the status of Anthony Fauci is not higher than the Authority to whom, at minimum, four billion people of faith pray.
49 states have decided to follow the federal government’s lead in ordering COVID injections for children under 5, despite glaring evidence of a failed pharmaceutical product that doesn’t serve any benefit to them whatsoever, and has the potential to cause serious side effects.
On Friday, the FDA authorized mRNA COVID shots (both Pfizer and Moderna) under emergency use for children under 5 down to 6 months of age. The approval made its way through the halls of the federal bureaucracy, regardless of any studies showing a positive benefit for injecting young children with mRNA shots, which, even in adults, do not effectively prevent coronavirus infection.
So you’ve had your eight-month-old baby injected with the COVID vaccine.
Of course.
And the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist.
I’ve heard that. But it’s not the issue for us.
What is the issue for you?
Making a fashion statement.
How so?
We need to stay in the forefront of trends.
Why?
Why wouldn’t we?
Have you seen the federal database that records vaccine injury and death reports?
Of course.
So you know your baby could die from the shot.
Yes.
And that doesn’t matter to you.
Not as much as being able to tell our friends we had our baby vaccinated.
You, as parents—
That’s a misunderstood term. We don’t consider ourselves parents. The State is the parent. We’re the monitors.
Monitors?
We observe, and carry out limited functions.
Even if you assume the virus exists, the chances of your baby catching it and becoming ill are incredibly tiny.
That’s right. But this isn’t what we’re about. As I said, we’re keeping pace with fashion.
Are you human?
It depends on how you define the term. Humans are biological machines. Most people believe in something beyond that, but the content of belief is predetermined by a person’s upbringing, genes, conditioning, and so on.
Have you ever questioned vaccine science?
There’s nothing to question. We understand science. I have a PhD in psychology, and my husband is a software engineer. My IQ is 141. My husband’s is 136. We’re equipped to deal with vaccine issues.
If your baby died from the shot, would you mourn?
Yes. We would post photos and statements on our Facebook page.
—No doubt, some people would take offense at this “interview.” How could I? Here’s how. I wrote it. I wrote it because the government and Pfizer and Moderna—no matter how they interpret COVID and “the virus”—are moving ahead to inject as many babies as possible—which is a crime of mass assault and mass murder. Many parents will go along with it.
That is a TECHNICAL comment on trending claims that men can become pregnant.
Gateway Pundit has the story: “A North Carolina preschool is under fire after using LGBTQ flash cards, one of which featured a pregnant man, to teach the little kids about colors.”
“Republican State Rep. Erin Paré was emailed about the flash cards by a concerned constituent and contacted the principal at Ballentine Elementary School, part of the Wake County public school system, about the alarming email.”
“The principal searched the classroom and located the cards, according to a statement from North Carolina Speaker of the House Tim Moore.”
“’The principal found the stack of cards in a preschool classroom and verified with the teacher that they had been used by the teacher in the classroom to teach colors. The principal confirmed that the flash cards were not part of approved curriculum and that she was unaware that they were being used,’ Moore’s statement said. ‘The principal immediately took possession of the cards, contacted the WCPSS area superintendent, and engaged human resources. The principal expressed appreciation for the constituent’s information via Rep. Paré, as she would not have known about the flash cards otherwise’.”
Preschoolers. Flash cards. Pregnant man.
Does that give you a clue about the depth of re-education underway?
Follow this closely. A woman who decides to “become”—through drugs and surgery—a man, or a woman who simply identifies as a man…but in either case retains the necessary female equipment allowing pregnancy…supposedly means:
A man can become pregnant.
The best con artist on a street corner demonstrating his shell game for suckers would flush with envy at that word-game hustle.
By logical extension, a woman who identifies as a male tiger proves that male tigers can give birth to human babies.
I offer this as a warning to medical dictionaries and organizations. They’re going to be very busy with language updates.
Also, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe-Wade, many men will protest because they have to fly to distant states to obtain abortions. Right?
“We here at the Johnson Clinic are proud to announce our expanded services for men wishing to terminate their pregnancies. To show you how far we’re willing to go, last month our team handled the abortion of an apple tree. The tree, formerly a Beverly Hills banquet consultant, Marcia Crane, who identifies as a Granny Apple tree in her back yard, arrived here at the Clinic with questions, and we had answers…”
LA Times: “Apple Tree has launched her campaign for a Congressional seat in the 33rd District, after huddling with advisors, including her husband, Miriam Forever-Penelope, who sits on the board of Trans-National Sinaloa, a charity which funds several PBS wildlife series…”
This movie has been produced in many ways, in many minds.
In all cases, the theme is the same: DO NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE OUT IN THE OPEN.
Instead obey all restrictions. SHUT IT DOWN.
Believe in the dangers you’re told to believe in.
In the final analysis, this movie was a box office hit because most people gave in. Their fears may have hooked into different parts of the COVID narrative, but the deciding factor WAS fear.
A nation, a world paralyzed by fear.
And yes, lurking in the background (or in some countries, in the foreground) was the fact that the State had cops and guns and detainment facilities.
I’ve spent many hours detailing that, at one time, the citizenry would have risen up, en masse, and rebelled against the State. They would have shrugged off pandemic declarations. They would have risked everything to keep LIVING THEIR LIVES OUT IN THE OPEN.
Because at one time, freedom meant more.
The individual meant more.
People making up their own minds meant more.
Predatory groups organized to cut themselves in on a piece of the government pie meant less.
All these groups, from BLM to Climate Change, demand less freedom. That is their unspoken bottom line. And their justifications for this demand are bogus and fabricated.
They’re basically FRIENDS OF THE STATE.
Readers who have been with me for a long time know that, in 1988, I started warning people that the medical cartel was the most dangerous cartel in the world. It was seeking medical dictatorship.
I knew that in 1988, because I was meeting radical natural health advocates—tough, smart, resilient people. THEY had been warning about medical dictatorship for the previous 20, 30 years.
When I saw what my research on a phantom virus called HIV was proving, I knew civilization was in for some very rough times. All sorts of medical fantasies would be used to destroy freedom.
As Ben Franklin made clear, people WERE willing to trade that freedom for a false sense of security.
The past two years have proved it in spades.
But they’ve also proved something else. There is a limit to what people will take.
So I write this piece to say the restrictions could be coming again.
And if they do, we don’t need another two years to realize what the game really is.
We have to say NO from the get-go. We have to put fear aside and risk everything for freedom.
It wouldn’t be the first time people did, you know.
Face it, we’re all suffering from a false sense of security. Fortunately, we don’t have to succumb. We can be the individuals we dream of being, against whatever the State launches against us.
There are beasts among us. It turns out that many of them have no faces. They are the reincarnation of men and women who sat at desks and signed warrants for the death camps.
Gambling that life without freedom can still be a good life is a disastrous bet.
In the founding documents of America—the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution—the idea of freedom was there. Individual freedom with responsibility.
Before the ink was dry, the attacks on freedom commenced. Freedom has been dented, battered, smashed, and yes, betrayed, from all quarters. But it still stands and shines.
A growing number of young healthy adults are mysteriously dying. Watch Jefferey Jaxen and Del try to make sense of, what is now being called, “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” (SADS).
First New England Journal of Medicine Pfizer Study Reveals 80% Miscarriage Rate in Recipients in their First or Second Trimester — Dr. Christiane Northrup also reports rising number of stillbirths on ‘Friday Roundtable’ Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda Q+A
A film by award-winning filmmaker Andy Wakefield, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense. Watch the chilling tale of African women whose fertility was tragically stripped away through an experimental tetanus vaccination program. Are women everywhere next?
“When they’re through with Africa, they’re coming for you.” ~ Dr. Stephan Karanja
The chilling, harrowing story of how a World Health Organization (WHO) population control experiment, under the guise of a vaccination program, resulted in the sterilization of millions of women in Africa without their knowledge or consent.
How the ability to carry a pregnancy to term has been tragically stripped away from these women as their government attempts to cover up the evidence.
About a brave, Kenyan doctor — Dr. Stephen Karanja — who warned the world that once they’re done with Africa, they’re coming for the children and everyone else.
Perspectives from leading experts expressing their concerns regarding other vaccines that could cause infertility in women around the world, including the COVID shot.
However, that is true only when the term “man” is broken down to its new definition. A re-education is now taking place because there are some common misconceptions about the term “man.”
Not all people who were assigned male at birth (AMAB) identify as men. Those who do are “cisgender” men. Conversely, some people who were assigned female at birth (AFAB) identify as men. These folks may be “transgender” men or transmasculine people.
A New Spectrum
To be clear, according to the Transnarrative, if you fall on the Transmasculine spectrum, “you may identify as a man or any number of other gender identities including nonbinary, genderqueer, or agender.”
In former times, the ability to get pregnant was based on the ability to menstruate, which only women experienced. Even today, because biologic men do not menstruate, they cannot get pregnant or birth babies. The same is true of women who pass through menopause and no longer bleed monthly.
However, in the Transgender Age, everything is reversed:
“To be a man” is now defined such that a man can get pregnant, have periods, and have biological female chromosomes. To different people, this is either an exceptional mark of progress or a symptom of rabid social and/or linguistic deterioration.” – Rory Cockshaw, The Men Who Menstruate
Do TransMen have TransWombs?
Fortunately, the Female-to-Male (FTM) Transgender has the reproductive hardware and hormones necessary to form and carry a child. And there is a recipe: Transmen taking hormones (testosterone) to stop menses will have to start up again to become pregnant.
The medical world understands all about “gender non-conforming pregnancies.” According the the December 2014 Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, “Transgender Men Who Experienced Pregnancy After Female-to-Male Gender Transitioning,” can and do get pregnant. This is based on a cross-sectional, web-based survey. What about underlying biology of the FTM?
Trauma-focused therapist and sex educator Aida Manduley explains that two things are needed for pregnancy (and they are not gender identify or sexual orientation):
sperm
an egg
One person needs to have testicles (where sperm is produced), prostate and bulbourethral glands (to create the other components of semen), and a urethra (for the sperm to travel through)
And another person needs to have an ovary (where eggs are produced) and a uterus (where the sperm meets the egg).
America is back to Virtue Signaling at its finest, a tactic of subtle persuasion.
It is common to hear people introduce themselves and “self-identify” by sexual, gender, racial, or ethnic classifiers. And it is becoming trendy for companies to jump on the Transgender bandwagon.
Clothing brand Calvin Klein capitalized on this trend when it aired a Mother’s day ad featuring a pregnant transgender man:
We embrace this platform as an inclusive and respectful environment for individualism and self-expression. At Calvin Klein, we tolerate everything except intolerance— any intolerant commentary will be removed, and any accounts issuing hateful statements may be blocked.
The ad generated some backlash from people who questioned the likelihood of any biologic man becoming pregnant. Calvin Klein’s response? “Bigotry!” Calvin Klein is on the record as refusing to accept all opinions different from their own. Yet, having any opinion in the “mainstream” is becoming increasingly difficult because some opinions are louder than others. It depends on who owns the megaphone.
Soon after the Calvin Klein ad, Mattel released the Transgender Barbie doll in the image of Transman Laverne Cox;emphasis on cox? The new Barbies are reported to not have genitals, but they never had genitals to begin with, as they are toys. Cox claims that it was his/her mother’s fault that he/she was denied the ability to play with a Barbie doll, which caused shame and trauma. The answer from a medical therapist? “Go out and play with a Barbie doll.” Cox claims it was playing with the Barbie dolls that inspired healing.
No one discounts that Gender Dysforia is a recognized medically diagnosed condition, where someone feels that their physical gender does not match their internal gender identity. Medical treatment includes talk therapy with a psychologist, puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery. A Spanish medical journal states:
In children and adolescents, gender identity dysphoria is a complex clinical entity. The result of entity is variable and uncertain, but in the end only a few will be transsexuals in adulthood.
Let Kids Be Kids
The inherent immaturity and vulnerability of kids, who cannot purchase cigarettes, get married, or get a tattoo without parental consent, makes them prone to being taken advantage of by others. When it comes to surgeries for minors (without parental consent), many states are taking action to safeguard children with legal protection.
On May 6, 2022, an Alabama law took effect criminalizing gender transition surgery, puberty blockers, and hormone treatments on minors, punishable by up to ten years. On June 3rd, Florida governor took steps to protect minors from transgender surgeries. While the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Endocrine Society recommend these treatments for ‘gender affirming’ care, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, released a 46-page report arguing against Medicare coverage for trans surgeries. Among their reasons:
Following a review of available literature, clinical guidelines, and coverage by other insurers and nations, Florida Medicaid has determined that the research supporting sex reassignment treatment is insufficient to demonstrate efficacy and safety….
The current standards set by numerous professional organizations appear to follow a preferred political ideology instead of the highest level of generally accepted medical science
…the scientific evidence supporting these complex medical interventions is extraordinarily weak.
There are at least 16 states that have taken action to protect children from Transgender surgeries. Arkansa’s Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act, openly contradicts guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden and transgender rights activists. Yet, it is the State government’s role to regulate activities and issues of citizens within the boundaries of the state it governs, not the federal government’s.
Why do corporate ads fail to respond to the real consequences that these kids face in society? Do their transgender ads serve to create more division and segregation? Are Calvin Klein and Mattel virtue signaling? The truth is that girls play with GI Joe and boys play in the kitchen. Speaking out about social issues without actually acting to support the cause is called Slaktivism.
Have we reached a moment of Transanity by design, at the hands of the media?
TransHistory
Hollywood films, and international films are conduits for social change, and some would say, conduits of social engineering. Ninety percent of media is run by six corporations. This small group offers an illusion of choice. With their power, they convince a captive audience to emulate “the trends” as they see them. Some of the first films ever produced featured LBGT-themes, though they did not achieve major box office success. [See Pre-1920s, 1920s films, 1930s films, 1940s films, 1950s films, and on and on]. Today the list of Transgender movies is prolific and accepted.
In 2017, the Transgender narrative began a new cycle in the media, when Toni the Tampon made its debut to teach children that men, too, can get periods. Since 2017, a new space has been created for TransAthletes, to allow TransWomen, or Male-to-Female transgenders, to compete as equals against biological females in weightlifting, on the football field, and even in mixed martial-arts.
In 2017, writers could write their opinions even if considered “intolerant,” simply because people were still recognized to have the natural right of free speech. [See also my 2017 article, When Men Menstruate]. This all happened before Transcensorship.
In today’s Transgender Age everyone is welcome to mingle in the same genderless shower rooms and restrooms, even if athletic competitions are still segregated into “male” and “female.” And no one can say a negative word. Today, female athletes are being crushed by TransWomen who once identified as men. At least 30 Transgender athletes are now considered “famous” because the media says so. But anyone with an opposite opinion is considered prejudiced.
In the race to be “all inclusive” have we stopped long enough to recognize our biological differences? Is is not right to question the fairness or safety of biological males – with larger muscle mass, hearts and lungs, with greater strength, acceleration, power, and speed – to compete against girls and women in sports? Is it right and just that TransWomen weight lifters smash women’s world records? Is a backlash not expected from those who see the contradictions? Why must transgender athletes “pave the way?” Pave the way to what, exactly?
The Broken One-Sex Model
The One-Sex Model was the idea of Thomas Laqueur who claimed that up until 1750, all humans were seen to be different manifestations of the same sex. The difference between humans was minimal.
It was also noted that the external genitalia of a man is almost exactly the same shape, though inverted, as the internal genitalia of a woman. The testes mapped onto the ovaries, and so forth. It was therefore thought by many, Laqueur said, that if only a woman when developing in the womb of her mother were subjected to more heat, then they would have had sufficient energy to push their internal genitalia outside and become male. Cory Cockshaw, Meet the Men who Menstruate
Unfortunately, no one can corroborate Laqueur’s opinion since no one exists from his time. One historian, Pliny the Elder, killed in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79AD, also claimed that men menstruate…. through the nose:
In the human race alone a flux of blood occurs in the males, in some cases at one of the nostrils, in others at both, with some people through the lower organs, with many through the mouth; it may occur at a fixed period, as recently with a man of praetorian rank named Macrinus Viscus, and every year with the City Prefect Volosius Saturninus, who actually lived to be over 90.
A famous 18th century “physician” Andreas Vesalius, a Flemish Anatomist, made illustrations of detailed human anatomy (See illustrations from Vesalius’ atlas) in 1543 including the genitalia. However, because the drawings and woodcuts proved controversial, the genitals were removed via black ink. At that time, Vesalius considered menstruation as the female equivalent of hemorrhoids in men:
a man who suffered from the complaint called haemorrhoids… at regular intervals this man used to have a flow of blood from the anal veins, in the very same way in which woman have their menstrual flux. – Cory Cockshaw
However, the MayoClinic, the 21st century medical authority, does not reference genitalia when describing hemorrhoids, also called piles, which are common in pregnant women and as a result of giving birth:
swollen veins in your anus and lower rectum, similar to varicose veins. Hemorrhoids can develop inside the rectum (internal hemorrhoids) or under the skin around the anus (external hemorrhoids). Nearly three out of four adults will have hemorrhoids from time to time. Hemorrhoids have a number of causes, but often the cause is unknown.
Certain medical drugs are known to cause the direct effects of abnormal breast growth in men, a medical condition diagnosed as gynecomastia. Likewise, some estrogen-boosting herbs, such as Saw Palmetto, which reduce the size of a swollen prostate, can also have the effect of breast swelling. See similar herbs here. It goes without saying that if you have a medical question, discuss it with your medical doctor.
Are The Sexes Being Neutered?
A new wave of uniformity is sweeping the globe to merge the separation of the sexes once and for all. Uniformity is the blending and blurring of differences into a fluid sea of ambiguity and nebulousness. The new equality movement is gender blending – to ignore the biological differences that exist between the male and female species as they were created.
Are we, as unique individuals, being made to conform to a mindless, empty, Baphomet-like shell that can be more easily controlled by the conglomerate few? Are governments, in a sense, blotting out the genitalia 500 years after Vesalius’ drawings? Are humans ultimately being neutered as vessels for something else?
In 2009, the Delhi Supreme Court instituted an official third gender in India that is neither male nor female by allowing those in the transgender community to self-identify one’s gender using legal documentation.
Since 2016, in New York City, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone whose gender is male, female. Model legislation by the NYC mayor Bill de Blasio has released a list of 31 gender pronouns approved by the New York City Commission on Human Rights. The list is a guide for businesses, which can now be fined as much as $250,000 if establishments in the state of New York refuse to address someone by their preferred gender pronoun:
BI-GENDERED • CROSS-DRESSER • DRAG KING • DRAG QUEEN • FEMME QUEEN • FEMALE-TO-MALE • FTM • GENDER BENDER GENDERQUEER • MALE-TO-FEMALE • MTF • NON-OP • HIJRA PANGENDER • TRANSEXUAL/TRANSSEXUAL • TRANS PERSON WOMAN • MAN • BUTCH • TWO-SPIRIT • TRANS • AGENDER • THIRD SEX • GENDER FLUID • NON-BINARY TRANSGENDER • ANDROGYNE • GENDER GIFTED • GENDER BLENDER • FEMME PERSON OF TRANSGENDER EXPERIENCE • ANDROGYNOUS.
Gender designations are confusing from a logical standpoint. For example, “Agender” is someone without a gender, or someone who does not believe in gender. So does an Agender person discriminate against other genders in which they do not believe? Would they be fined under this NY law? Is that legal?
Since it is now illegal in many states to discriminate on the basis of gender, how does that policy co-exist with established hiring policies under Affirmative Action Programs codified under 41 CRR Part 60-2, which falls under Executive Order 11246 – Equal Employment Opportunity, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?
Has the world grown too complex? Will it soon be politically incorrect for women to be called menstruators? Can you play with Tonka Trucks and still call yourself female?
Where once human interactions and introductions involved sharing a name, and perhaps a vocation, people now feel obligated to express the complexities of their gender identity in different contexts and social settings. For those who see humanity in crisis, consider what Casey Chalk writes in the January, 2o20 Crisis Magazine:
These new norms, rather than facilitating more charitable and respectful human interactions, undermine them. In a world that demands hyper-sensitivity to the multivalent identities and expressions of every person—lest we offend or expose our insufficient woke credentials—it’s better not to try. It might be best to just keep one’s eyes locked on a smartphone or newspaper. The proliferation of pronouns and identities doesn’t eliminate barriers to human exchange; it raises them.
I’ve heard people say that there are no differences between male and female. Those people are idiots.”
Thus begins Daily Wire host Matt Walsh’s new “What Is a Woman?” documentary, which highlights the left’s ever-growing reluctance and inability to define gender. Think that defining the qualities of men and women is easy for most people today? Think again.
While some may struggle to “figure out” women, Walsh identifies that Western culture’s obsession with gender identity has paralyzed people from defining what a woman is. As the documentary progresses, we see further evidence that the transgender narrative has not only rejected the definitions of “man” and “woman” as insensitive and transphobic, but has dismantled the very concept of universal truth and reality.
Fittingly released on the first day of Pride Month, Walsh’s documentary is a thought-provoking, humorous, yet often emotional and disturbing film that illuminates the contradictory and dangerous narrative of the transgender agenda.
In the documentary, Walsh interviews “the experts,” such as “gender-affirming” therapists, sex-change surgeons, and gender ideology professors (most of whom are transgender themselves or members of the LGBTQ+ community), asking them, “What is a woman?”
The majority of responders say they have no idea how to define womanhood or refuse to answer the question, calling it bigoted and pointless. Not only are they unable to provide a simple definition of a woman, but they find the entire concept offensive and transphobic.
The documentary begins on a humorous note, as Walsh asks a family therapist, “How do I know if I’m a woman? I mean, I like scented candles and I watch ‘Sex and the City.’”
“What a great question!” the therapist (who has every indication of being a woman) says, nodding and smiling encouragingly.
“So, what is a woman?” Walsh asks. A disconcerted look enters the counselor’s eye: “Great question! But I’m not a woman, so I can’t really answer that.”
“I thought therapy would make me less confused,” Walsh said. Us too, Matt.
So, he takes to the streets to ask the common American if they can solve this conundrum. Surprisingly, most of the interviewees responded to the “What is a woman?” question with a blank stare and nervous laughter. Most said it couldn’t be defined and said they would accept Walsh as a woman if that’s what he believed he was.
Especially entertaining is Walsh’s trip to the Women’s March—surely they’ll know what a woman is if they’re marching for them, right? But no, the marching women either ignored Walsh or yelled, “Why are you here?”—insinuating that he was a man (without even asking his gender identity, the audacity!) and that a man had no right to attend a women’s march. “How can you have a women’s march if you don’t know what a woman is?” he asked. Touché.
What is the female gender, according to the transgender community? Walsh spoke with a transgender surgeon who differentiated between sex and gender, saying that sex-change surgery is “altering the physical characteristics of an individual to fit better with a gender identity that is female.”
In that case, what is a woman, according to this surgeon? “A woman is a combination of your physical attributes, what you’re showing to the world and the gender clues you give, and hopefully those match your gender identity.”
As if the issue couldn’t get any more confusing, Walsh speaks with a pediatrician and professor who has worked in Planned Parenthood and advocates for “gender and reproductive justice.” She provides “gender affirmation care,” saying that a good doctor is there to listen to the patient and act on what they’re expressing.
Walsh asked whether it was ethical for minors to be making life-altering decisions such as taking puberty blockers or opposite sex hormones, since children often have a fantastical, unrealistic interpretation of reality, such as believing in Santa Claus.
“Well, he’s real to them,” the pediatrician said. “But the fact that Santa exists isn’t true,” Walsh countered. “Whose truth are you talking about? It’s very real to the child,” the pediatrician responded.
The documentary makes it clear that Americans can no longer ignore the transgender movement. It is permeating every aspect of society, politics, and education and now targets children as young as preschoolers.
The push for children to define their own realities and irreversibly change their bodies is perhaps what is most disturbing about the transgender agenda. In what other sphere of medicine do patients, especially young children, prescribe both their malady and remedy to the affirmation and acceptance of a counselor or physician? As clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson said to Walsh, “It’s not my job to affirm as a therapist, you come to see me because there’s something wrong.
The fact that the transgender agenda is increasingly targeting young children is what psychiatrist Miriam Grossman finds most disturbing. Grossman explains to Walsh the history of the transgender and sex-ed movement and highlights the unethical, traumatic techniques and flawed studies that have shaped it over the years. “It’s unspeakable what these people have done to our children,” she says.
Not only is the transgender movement harming women’s sports, exposing children to inappropriate material, and encouraging them to reject science and universal truth, it is also irreparably damaging children’s bodies and destroying their futures.
The most moving and persuasive interview occurred with Scott Newgent, a biological female who transitioned to a male as an adult but passionately argues against the rise in gender surgery among children and the subjectivity of gender. “I’m a biological woman that medically transitioned to appear like a man through synthetic hormones and surgery,” Newgent said. “I will never be a man. Is it transphobic for me to tell the truth?”
Newgent describes the details and horrific side effects of gender-reassignment surgery that are so conveniently hidden from public discourse. Having undergone multiple surgeries, illnesses, and painful, permanent side effects, Newgent told Walsh, “Nobody would help me, including the doctor who did this to me, because I lost my insurance. I probably won’t live very long.”
Newgent said the possible risks and side effects were never discussed when considering gender-reassignment surgery, and warns parents and anyone considering sex-change surgery that “the truth is that medical transition is experimental.”
Revealing an arm mutilated from skin grafts, Newgent broke down in tears on camera, exclaiming in horror that minor children are regularly operated on without any discussion of the risks and permanence of the surgery, or any discussion as to whether children should ethically be allowed or able to consent to such procedures.
“We’re butchering a generation of children because no one’s willing to talk about anything,” Newgent said. “This is wrong on so many levels. Kids aren’t able to consent.”
The transgender movement is ultimately an attack on scientific fact, the concept of reality, and the meaning of language. No longer are words allowed to mean one thing. No longer is the word “truth” socially acceptable, because who are we to deny “your reality” or “your truth”?
A professor of women (whatever those are, anyway), gender, and sexuality responded to Walsh’s statement that he was seeking the truth with, “I’m really uncomfortable with that language of ‘getting to the truth’ because it sounds deeply transphobic to me. The word ‘truth’ is condescending and rude.”
Sensing that this concept is a purely Western phenomenon, Walsh heads to Nairobi to immerse himself in the customs of a local tribe. In this culture, gender norms and roles are crucial to the survival of the tribe. The men protect and provide, and the women maintain the home and nurture the children. It’s an honor to be a man or a woman in this tribe, and every member knows their distinct duties and privileges.
A group of men laugh in disbelief when Walsh asks what they would do if a man wanted to look and act like a woman—the entire concept is ridiculous and unheard of. “The Maasai people don’t think much about gender,” Walsh observes on the way back home to America, “but they have a firm sense of their identity.”
Instead of solving gender dysphoria and body image discomfort, Americans’ infatuation with identity has only created greater societal instability and refused to answer the most foundational of questions. “What Is a Woman?” succeeds in highlighting the inconsistencies and dangerous agenda of the transgender movement.
Walsh’s angle is particularly effective, as he gives the majority of the screentime to pro-trans activists and medical professionals. The lack of data or persuasive argument for the trans community isn’t the producers’ fault, the “experts” simply couldn’t provide any. Walsh’s sarcastic, borderline dark sense of humor in the delightfully ridiculous street interviews breaks up the more serious, unsettling information and gives a sense of hope and common sense to the insanity that’s been normalized.
Bold, humorous, thought-provoking, and undeniably chilling, “What Is a Woman?” equips its audience to better face the ever-growing reality of the transgender agenda and its far-reaching effects through civil discourse, empathy, and a firm grasp of truth, science, and reality.
At the end of the film, it’s Walsh’s wife who’s the true MVP. “Hey honey, what’s a woman?” Walsh asks. “An adult human female,” she responds.
TCTL editor’s note: “What Is a Woman” by Matt Walsh has been mirrored on various video platforms. Here it is found at Open Library of Knowledge at Odysee:
Andrew Kaufman is a Medical Doctor, Psychiatrist and Molecular Biologist who received his training and degrees from Duke University, MIT and South Carolina Medical University. He says there are no such things as “viruses” and the “Coronavirus Global Pandemic” is a “manufactured event.”
The conversation around whether or not viruses exist, appears to conjure up all kinds of emotions, and is met with resistance. My guess is because virology is a deeply entrenched paradigm, and it is what we were taught as kids.
A cult-like approach would be to dismiss dissenting views and, instead, to perpetuate a previously held belief. David Rasnick refers to this as the Tyranny Of Dogma.
Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.
The object of war is to kill or maim as many people as possible, by whatever means. However, outright killing is often less efficient than wounding because more of the enemy’s resources are consumed in caring for the wounded than burying dead bodies. The overall goal of war is to conquer and subdue a people. In the process of conquering, the enemy must be psychologically and physically broken to the point that they give up their will to fight and their will to assert self-determination.
The current pandemic war has all the markings of more traditional militaristic war except that it is still unrecognized by those who are under attack. It is the perfect stealth war. History is full of examples of stealth attacks that were extremely successful. The victims never saw the attackers until it was too late to resist.
In today’s war, the entire health system has been weaponized and turned into a giant Trojan horse. Obey, obey, obey it cries. Humiliate yourself by donning a face mask, by staying home and retreating from normal society. Mutilate yourself by giving up your job, closing your business, injecting harmful substances into your body.
Meanwhile, dead bodies are piling up in record numbers. It’s an old-fashioned genocide with a medical twist.
For a minute, forget case numbers, hospital beds and epidemiological studies. The Expose provides a back-door look at what’s going on by analyzing ambulance call-outs, all of which are nicely recorded and detailed:
The National Health Service has confirmed in response to a freedom of information request that ambulance call-outs relating to immediate care required for a debilitating condition affecting the heart nearly doubled in the whole of 2021 and are still on the rise further in 2022. But the most concerning published figures show that they have also doubled among people under the age of 30.
What group is getting hit hardest? Young people under 30 – those normally suited for military service, i.e., to build a physical army. Overall, emergency calls for heart-related incidents has skyrocketed from the first day of Emergency Use Authorization injections.
The tidal wave of propaganda – just like in any war – is designed to deceive, demoralize and confuse. Prominent medical journals spit out headlines like:
They all state that your eyes are lying to you. Rather, you should trust the propaganda that sows just enough doubt that you don’t dare open your mouth in public about such silly things as ambulance call-outs for heart-related emergencies.
This writer has continuously stated since December 18, 2015 that Technocracy declared war on the entire human population of the world. I wrote, “Technocracy is the same nefarious ideology that enabled Adolph Hitler in the 1930s. Nazi Germany used advanced technology to enslave and kill millions of its own citizens. This hasn’t happened here yet, but this is the direction we are headed.”
We have arrived.
What level of stupidity and ignorance do people have to exhibit to not see what is going on here?
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,287,595 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 28,532 deaths and 235,041 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 27, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,287,595 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 27, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That’s an increase of 9,615 adverse events over the previous week.
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
The data included a total of 28,532 reports of deaths — an increase of 220 over the previous week — and 235,041 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 2,347compared with the previous week.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 13,150 U.S. deaths reported as of May 27, 16% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 586 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of May 27, including 346 million doses of Pfizer, 221 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
22 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.The Defender has noticed over previous weeks that reports of myocarditis and pericarditis have been removed by the CDC from the VAERS system in this age group. No explanation was provided.
62 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine. VAERS reported 63 reports in the 12- to 17-year-old age group last week.
654 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 642 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
167 reports of blood clotting disorders with all cases attributed to Pfizer. VAERS reported 168 cases of blood clotting disorders in the 12- to 17-year-old age group last week.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to May 27, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
COVID-19 shots for kids under 5 could begin by June 21, White House says
COVID-19 vaccines could be available for children younger than 5 as early as June 21 if U.S. health regulators clear the shots, White House coronavirus response coordinator Ashish Jha said Thursday.
According to The Washington Post, states can start ordering vaccines today, with 10 million initially available. The FDA vaccine advisors are scheduled to meet June 14 and 15 to discuss pediatric vaccines. The CDC will meet shortly after to sign off on the decision.
There are about 19 million children under 5 in the U.S.
Young males have highest risk of heart damage from COVID vaccines
Young males are more likely to report heart damage following vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and the damage is more likely to be reported after the second dose, according to researchers who reviewed the scientific literature and vaccine injury databases in the U.K., EU and U.S.
Research published May 25 in The BMJ showed 18,204 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis were submitted to U.K., U.S. and EU regulators during the study period, beginning when the mRNA vaccines first rolled out until mid-March 2022.
In the U.S., 2,986 events following Pfizer’s vaccine and 1,640 events following Moderna’s vaccine were reported to VAERS.
According to the CDC, 124.12 million people were fully vaccinated with Pfizer and 75.57 million people fully vaccinated with Moderna during the study period.
For Pfizer, the reporting rate was 14.70 cases of myocarditis and 9.36 cases of pericarditis per 1 million fully vaccinated individuals. The combined rate of myocarditis and pericarditis is 12.03 cases reported per 1 million fully vaccinated individuals.
For Moderna, there were 12.35 cases of myocarditis and 9.36 cases of pericarditis reported per 1 million fully vaccinated recipients. The combined reporting rate of both myocarditis and pericarditis is 10.86 per 1 million.
There were 13,573 events of myocarditis and/or pericarditis reported in observational studies included in the systematic review of the literature, but these cannot help to calculate the overall rate of these adverse events.
Vaccine injury compensation programs overwhelmed by thousands of reports
Federal programs compensating people who suffered injuries from vaccines or COVID-19 pandemic treatment are facing so many claims that thousands of people may not receive payment for their injuries for a long time, Politico reported.
The first program, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), has too little staff to handle the number of reported injuries resulting from pediatric vaccines such as polio and MMR, leaving thousands of patients waiting years for their cases to be heard.
The second program, the Countermeasure Injuries Compensation Program (CICP), designed to compensate people for injuries caused by COVID-19 vaccines and countermeasures, has seen unsustainable growth.
Between 2010 and 2020, the CICP received only 500 complaints. Since the start of the pandemic, it has received more than 8,000 complaints — 5,000 of which are related to COVID-19 vaccines.
To date, the CICP has paid zero claims, although it did approve one in December 2021.
Should COVID-19 vaccines become routine, any injuries would be handled by the already overwhelmed VICP. There are fears the public will mistake the situation for “too many injuries flooding the program,” which will lead to vaccine hesitancy.
Mike Stone runs viroliegy.com, easily the most powerful and persuasive critique of virology, that I’ve come across.
I’ve chatted to a number of great minds on the topic of viruses, such as Tom Cowan and Sam Bailey, and find myself convinced by their arguments.
In our conversation, Mike covers
why virology is pseudoscience;
what viruses are;
the problems with definitions;
direct evidence versus indirect evidence;
Koch’s Postulates and why they matter;
the rejection of the Scientific Method;
isolation and purification;
genomics and genome sequencing; and
the Rockefeller funding behind virology.
I strongly recommend reading Bechamp Or Pasteur, which is a biographical exposé of the fraudulent work of Louis Pasteur and the forgotten work of Antoine Béchamp.
“The Anti-Vaccine Movement’s New Frontier: A wave of parents has been radicalized by Covid-era misinformation to reject ordinary childhood immunizations — with potentially lethal consequences.”
And Friday morning, they sent out an email blast to promote the article.
Here’s their promo. The Times really had to stretch to come up with such a load. My comments are in brackets.
“This week, Moises Velasquez-Manoff reports on a wave of parents who have been radicalized by Covid-era misinformation to reject ordinary childhood immunizations — with potentially lethal consequences.”
[Wow. The author has three names. Impressive. I feel I need at least three to reply. Jon The Rebel on Vaccine Fantasy Island Just Say No to Bill Gates Rappoport.]
“In 2019, even before the pandemic struck, the World Health
Organization listed growing vaccine hesitancy as one of its top 10 threats to global health. Now the pandemic has given anti-vaccine advocates an opportunity to field-test a variety of messages and find new recruits.”
[Yes, our anti-vaxx squadrons use dozens of human and AI analysts to float our messages and then test the results. We use polls, surveys, in-home visits, NSA-type surveillance tools, and even covert assets in the press to expand our reach. Elite foundation money pours into our coffers.]
“’There’s a lot of misinformation about the Covid vaccines, and it just bleeds into everything,’ one doctor told us. ‘These fake stories and bad information get stuck in people’s heads, and they understandably get confused’.”
[One doctor told the Times that. Well, case closed. Verdict? We’re guilty. The doctor is always right. Wait a minute. I just called a doctor. He told me the Times’ doctor is wrong. Duel at dawn. Choice of weapons.]
“If this dynamic continues, it could threaten decades of progress in controlling infectious disease — a triumph that has, paradoxically, hindered the effort to counter vaccine skepticism. In the developed world, only a small portion of the population has seen the death and suffering caused by the diseases of eras past; vaccines, in the minds of many, have come to pose a greater threat than the diseases that they have helped nearly vanquish. In a sense, vaccines have become victims of their own success.”
[Obviously, the Times writer is a gymnast. Probably practices yoga. He can bend and stretch and twist with the best of them. Also, notice how he characterizes the parents who “have been radicalized”: They’re people who don’t have a brain in their heads. They’re massively ignorant robots, dupes and yokels just waiting for vaccine misinformation, which they grab like kids going for candy. Parents actually thinking for themselves? Never happens.]
On the other hand, readers of the Times are DISCERNING. They’re COLLEGE GRADS. They take their vaxx info from the paper’s pros, who have perfected the ability to look down their noses at the great unwashed and cluck and tsk tsk and express a modicum of sympathy.
Nowhere in the Times—ever—will we read an actual debate on the subject of vaccines, in which two sides are adequately represented and given ample space to present a little thing called EVIDENCE (or fake evidence).
To host such debates would be demeaning for the Times. It would signal a departure from their perch which constantly advertises: if-we-say-it-we-know-it.
Maintaining that pose month after month, year after year, decade after decade is debilitating.
Which is one reason why so many mainstream reporters are drunks.
In late 2019, I joined two other Israeli criminologists and a health risk communications expert in a research project to study the suppression of scientific dissent around the topic of vaccines. At the time, none of us could have ever imagined what was looming right around the corner.
Two of them (Natti Ronel and Ety Elisha) had written a review of a Hebrew-language book called “Turtles All The Way Down,” which was a critical review of vaccine safety science. The thing about the book is that it was published anonymously, as the author(s) feared the potential retribution that might ensue.
Their review was published in the Hebrew-language journal, Medicine (Refuah), which is the journal of the Israeli Medical Association, sort of like the Israeli equivalent of JAMA. I won’t go into how it ever got published in the book review section, but the review simply focused on the absurdity of a scientist who felt the need to publish a scientific book anonymously due to fear of the consequences. Ironically, the publication of the review caused a huge uproar (you can read more about that here where it was covered in Science), and the review itself was retracted, or more precisely it simply disappeared from the on-line version of the journal.
So we started a project to study the phenomena of scientific censorship and suppression of scientific dissent in the field of vaccines by interviewing scientists and doctors who had either had their papers retracted or who had faced attempts to suppress their views. Notably, the only retracted papers in the field of vaccinology that we could identify all raised questions about the safety of vaccines. And this was all BEFORE the COVID pandemic hit. (We’ve got another one that covers the COVID period that should be coming out fairly soon.)
In other words, everything it describes happened before the pandemic. The censorship and suppression we’ve witnessed these last two years already existed — it has only kicked into overdrive. The deliberate dismantling of science didn’t start two years ago.
If it isn’t clear why criminologists would be interested in this topic, consider the following general definition of crime: force or fraud in the pursuit of self-interest.
So without further ado, you can read both papers embedded (hopefully) below:
As you know, I’ve spent two years presenting evidence that the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 was a fake.
But I still press on. I examine the reality machine to see why people have such a problem acknowledging the virus—and by extension, all viruses—are nothing more than fairy tales.
I’ve come up with a number of explanations.
For example: DOCTORS.
Rejecting viruses is rejecting doctors. Doctors are security guards around the reality machine.
“Doctors can’t be wrong.”
“I can’t live in a world where doctors are so wrong.”
“I would never be able to stop weeping for the doctors who are so wrong.”
“If I told my doctor I didn’t believe in viruses, he would cut me off, and I couldn’t stand that.”
“I’m a journalist, and my best sources are doctors. The good doctors. And they all say viruses are real. I need my sources.”
“Without information from doctors, the world would spin into chaos.”
“My mind instructs me to believe doctors are only guilty of making mistakes up to a certain threshold. Beyond that, they simply can’t be criticized.”
OK, that takes care of the doctor fixation. But then we have what I call the world-view fixation:
“I don’t want to live in a world where there are no viruses. I would feel lonely and afraid.”
“I need the assurance that this world of ours is filled with tiny invisible killers. When I accept that, I can maintain equilibrium. You know, their threat and our response. It makes sense.”
“I love the idea of tiny killers. It comforts me.”
“I know precisely what to be afraid of in this world. Otherwise, I would start to see ghosts in closets at night again. I remember them from childhood. Those bastards were PERSONAL. They were coming for ME. Viruses are neutral. They don’t know me. To them, I’m just cells. They don’t PREFER me. They’ll take anyone. I like that.”
“Even if viruses are bullshit, they’re sophisticated bullshit. I favor that over some sort of primitive bullshit.”
“Rejecting viruses would equal rejecting my college education. I need that education to assert my superior position against the Lower Ignorant Ones.”
“The ecological chain of life includes viruses. If we remove them from the chain, Nature makes no sense. That’s what I hear.”
“The world is a dangerous place. This is good, because it helps me to explain my problems and lack of determination. Without viruses, the danger factor would be reduced, and I can’t have that.”
“The nature of reality dictates that when you’re right, you should be psychotically nasty about being right. If I’m not right about the existence of viruses, I can’t be as nasty as I want to be. And that would be a tragedy.”
“My father is a doctor, and he is a great man. At least as great as Al Capone.”
Thoughts of people around the world will lie with bereaved families affected by the latest school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Texas.
As the search for answers begin, the cause of violent behaviour will once again go under the spotlight, along with the gun laws in the United States.
While there is never one simple explanation for what drives a human being to commit such unspeakable acts, all too often one common denominator has surfaced in hundreds of cases—prescribed psychiatric drugs that are documented to cause mania, psychosis, violence, suicide and in some cases, homicidal ideation.
The general public remain uninformed about the well-documented links between psychiatric drugs and violence. At least 37 school shootings and or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 175 wounded and 82 killed. Following the latest shooting, another 21 deaths are going to be added to the abysmal death toll.
International drug regulatory warnings and studies reveal the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of violence and homicide. There are also hundreds of cases where high profile acts of violence and mass murder were committed by individuals under the influence of psychiatric drugs.
Despite 27 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between the drugs and acts of senseless violence.
While psychiatrists are aware of the dangers associated with their prescribing habits, they continue their routine pattern of denial while the patient is left uninformed about the dangers linked to the psychiatric drugs being recommended.
Professor David Healy, a psychiatrist and pharmacologist says, “Violence and other potentially criminal behaviour caused by prescription drugs are medicine’s best kept secret.”
We cannot allow this to be the norm and we must not remain silent on this issue. The dangers of psychiatric drugs have been known for decades so, as responsible citizens, we have to continue to repeat this message so that the populace is informed and so that school shootings become confined to the history books rather than being the headlines.
During crises, people ask questions, and the Covid crisis is no exception. People are asking, “Is there any real or new illness called Covid-19—apart from vaccinations and the treatments themselves?” We are not alone in proposing that we must take a cold look at the viral theory touted as the cause of this alleged disease.
Journalist Jeremy Hammond has been the most outspoken critic of our contention that the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” does not exist and therefore does not cause Covid. In a video posted in March 2021,1 he outlines the following arguments for the existence of the “virus.” We answer his arguments, point by point.
Definition of Isolation
Hammond states that people in our camp have changed the definition of isolation, but we use the actual definition of the word “isolation” in the English language. It’s the virologists who have changed the meaning of the word from “separated from other things” to meaning “combined with other things in a foreign cell culture.”
Isolation Technology
Hammond claims that scientists do not yet have the technology to purify viral particles. Actually, scientists have been able to purify particles equivalent in size to so-called viruses for decades. The traditional method, in use since at least the 1940s, involves what is called density gradient ultracentrifugation. It uses different densities of a sucrose solution spun into layers at high speeds with an ultracentrifuge, so that the densest layer ends up on the bottom. The sample will separate into bands based on different densities, and one of those bands could contain the so-called viral particles if they existed.
For example, a 2015 article published in Methods in Molecular Biology,2 provides electron microscopy photographs of purified exosomes (see Figure 1). Exosomes are roughly the same size as that of claimed viral particles, around fifty to one hundred nanometers, and they have the same morphology and characteristics of alleged virus particles.
If you can purify exosomes, you can purify viruses using the same techniques. Scientists take exosomes directly from a body fluid; they don’t take the exosomes and put them in a cell culture. One of the challenges the authors discuss is the fact that the exosomes are present in low numbers; also, there are many different types of extracellular particles in the bodily fluid from which to separate the exosomes. These are some of the problems that have been put forth as a reason why it’s difficult to purify virus particles, but the researchers have overcome these problems with exosomes.
Bacteriophages, known as “the viruses of bacteria,” can also be purified, as shown in a 2018 article (again published in Methods in Molecular Biology)33 (see Figure 1). Bacteriophages are particles of similar size to viruses, and they also can be purified by chromatography and other methods. Mr. Hammond alleges that you can’t get a pure sample—a sample where you see only one thing in a vacuum. However, as you can see in the photos of exosomes and bacteriophages, all the objects are the same—they are the only thing in the microscope field because these have been isolated and purified, and there is nothing else in the sample, just exosomes or bacteriophages.
FIGURE 1. Isolated exosomes, isolated bacteriophages and “isolated” viruses
Isolated, purified exosomes
Isolated, purified bacteriophages
Sample taken from human fluids and grown in a tissue culture, said to be “purified” and “isolated” virus.So, biologists clearly have this technology, and it’s been around for quite a long time. It’s just that when they tried to do isolate viral particles, back in the 1940s and 1950s, after they had electron microscopes, they were actually unable to find any particle in the tissues or fluids of anyone who was ill. The problem is that they are unable to find the viral particles, not that they don’t have the technology to isolate and purify.
Cell Culture is the Gold Standard
Hammond admits that you need a cell culture to “isolate” a virus, because the virus needs cells in which to replicate in order to have enough virus to detect. According to the viral theory, the virus causes an infection in the lung, for example, when it invades the lung cells and then reproduces in the lung tissue, right in those cells, and then produces more viral particles. So, all we would need to do is go right to that tissue culture in the sick person, not one that we create in a laboratory with other conditions that are not natural.
In other words, why would we do this kind of indirect experiment when we have a cell culture right in the host—namely, virus-invaded lung tissue—from which we could extract the virus? Why can’t we do a proper isolation, where you go to the host, the natural source of the virus, which is a sick person with an infection, and purify the viral particles right out of that person’s bodily tissues or fluids?
Cytopathic Effects
Virologists claim that the pathogenic nature of viruses is evident in light microscope images of tissue cultures showing cytopathic effects (meaning cell breakdown). But what the images of “viruses” from an electron microscope show is a mixture of cellular material from the cell culture and a variety of different types of particles (see Figure 1, third image). How can we know what any of those particles actually are? And how do we know the particle didn’t come from the foreign cell culture, such as the kidney cells it was cultured in? How do we know it’s not an exosome, a particle produced inside the cell? How do we know it’s not an apoptotic body (from cellular breakdown)? How do we know it’s not another type of extracellular vesicle? How do we know it’s a virus (since it doesn’t have a label and has not been isolated and purified)? While virologists can show images of small particles, they have no way of identifying the nature or identity of any of those particles.
Genetic Sequencing
Hammond claims that scientists can do genetic sequencing of the particles found in tissue cultures. There are actually two ways of doing genetic sequencing. One way is to extract genetic material from only one organism, and then sequence the genome in its entirety. That’s how you can discover the genome sequence of a new organism.
But for viruses, scientists use a different technique, variously termed “genomic” sequencing, “next generation” sequencing or “in silico” sequencing (meaning carried out in a computer). Whatever they call it, this kind of sequencing is just piecemeal.
Hammond describes the method accurately, in that they start with lots of pieces of genetic material, and then a computer does sophisticated calculations and simulations to put them together. The problem—which Hammond does not describe—is that the starting material for these experiments is not a pure organism; it’s not just a virus. What they’re starting with is, in most cases, the lung fluid from a patient diagnosed with Covid by a PCR test. (And we know the PCR test is invalid. See sidebar page 20.)
The fluid they start with has genetic material from many different organisms—from a variety of bacteria species, probably some fungal and yeast species, as well as all of the human genetic material from the host and then anything that happened to be in the air that this person inhaled for the few breaths before they took the sample. In other words, there are many sources of genetic material. When they put those little bits of genetic material into the computer, the computer doesn’t know which organism they’re from—since they are not starting with a pure virus, there’s no way to tell.
When the computer runs the simulation and tries to fit these little strands of sequences together by overlapping ends, they don’t know whether the computer is making a real sequence of an organism, or if it’s putting little bits from different organisms together into some kind of mishmash or chimera. They have no way to check it against a reference standard, because there’s never been any true sequence of these viruses. What we end up with is just a simulation.
To give an idea of the problem, in the first sequence that they did this way with SARS-CoV-2, they actually had over fifty-six million little pieces or sequences, and they had not one but two different software programs independently take those pieces and try to construct them into a longer strand that they said was the size of a typical coronavirus genome. With one of the software programs, they just threw out the data because it didn’t give them what they wanted. So, they’re picking and choosing at each stage: “We think this is good. . . we want to use this.”
The other software program came up with over a million different possible sequences, but they just picked one. And there was no rhyme or reason to how they picked it. It was just an arbitrary selection. With all of the uncertainty about the origin of each individual piece of DNA, they just randomly select one of millions of possible combinations spit out by a computer. How could anyone believe these results represent the real genome of an actual organism? It would be impossible.
Lack of Proper Controls
Hammond states that virologists do a control experiment when they do the tissue cultures. That statement is not quite accurate. In a proper control, you have only one variable different, and as far as we know, virologists have never actually done this. The proper way to do it would be to take lung fluid from someone who is sick, but does not have Covid—sick with influenza or pneumonia, for example—or even lung fluid from someone who is healthy. Then, they would continue the experiment using the exact same methods, the same cell cultures, the same concentrations of antibiotics, the exact same nutrients, and any other additives or environmental conditions such as the same temperature, the same amount of agitation, the same protocols all around—that would be a proper control. No one is doing this type of proper control for virus identification.
Some of the papers about SARS-CoV-2 have mentioned what’s called a “mock infected culture,” but this is not the same as a control. In fact, we don’t know exactly what they do with these mock infected cultures. They’re not reported on in every paper, but in a couple they are. And curiously, they don’t describe these mock infected cultures at all. If you go to the methods sections, you don’t see any explanation of what a mock infected culture is. And they don’t mention the word “control.”
If they’re doing a true control experiment, why wouldn’t they call it a control culture? They have to use different words because they’re not really doing a proper control, but they’re trying to pass it off as one, which is why they change the words. We have read hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers on other subjects, and they always refer to the control group; they don’t say the “mock treatment group.” So, the mock infected culture is some kind of trick. We even tried to communicate with a couple of the corresponding authors on these publications. We asked an open-ended question: “Can you tell us the procedure for the mock infected cells listed in this figure?” In most cases, they didn’t reply at all.
In one case, we were unable to get a clear answer. The reply we received was, “They’re treated the same.” But what does that mean? “Can you tell us the exact conditions?” We even put our queries into a yes or no question like, “Did you use the same antibiotics at the same concentration? Did you use the same nutrition at the same concentration?” But we could not get a clear response, which suggests that they are probably hiding something.
We do have two examples of studies that included a control sample. The first comes from a 1954 article published in Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine by Enders and Peebles.4 This was the first published paper to use the cell culture technique, which later became known as “virus isolation.”
In this study on measles, the authors put the patient specimen in a foreign culture of monkey kidney cells and then they got cytopathic effects—meaning they were able to show some damage to the cell culture.
An interesting quote in this paper describes the results of the control experiment. “Monkey kidney cultures may therefore be applied for the study of these agents [referring to measles] in the same manner as cultures of human kidney. In doing so, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in a monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors.”
In other words, they saw a cytopathic effect in the cell culture that was alleged to be a result of damage from the measles virus itself—but it might not necessarily have come from the measles virus; it could have been caused by something in the kidney cells themselves, which they call viruses, or from unknown factors.
Continuing, the two authors said, “A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.” Now, that means they did not put any sample from a measles patient in the culture; they ran the cell culture without a source of virus—just the cell culture with no patient sample in it. According to the authors, “The cytopathic changes induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles [emphasis added].” In other words, the sample with nothing added to it produced the same results as the sample containing fluid from the measles patient.
Since the control was positive, that means that the experimental procedure itself, and not the measles virus, caused the cytopathic changes.
An important recent control experiment was carried out by Dr. Stefan Lanka, who is the only virologist we are aware of who has recognized the truth about the nonexistence of a virus—and who left the field. What he did was carry out just the control experiment. There is no possible source of virus anywhere in this experiment. As you can see in Figure 2, the top row of panels is Day One and the second row is Day Five of the experiment.
FIGURE 2. Control experiment by Dr. Stefan LankaDay One is when they changed the cell culture conditions. Previous to Day One, all of these cell cultures were kept healthy with normal cell culture procedures; then, on Day One, they changed the condition. In the first column, they used the full nutrition (GlutaMAX plus 10 percent fetal calf serum) and antibiotics at the normal concentration. In the second column, they reduced the nutrition and kept the same concentration of antibiotics. There was no change on Day Five for either of these two procedures, no cytopathic effects.
The third column simulates what they do in virus cell culture isolation experiments, using reduced nutrition while increasing the antibiotic to three times the normal concentration. (The protocols use either two times or three times the normal concentration.) You can see that on Day Five, there were cytopathic effects—the cells developed vacuoles and started to break down. Normally, virologists would give this as proof of the existence of a virus, except that there’s no virus in this experiment.
In the fourth column, Lanka added yeast RNA, which doesn’t contain any viruses—it’s a pure yeast RNA specimen bought from a laboratory supply company with good quality control. You can see even more cytopathic effects on Day Five in that culture.
So, both these control experiments show that the experimental procedure itself produces the cytopathic effects. If you took the culture materials from the two dishes with cytopathic effects and looked at them under an electron microscope, you would see particles in there that you could call a virus.
Coronavirus Fringe Pattern
According to Hammond, virologists can see the characteristic coronavirus spikes on the particles they are calling viruses. Let’s review a couple of studies to see what is going on. The first was published in 2020 in Kidney360.5 In this study, researchers were looking at biopsies of people with kidney disease, mostly from before the Covid era. In the electron microscope photographs, they saw particles with the characteristic coronavirus spikes (see Figure 3). The researchers said that these were indistinguishable from coronavirus particles, which was a source of confusion for virologists. The authors pointed this out, and they even referenced a previous paper from the CDC that found the same thing.
FIGURE 3. “Viral-like particles in non-COVID19 patients’ biopsies. Electron microscopy images of viral-like particles within podocytes in a case of thrombotic microangiopathy in a (A) native kidney biopsy specimen and (B) acute cellular rejection in an allograft. Note the presence in both cases of single vesicles with an electrondense rim likely representing endocytic coated vesicles, as well as larger multivesicular bodies (arrows), which could be confounded with vesicle packets containing virions. Inset in (A): the individual small coated pits in the exterior of the vesicle bear resemblance to a viral corona. (C) Similar intracytoplasmic vesicles within tubules in an allograft with changes suspicious for acute cellular rejection.”They also said that they identified the protein that made up the spikes, and it was not the spike protein, but a protein called clathrin. So, seeing the characteristic spikes is completely meaningless; it doesn’t identify something as a coronavirus. Remember that these kidney biopsies were from people who had no disease that anyone thought was related to a virus, and it was before even the “discovery” of so-called SARS-CoV-2.
The second example comes from a “virus isolation” paper published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2020.6 A very interesting quote occurs in this paper: “Electron micrographs. . . showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles. Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.” In other words, they didn’t see any spikes so they added the digestive enzyme trypsin, which breaks or cleaves proteins at a certain sequence, and then looked at it again under the microscope—and then saw the spikes! (See Figure 4.)
FIGURE 4: “Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.”Now, isn’t that convenient? In other words, they put a spike suit on the particles so they could look like they’re supposed to look, instead of saying, “Hey, maybe there is no coronavirus in the sample.” If we have to digest a protein to make it look a certain way, then how could we say that’s what it is? It’s like having a cat but really wanting a dog, so you put a little microphone around the cat’s neck that makes a barking sound and then call it a dog. We would call this cheating.
Genome Sequencing
As Hammond and other adherents of viral theory have often stated, genome sequencing has been repeated thousands of times, and the results are published in international databases, so they can’t be a hoax. Actually, the in silico genome-sequencing procedure that we have described has been repeated over two million times—far more than Hammond claims. And of course, each time they get different results, because they can’t repeat results in an invalid experiment, so the different results are all published.
As described earlier, the way they do this is to take a bunch of pieces of unknown origin, which they run through different software simulations, and then pick out the one they like. And then they do some further magic on it by just popping things in or taking things out somewhat arbitrarily to make it look more like what they think a coronavirus genome should look like. Then they claim that this sequence is a “reference sequence” and against all of those couple of million experiments that they have repeated, they can template a reference genome. So, of course, the computer is able to put things together in such a way that it matches the so-called reference sequence somewhat closely, because the sequences that make this up are probably mostly just human sequences of non-coding RNA. (A recent analysis shows this and will soon be published.) Thus, you should be able to have similar enough sequences that you can put something together that’s close, but not exactly identical—which they then call “variants.”
Now Hammond claims that if the procedures were fraudulent, then tens of thousands of scientists all over the world would be participating together in a conspiracy; but that’s not the case at all because almost none of these scientists realizes that what they’re doing is not good science—they never question it. Doctors rarely question the things they’re taught; they just learn them and accept them as true. That’s why I (Andrew Kaufman) was recommending vaccines and using antibiotics earlier in my career, because I also just accepted those things and did them without question. Now I realize that they’re quite lethal, so I don’t do them anymore. There was a kind of individual process that I went through for that.
But the scientists involved in “virus isolation” don’t realize that they’re doing fraudulent science because they’ve never looked at it carefully. And one of the ways that science allows this kind of thing to happen is by a high degree of compartmentalization, where they don’t collaborate or talk with other people in different fields. They don’t learn how other scientists do their experiments and also how they do control experiments. And they don’t seem to talk to exosome scientists, often because they would then see that exosome scientists are able to extract and purify exosomes right from the source. And then they would try to do that and fail, because there aren’t any viruses, and then they would have to have a different conclusion and change their opinion.
But the truth is, it doesn’t matter whether all of the thousands of scientists doing “virus isolation” are in a conspiracy, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re completely ignorant, because the only thing that’s important is to look at the actual science itself—the experiments—and ask the question, can you learn something from this? Can you conclude anything from this experiment? And if the answer is no, it doesn’t matter how many people think you’re wrong, it only matters that the answer is no. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that the virologists have gotten this wrong, because in medicine this happens frequently. Take the example of beta blockers and heart failure. For many decades, it was an absolute contraindication to prescribe a beta blocker to someone with heart failure, because beta blockers make your heart beat less strongly and less rapidly. So, that was seen to make your heart weaker. But then research showed that actually, adding a beta blocker slows the progression of heart failure and allows people to live longer. It took some time for that scientific finding to be integrated into medicine, but there was no truth to the notion that doctors everywhere were in a conspiracy to hasten the death of heart failure patients. They were just ignorant to the truth of the scientific relationship between that drug in that condition. We could interpret “virus isolation” as a similar phenomenon; virologists who are doing these experiments are not able to actually show the results or provide the conclusive evidence because they are just ignorant of that fact, because they haven’t looked at it. It’s quite as simple as that.
Response to Mercola
Entering the virus debate on January 17, 2022, Dr. Joseph Mercola published a “fact-checked” article entitled, “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 is a Real Virus,”1 in which he insisted that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photographed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity.
Mercola cites studies from Italy, Germany, India, Columbia, Canada, Australia, Korea and the U.S., which claim to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 and characterized it by genome sequencing. However, none of these studies isolated any virus from the fluids of the patient; all of these studies used culturing techniques that can lead to tissue breakdown and the creation of exosomes (identical in form to “viruses”); none of these studies had a meaningful control; and all used questionable computer techniques to generate a genome in silico. Remember that these tissue cultures would also contain genetic material from the kidney cells of the culture and the bovine serum used as a nutrient medium. Even if the tissue cultures did contain viral particles, how can anyone know that the DNA the computer is analyzing comes from the virus?
As Mercola states, “Another sticking point for some is whether or not SARS-CoV-2 has ever been isolated from a human subject without passing it through animal cells, as such media could be contaminated and therefore the source of the virus.”
Indeed, this is the “sticking point!” All of the studies that Mercola cites as proof passed the sample through animal cells—cultures contaminated with fetal bovine serum and toxic antibiotics, and starved with a minimal nutrient medium.
Furthermore, no paper has proven that an isolated or pure virus obtained from a cell culture has ever made an animal or human sick in any way. Therefore, it is illogical, irrational and anti-scientific to claim that the “virus” is a pathogen.
According to Mercola, “At least part of the confusion appears to be rooted in how the term ‘isolated’ is defined. Some insist a virus is not isolated unless it’s also purified, while others say a virus doesn’t have to be purified in order to be ‘isolated.’” Actually, as we have pointed out, the confusion—deliberate confusion—results from virologists using the word “isolated” to mean “not isolated,” and insisting that “purified” and “isolated” do not mean the same thing.
More Genome Sequencing
One study Mercola highlights is a “genome sequencing” study published in January 2021 in Gut Pathology.7 In this study, the genetic material (RNA) was extracted directly from stool samples of a patient identified as having Covid-19 using the meaningless PCR test.
This paper relies on an in silico genome-sequencing procedure whereby they extract all of the RNA that is present in a body fluid or tissue sample, which would include a number of different sources of genetic material, including the person’s own. The material would include non-coding DNA that has been transcribed, spliced and recombined to make all sorts of novel sequences.
They then throw out the long fragments and just look at the short ones. This is a really important point, because the longer the sequence, the more you can be sure that it came from one source; whereas if you have short sequences, when they put them together in a longer sequence, parts of it could have come from different sources. It’s more reliable to have longer sequences, but then they can’t do the sequencing as fast. So, they put all those short sequences into the computer and let various computer software programs put them together, mapping them to the “reference” standard genome—which has been done in the same way—and then give you a result. The result is a little bit different each time, which is why they have over two million “variants.”
In this 2021 paper, they used fecal material, which they said contained the same genetic material as that extracted from the nose using a nasal swab. And interestingly, in this case, they did use a control group, which is very unusual—they actually used a purchased heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 toxic cell culture that served as a negative control.
The other unusual procedure was that they used shorter strands of RNA than normal. Usually, they look at strands of up to one hundred fifty base pairs, but in this study, they limited the length to seventy-six base pairs. This would result in even more error in terms of the source of each particular little strand.
They also skipped an important step, which they call making “contigs” (from the word contiguous). Usually, what they do is take all those little sequences of short strands—there are often over fifty million of them—and put them into software number-crunching programs that try to pair up overlapping sequences on the ends to make longer and longer strands—this is what they call “contig.” Then they pick one of the longest strands and use that as the base genome.
In this case, they didn’t do that. They just took the sequence strands and templated them right away against the reference standard from the database. In other words, they chose the pieces that would fit into the puzzle and entered them into the program, and then the software filled in the gaps and rearranged things as necessary. In this way, they made sure that the genome looked the way they wanted it to look.
All of the studies Mercola lists as proving the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are done in similar fashion to come up with a computer simulation, not a real genome taken intact from a real organism.
When Hammond talks about finding a genome of twenty-eight to twenty-nine thousand base pairs, it’s important to understand that they have never found this genome in any bodily fluid, just like they have never found anything they could call a virus. They have never found a strand of twenty-nine thousand base pairs; instead, they have created it in the computer by matching pieces together based on a template. In other words, they find the sequence only because that’s the sequence they’re telling it to find. This is not science!
More Covid-19 Virus Studies
Another paper cited by Mercola comes from Italy, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in August 2020.8 The researchers took a sputum sample from a sixty-five-year-old woman and diagnosed her with Covid-19 using a PCR test. Then they cultured the sample in kidney cells, followed by genome sequencing as described above. It’s the same in all the studies that Mercola cites. Nobody isolates the virus from the patient directly; nobody takes that virus and determines the genetic material in that virus; nobody takes that virus and exposes somebody else to it and shows that it causes disease.
Mercola cites a study from Colombia that is the same exact experiment—a nose swab cultured in a toxic cell culture, followed by genetic sequencing and electron microscopy.9 According to the researchers, “Electron microscopy images obtained from infected cells showed the presence of structures compatible with SARS-CoV-2”—not structures that are, but that are compatible.
These structures are also “compatible” with kidney failure and probably many other things. The authors state that the genetic composition of their isolates was consistent with the predominant variant—not saying it was the predominant variant. In other words, they are hedging at every turn.
At the end of his article, Mercola mentions “antibody dependent enhancement (ADE),” but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support something called ADE. Virus theory posits that we make antibodies against viral diseases. In July 2020, the head of the Bulgarian Pathology Association stated that they had found no monoclonal (coming from the same cell) antibodies in any of the people said to have died of Covid.10
This is like saying that no one has died of Covid, because since they haven’t found antibodies, they must conclude that the patients didn’t have Covid.
Does It Matter?
Hammond dismisses those who question the viral theory of disease as his “pet peeve” and “divisive” of the health freedom movement. According to Mercola, “Getting too far into the weeds of theories that refute the existence of viruses altogether will only slow down and hamper the truth movement rather than aid it along, and I would strongly discourage anyone from engaging in this highly unproductive narrative.” In other words, if you question the viral theory, you are the bad guy, hindering the movement for health freedom. One virus advocate has referred to “virus-deniers” as domestic terrorists!
And yet the virus debate has immense importance to the health freedom movement. All the objectionable “public health” measures— masks, social distancing, isolation, testing and above all toxic vaccines—are predicated on the belief that we are threatened by a virulent, contagious virus. If there is no virus—not for Covid-19, not for any disease—then the justification for forcing these measures on the public disappears.
SIDEBARS
Electron Microscopy
Scientists use an electron microscope in order to see the structures inside a cell. To view a sample under the electron microscope, they must prepare it using special procedures. One reason is that the beams of the electron microscope are extremely powerful and can heat the sample up to 150 degrees C. The preparation method requires the following steps:
FIXATION: The sample is placed in some kind of chemical fixative, such as formalin, glutaraldehyde or osmium tetroxide. This preserves the structure of the tissue.
DEHYDRATION: This step requires bathing the tissue many times in alcohol (ethanol or acetone) to remove all water from the tissue.
EMBEDDING: The tissue is put inside a small mold that is filled with paraffin wax or epoxy resin, which is then cooled to harden.
SLICING: The hardened resin is sliced into extremely thin pieces.
STAINING: The tissue is stained with some type of heavy metal, such as uranyl acetate, another name for uranium, or lead acetate, so you can have more contrast when you’re viewing the tissue through the electron microscope.
These methods will obviously have effects on biological samples. For example, formalin in the staining process is formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and neurotoxin; glutaraldehyde is specifically dangerous for the gastrointestinal tract and the lungs, and osmium tetroxide causes pulmonary edema. Ethanol used in the alcohol baths can cause severe liver damage, and acetone damages the kidneys, the lungs and the brain. Paraffin wax and epoxy resin used for embedding can also affect biological tissues.
Most toxic are the heavy metals uranium and lead used for staining; they are bound to have toxic effects on biological samples. The result is that what you see using the electron microscope has little resemblance to living tissue—it is an artifact and a distortion, from which no conclusions about cell structure can be made.
A Mouse Study
Recently, Dr. Robert Malone stated that the omicron variant is not as dangerous as the others and that we should rethink our vaccines. One of the papers he cited was “Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model,” published in December 2021 in Emerging Microbes and Infections.11
In the abstract of this paper we read, “Older individuals are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. In addition, how age modulates SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infections remain largely unexplored. Here, we investigated age-associated SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune responses, and the occurrence of re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infection utilizing a wild-type C57BL/6N mouse model. We demonstrated that interferon and adaptive antibody response upon SARS-CoV-2 challenge are significantly impaired in aged mice compared to young mice, which results in more effective virus replications and severe disease manifestations in the respiratory tract. Aged mice also showed increased susceptibility to re-infection due to insufficient immune protection acquired during the primary infection.”
Now, when well-known spokesmen such as Dr. Robert Malone comment on the importance of a study like this, it works to convince the public that SARS-CoV-2 is real and the omicron variant is real. Maybe omicron is not so bad, maybe it is worse in the elderly, but in any event, the new “variant” is real.
According to Malone, the reason this study is important is that it explains the significant adverse event profile of the vaccines. We would agree that these adverse events combined with a milder disease profile of omicron raise the possibility that boosters may not be good medicine, even for the elderly, but the suggestion that viruses have anything to do with this only perpetuates the kind of misinformation that justifies everything that is wrong with how the health authorities have handled the pandemic—masks, social distancing, isolation, hand sanitizing and vaccinations.
According to the authors, the antibody response was severely impaired in aged mice leading to more severe disease. In the Materials and Methods section, we see that the SARS-CoV-2 variant was “isolated” from a confirmed Covid-19 patient in Hong Kong and that the virus was cultured in Vero (kidney) cells and stored at negative 80 degrees C.
Now, the important part: they expose the mice to a “variant” of the “virus”—to what they think is the omicron variant. One would expect that what scientists would do is take purified virus and expose the mice in the way that humans are exposed, by breathing it in the air. But what did these scientists do? They did a standard viral culture, meaning they inoculated monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) with fetal calf serum and an unpurified sample from a person with alleged “Covid.” (Fetal bovine serum, by the way, is taken from live aborted slaughterhouse calves whose blood is sucked directly from their hearts.) So, they didn’t, in fact, use a virus—that is a flat-out lie. Instead of a virus, they used a culture of kidney cells that contained some of the primers allegedly from a variant strain, a variant that has never been isolated.
Now, you would think that they must have sprayed this culture onto the mice, or gently into their noses, but that’s not what they did. Instead, they anesthetized the mice with toxic drugs—essentially poisoning them—and then squirted a mixture of phosphate-buffered saline and the toxic kidney culture under high pressure down their noses through an intranasal cannula directly into their lungs. No rational person would say that this type of experiment has any relation to what happens in old or young people or to anybody exposed to a “virus.” It’s ridiculous to call this science.
And then they found out whether the young mice did better than the old mice. Upon intranasal inoculation, the young mice transiently lost a maximum of 5 percent body weight for a short period. In contrast, the older mice lost 12 percent of body weight, and they didn’t recover. Moreover, the young mice did not show any sign of disease. The older mice showed hunched postures and labored breathing, which was more severe at higher doses of toxic cell culture injection into their lungs.
If you wanted to be precise in your language, you would say that young mice—injected, anesthetized and subjected to high-pressure squirts of toxins directly into their lungs—seemed to be okay; they just lost a little weight. That’s probably the definition of a bad day for a mouse. But they seemed to recover, whereas the older mice didn’t do as well. That’s what they found.
And then they did all kinds of biochemical histological genetic studies, analyzing the tissue after they ground up the nasal turbinates, the lungs and so forth. They then concluded, “Yep,” these mice have a lot more antibodies than they should—which means they are trying to protect themselves against being poisoned with toxic cell cultures injected right into their lungs.
The authors found that the staining of the nucleocapsid protein was more intense at higher doses of the stuff squirted up the mice’s lungs. Later, they say these findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2 “replicates more effectively in the respiratory tract of aged mice than young mice upon virus exposure.” We would submit that they never actually took out any virus and never saw any replication of any virus in any lung of any mouse.
In other words, the researchers essentially said, “This study does not prove what we thought it was proving, but is just another way to convince us that there is a virus and that the virus is the cause of disease.” When in fact, all this study really tells us is that older, poorly-fed mice do worse when exposed to poisons than younger ones.
Does it matter whether this disease is caused by a virus or not? When the Chief Medical Officer of the World Health Organization predicts that half of the United States is going to get sick in the next six to eight weeks, yes, it does matter. The problem with all this talk about viruses is that it completely obscures the reasons why people are getting sick. We know that a lot of people are getting sick from the injections, but they are not the only people getting sick. Unfortunately, as long as we stick to this nonsense called the viral narrative, we will never ask the right questions, and we will never get any answers as to what otherwise is making people sick.
Rapid Tests for Covid-19 Virus
Recently, the CDC announced—quietly and without explanation—that as of January 1, 2022, they were no longer going to use PCR tests for “diagnosing Covid.” Many people saw this as a kind of capitulation by the CDC, as if to say they had finally seen the light; or perhaps there was enough pressure on CDC that they realized they had to back down quietly from the PCR test. Many people interpreted the CDC’s move as an end to testing, and since this pandemic is really a pandemic of testing, they believed this would go a long way toward ending the pandemic. After all, if they stopped doing the test, nobody would test positive. However, the CDC didn’t say they were going to end testing.
The problem is that these people are playing chess, while the rest of us are playing checkers—if they’re playing chess, we need to play chess, too, and understand the motivations and the rationale behind some of the moves we’re hearing about. And this is particularly true in the case of things that seem to be small victories—sometimes even fairly large victories—because upon closer examination, they don’t all turn out to be the victories that we imagined.
The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is not a diagnostic test, it’s a manufacturing tool, and it does not test whether or not anybody has any virus. Rather, the PCR is a method to rapidly make millions to billions of copies (complete copies or partial copies) of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it (or a part of it) to a large enough amount to study in detail. The inventor, Kary Mullis, was emphatic that his test could not be used to diagnose or determine disease.
The PCR amplifies the DNA sample anywhere from twenty to forty cycles in order to get enough genetic material to detect—the test does this by showing a color change. To use the PCR as a diagnostic test requires two assumptions. The first is that you know that the genetic sequence you are amplifying comes from the virus you are looking for; the second is that there are no other biological organisms in the sample—no microbes, bacteria, fungi or human DNA. To repeat, the premise of using the PCR for diagnosis is that you already know the sequence of the virus, and you know that this primer sequence is one of the pieces of the entire virus genome, and that no other biological organism has that same sequence of DNA. We know that both these premises are not true with PCR Covid tests. Actually, one of the people who came up with the original primer sequences was Christian Drosten, who admitted in a paper that they never had a copy of any virus.12
Now, just think about that for a minute. If you never had a copy of the virus, how can you possibly know that this piece of the genome is a piece of the virus, that it actually came from a virus? If we gave you a sentence and asked you whether this sentence came from a certain book, the obvious common-sense question that any rational human being would ask is, can you show me the book? How can you know whether a sentence comes from a certain book if you don’t have the book?
Furthermore, how can you prove that no other living being has this same sequence? You can determine this by doing what is called a BLAST search, which searches the database of all the genome sequences of all the organisms that have ever been sequenced. Scientists have done this and found out that the same sequence used in the PCR test primers for SARS-CoV-2 is found in at least ninety human sequences and ninety microbial sequences (meaning bacterial or fungal sequences).
Thus, the second premise, that a sequence is unique to a specific virus, is also not true. The sequence is found in humans and in bacteria. If you start with a sample that has sequences that come from humans and that has bacteria and fungus in it, there is no way of knowing whether the positive match—the sticking of the primer to a sequence in the sample that will then be amplified—comes from a virus, the person, bacteria, fungus or maybe from something else.
So, the PCR test is invalid—there are no “false positives,” there are no “false negatives,” there are just false results. So, shouldn’t we applaud when the CDC finally acknowledges that they are not going to do a PCR test anymore?
The question is, what are they going to replace it with? According to government announcements, they are going to use a “higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinylated primers.” To explain further: “This developed invention is multiplex and uses the Luminex bead-based liquid assay, which contains one hundred different unique bead oligonucleotide probes with sequences complementary to the target sequences covalently coupled to these unique beads. These capture beads are mixed with viral samples obtained from the patient via cheek swabbing or throat wash and subjected to PCR in a conventional thermocycler. The amplified target sequences then hybridize to complementary capture oligonucleotide probes via forward biotinylated primers; if this bead probe amplicon unit contains the target nucleic acid, it will be bound by the reporter molecule and fluorescence will be detected by flow site cytometer. This multiplex assay would thus be able to detect and identify respiratory pathogens present in hospital and clinical settings.”
English translation: Instead of the old PCR test, they are going to use one hundred different unique beads. These beads contain the primer sequences, and they’re all attached to the other beads. These beads are mixed with viral samples from the patient, and then they are put into PCR amplification cycles.
Now, the only real difference between this and the normal PCR test is that there are more of the primer sequences—like one hundred more—attached to a compound called biotin. These biotinylated primers stick easily to the sequences in the sample, which then get put into the old-fashioned PCR thermocycler, so that they can be amplified. And then you get a result. Now, instead of a PCR test for Covid, one test will test for all the “viruses.”
The upshot of this is that now they will be able to say that you have many different viruses, all at the same time. Since all these viruses can make you sick (so they will argue), you may need a vaccine for each one of them.
This is a checkmate: They now are able to find the code for the original “virus” as well as the delta variant and the lambda variant, right on through the Greek alphabet, because they can make it look like you have multiple different sequences. These sequences amplify more easily because they figured out a way to make the primer sequences stick more readily to whatever is in your sample. And this is not a single-plex test. This is a multiplex assay, which means they can find any number they want, just by increasing the amplifications. And checkmate, they got us.
So, they replaced the old-fashioned PCR with something that will make the whole thing even worse. The lesson is that we should not be fooled by false minor victories, because they are not necessarily good news.
The Seven U.S. Government Payoffs to Kill You in Hospitals
by Dr. Peterson Pierre13
If you have Covid, and you end up in the hospital, you’re put on a rigid protocol. There’s a high mortality rate in the hospital, and your family is kept in the dark about what is happening. So, what’s going on here?
The CARES Act is providing bonus payments to hospitals whenever they have a diagnosis of Covid, while the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is waiving patient rights. This is a deadly combination.
The hospital gets the first payment when they offer a free Covid test in the emergency room, and they get another payment if they can come up with a diagnosis of Covid. Number three, they get another bonus payment if they admit a patient with Covid. Number four, they get another bonus payment if the patient is put on remdesivir. Number five, another bonus payment if the patient is put on a mechanical ventilator. Number six, another 20 percent bonus if the diagnosis on your death certificate says Covid, even though you may not have died from Covid. And then number seven, there are bonus payments for the coroners.
Does the public understand the gravity of what’s happening right now? The government is literally paying hospitals to kill you. That’s what’s happening. These are real human lives we’re talking about, priceless human lives. It’s estimated that about one hundred thousand dollars per patient is what the hospital is getting. Think about that.
Rai A, Fang H, Fatmous M, et al. A protocol for isolation, purification, characterization, and functional dissection of exosomes. Methods Mol Biol. 2021;2261:105-149.
Vanderheuvel D, Rombouts S, Adriaenssens EM. Purification of bacteriophages using anion-exchange chromatography. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1681;59-69.
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954;86(2):277-286.
Cassol CA, Gokden N, Larsen CP, et al. Appearances can be deceiving – Viral-like inclusions in COVID-19 negative renal biopsies by electron microscopy. Kidney360. 2020;1(8):824-828.
Caly L, Druce J, Roberts J, et al. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;212(10):459-462.
Papoutsis A, Borody T, Dolai S, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing. Gut Pathog. 2021;13(1):7.
Colavita F, Lapa D, Carletti F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 isolation from ocular secretions of a patient with COVID-19 in Italy with prolonged viral RNA detection. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(3):242-243.
Díaz FJ, Aguilar-Jiménez W, Flórez-Álvarez L, et al. Isolation and characterization of an early SARS-Cov-2 isolate from the 2020 epidemic in Medillin, Colombia. Biomedica. 2020;40(Supl. 2):148-158.
Chen Y, Li C, Liu F, et al. Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):368-383.
Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.
“A pill with a tiny chip that sends a signal to relevant authorities when [the pill] has been digested…imagine the implications…the compliance…”
Patient compliance is a very big deal in the pharma/medical universe. The patient gets his orders. He follows them.
From a purely $$ perspective, the chip is a major advance. No pills left in bottles. People finish their meds. They go back to the doctor. He authorizes a new script or changes the drug. More pills taken, more money rolls in.
But of course, the larger bonus is control.
“You see, Mr. Jones, we know you didn’t finish taking the meds you were prescribed. So we can’t keep treating you. It’s a waste of time if you won’t follow orders…”
And this is just the first phase of ultimate control. Over time, it gets heavier. Cancelation of health insurance for non-compliance. Mandates.
COVID has been a training ground for citizen obedience. But the medical dictatorship wants more. Always more. And they’ll dream up one occasion after another to secure more.
Bird flu. Monkeypox. Smallpox. Whatever STORYTELLING it takes.
The medical cartel is in the business of making horror movies and promoting them as real.
A pill with a chip is the soft version of nanotech—by which tiny transmitters and receivers are placed in the body and brain. The nanos are also sensors. They report on all sorts of ongoing body processes—which leads to medical diagnoses, toxic drugs, and toxic vaccines in an endless parade.
This is not science fiction. This is not a hundred years in the future. We’re almost there.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that humans are going to be on the receiving end of all the reports which the nano sensors issue from inside humans. This operation is planned as AI. Eventually, algorithms will interpret those reports and make decisions about treatment.
Many doctors will eventually take on roles as comforting guides, PR flacks, pitchmen, counselors. “Of course this is all for your benefit, Jim. It’s a good diagnosis. The treatment is standard. Think of Carol and the kids and what they need you to do. We caught it in time. You’ll be fine. But for God sakes, stop reading that nonsense online about toxic side effects. What do you think clinical trials are for? We did the prep work. The FDA approved this drug. It’s safe. I looked at your chart myself. The Pfizer antiviral is the preferred choice in your case. This is routine. If you need a human therapist, rather than the AI psychologist, I can recommend a good man. He lives in your town. Your insurance will cover it. But just suck it up and take the medicine. Believe me, you don’t want to progress to the stage where surgery is necessary. Then we would be talking hospitalization and recovery…”
Some of your children will be talking about earning a PhD in Bedside Manner.
Health Freedom and Medical Freedom are the alternative.
Everything coming down the medical pipeline makes this freedom absolutely vital. YOU decide what’s good for your body and mind, and what’s bad.
You assert that right, come hell or high water.
No matter how many court cases are won or lost, FREEDOM to say yes or no to medical treatment is the ultimate back up. This is what I kept writing and saying early on in the COVID hustle.
Meanwhile, the Pfizer CEO, Albert Boura, is a shark. In every sense of the word.
Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel is complaining about having to ‘throw away’ 30 million doses of Covid-19 vaccine because ‘nobody wants them.’
“It’s sad to say, I’m in the process of throwing 30 million doses in the garbage because nobody wants them. We have a big demand problem,” Bancel told an audience at the World Economic Forum, adding that attempts to contact various governments to see if anyone wants to pick up the slack was a total fail.
“We right now have governments – we tried to contact … through the embassies in Washington. Every country, and nobody wants to take them.”
“The issue in many countries is that people don’t want vaccines.”
Watch:
Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna:
“it’s sad to say, I’m in the process of throwing 30 million doses in the garbage because nobody wants them. We have a big demand problem.”
— Efron Monsanto ???? (@realmonsanto) May 23, 2022
Bancel’s comments come days after Bloomberg reported that EU health officials want to amend contracts with Pfizer and other vaccine makers in order to reduce supplies.
During a virtual meeting organized by Polish Health Minister Adam Niedzielski, governments shared a joint letter to the EU Commission which reads: “We hope that the discussion with the commission and among member states will allow flexibility in the vaccine agreements,” adding “We are also counting on vaccine producers to show understanding to the exceptional challenges that Poland is facing supporting Ukraine and giving shelter to millions of Ukrainian citizens fleeing the war.”
Some countries are seeking to amend so-called advanced purchase agreements signed with producers, as demand for shots wanes and budgets come under strain from the fallout of the war in Ukraine and the costs of accommodating refugees.
Adjusting deals with suppliers could grant member states the right to “re-phase, suspend or cancel altogether vaccine deliveries with short shelf life,” Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania’s prime ministers wrote in a joint letter to Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen late last month.
Meanwhile, in a separate letter the health ministry of Bulgaria called for an “open dialog” with the commission and pharmaceutical companies, arguing that the current arrangement forces member states to “purchase quantities of vaccines they don’t need.”
.jpg){kind=link}
