On April 27, 2021, the Sri Lankan government decided to ban importing chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides and to replace them with organic inputs and methods. This decision was supported by many, including the Global Alliance for Organic Districts, who petitioned for the President’s collaboration in order to include Sri Lanka to an international network of local organic districts. Sri Lanka’s shift towards organic farming was also heavily discussed by both local and foreign researchers and activists. On the 7th and 9th of June, Dr. Vandana Shiva, President of Navdanya International, took part in two online workshops on the Sri Lankan government’s project to go towards organic agriculture and ban agrochemicals.
The first webinar– “Regenerative Organic Farming for Economy of Permanence and Prosperity for All”, was organized by the National Institute of Plantation Management (NIPM), a Sri Lankan government institute conducting research, consultancy and training on plantation management. The webinar was on the subject of regenerative organic farming for the economy of permanence and prosperity for all. Dr. Shiva noted that organic farming is not a new method, but that it was a part of the traditional farming techniques in certain countries including Sri Lanka. According to her, Sri Lanka’s shift to become a 100% organic country means turning to an economy of permanence and prosperity for all beings, one that does not destabilise the climate and instead protects all species.
The second international webinar– “The Commitment of the Sri Lankan Government to Go Organic”, organized by IFOAM Asia, also allowed speakers to discuss the commitment of the Sri Lankan government in making a shift towards organic agriculture. Apart from Dr. Vandana Shiva, other speakers included Andre Leu, director of Regeneration International, Dr. Hans Herren, president of the Millennium Institute, and Dr. Ranil Senanayake, founder of the International Analog Forestry Network. They all endorsed Sri Lanka’s decision, albeit the remark that this huge step forward needs to be implemented according to a plan which ensures a smooth transition for farmers and the local economy. Dr. Shiva said: “The reason I am glad about the approach of the Sri Lankan government is because it connects three things, namely stopping dependency on imports, non-sustainability and the ruination of the ecosystems and of health. The minute we connect sustainability and health, organic becomes the only way we can move forward.”
A New Jersey student whose college, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, requires all students to be fully vaccinated in order to attend classes in the fall became ill within hours of receiving the second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine.
A 21-year-old New Jersey student suffered severe heart inflammation after receiving his second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine. Justin Harrington, whose school required him to get the vaccine in order to attend classes in the fall, experienced flu-like symptoms followed by heart pain within eight to 12 hours of receiving the vaccine.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Justin’s father, Timothy Harrington, said his son felt different after the second shot. “Every time his heart beat it hurt and he felt pressure,” Harrington said. “Then he developed heart pain down both arms.”
Harrington said his son, who has no underlying medical conditions, did not experience heart pain with his first dose of the vaccine.
On May 24, two days after Justin received the second shot, his father took him to the emergency room at Morristown Memorial Hospital because the symptoms had worsened.
“The physicians weren’t connecting it to the vaccine until I informed the doctors my son just got the vaccine, and shared with them the information I had found on myocarditis,” Harrington said. “I didn’t think the doctors were stupid, but physicians sometimes see with blinders on.”
Physicians checked Justin’s blood levels, which showed high protein numbers. Abnormal scans, including an EKG, led to a diagnosis of myocarditis. Justin was hospitalized for three days while doctors attempted to get the condition under control.
Harrington said even though his son has been released, he still has chest pain and his life is not the same.
“He has to wear a heart monitor and take four different medications for six months,” Harrington said. “He has to sleep propped up, can’t exert himself and he’s missing out on one of the most important times of his life.”
Harrington said his son is supposed to be doing internships, “but how can he go out and find a company to work with him when he can’t exert himself? He’s so smart and now he’s side-lined. Doctors want my son to lie around for three to four months.”
As for Justin’s recovery, Harrington said, “He has minor scarring on his heart and doctors hope they caught it early enough that there will be no other issues — but it’s pure conjecture at this point.”
School’s mandate doesn’t allow exceptions for students who already had COVID
After Justin’s diagnosis, doctors recommended Harrington’s 19-year-old son, who received one dose of the Moderna vaccine, not get the second shot.
However, both sons were told they needed to get vaccinated in order to attend school — despite both previously having had COVID, Harrington said.
As The Defender reported last week, a new preprint study by the Cleveland Clinic found people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 were less likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals who never had the virus — suggesting the vaccine is of no benefit to people who already had COVID.
In addition to the vaccine likely providing no benefit to those who already had the virus, studies suggest people who were previously infected with COVID are more at risk of severe adverse reactions.
As The Defender reported earlier this year, some experts say the science to support vaccinating those primed with COVID doesn’t exist and there’s a potential risk of harm, including death, in vaccinating those who’ve already had the disease or who were recently infected.
Still, many colleges and universities — including the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) where Justin is enrolled — are mandating the vaccines for all students, with few or no exceptions.
“Justin’s a rule follower and he was pressured to get it,” Harrington said.
Harrington said when he called the dean of NJIT prior to his son getting vaccinated and asked why the school is forcing young people who are at little risk of serious illness from COVID to get the vaccine, the dean replied that unless his son had a valid medical or religious exemption, it was a requirement.
“I am not ‘anti-vax,’” Harrington said. “I am ‘anti-forced-vaxxed.’ They’re forcing these kids to get a vaccine even though they’re not affected by COVID or have already had it.”
According to Justin, he reported his myocarditis to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), but no one from the agency followed up.
Justin said he would “absolutely not” recommend anyone get vaccinated, as he does not want this to happen to any of his friends. “I’m not here to bash Moderna, but I wouldn’t take it,” he said.
Harrington said he also knows of a girl who had to have a heart transplant after being vaccinated and believes his son’s condition could have been even more severe if he hadn’t reached him in time.
According to WLWT 5 News, 19-year-old Simone Scott underwent a heart transplant one month after suffering a heart complication from her second dose of Moderna and subsequently passed away.
Moderna denies link between vaccine and heart inflammation
As recently as last week, Moderna said it has not found a link between its COVID vaccine and cases of a rare heart inflammation condition reported in young people who have received the shot.
The vaccine maker said in a statement it arrived at this conclusion after “carefully reviewing available safety data to date for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for cases of myocarditis and/or pericarditis.”
The CDC said during a June 10 meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee the agency had identified 226 reports of heart inflammation that might meet its “working case definition” of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, The Defender reported last week.
According to the CDC, a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger who received an mRNA vaccine. The median age of people with myocarditis or pericarditis following the first dose was 30, and after the second-dose, 24.
Moderna said it “will continue to closely monitor these reports and is actively working with public health and regulatory authorities to further assess this issue.”
“We clearly have an imbalance there,” said Dr. Tom Shimabukuro of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office during the June 10 FDA meeting. The committee met to discuss safety issues surrounding the use of COVID vaccines in children as young as 6 months old.
The CDC has scheduled an emergency meeting of its advisers on June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.
CDC announced it will convene emergency meeting of its advisers June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer + Moderna COVID vaccines.
UKMFA have sent a letter of complaint to Prof Sridhar following her claims made on BBC Newsround, which is shown in most UK schools, which made several false or misleading claims including that the Covid-19 vaccines are 100% safe, that children should have the vaccine to protect their parents, and that the benefits to children outweigh any risks.
To present such a simplified and biased message is, in our opinion, deeply irresponsible, amounts to propaganda, and negatively impacts on the process of giving fully informed consent. We have requested that Prof Sridhar immediately retracts the entire message and issues a clear public apology for misrepresenting the facts relating to the safety concerns of Covid-19 vaccines in children.
This is in response to your recent appearance on BBC Newsround, where you made several statements which are entirely unsupported by scientific evidence.
Concerns are mainly related but not limited to the following points:
You state the benefit of the vaccine for children would be that they then “don’t need to worry about Covid-19”. Children are already in a position where they do not have to worry about Covid-19, as the risk to them is close to zero.
You state that another benefit would be that they then are likely to not infect their parents. Children do not play a major role in transmission, and there is also no evidence from the regulatory trials that the vaccines prevent transmission. This is clearly a statement intended to provoke an emotional response of guilt followed by a sense of duty, and as such it is propaganda rather than factual advice.
You state that the main downside of getting the vaccine is that it is “another injection into your arm”. This is a gross misrepresentation of the known and unknown risks of potential serious adverse effectsof the Covid-19 vaccines for children. We are sure you are aware that the CDC in the US is calling an emergency meeting, specifically to discuss the hundreds of cases of myocarditis that have occurred in young people after the vaccine (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9672233/The-Latest-WHO-warns-delta-variant-hold-Europe.html).
Life-threatening effects and deaths have been reported in young adults and children in the US and Israel, which you do not refer to at all.
You will find the relevant references to all those points in our Open letter.
In the current situation, which is fraught with uncertainty and fear, the public is looking to professionals for balanced advice. To present such a simplified and biased message is, in our opinion, deeply irresponsible. When it is targeted specifically at a vulnerable group of children, it is unforgiveable.
We note that the currently accessible version of your statement on Newsround has already been redacted, as you originally claimed 100% safety for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. You must have been aware that declaring any medical intervention 100% safe undermines anyone’s credibility.
Editing a feature after it has already been circulated and viewed by huge numbers of the public and children, without a publicized explanation or apology, is highly irregular. The comment at the end of the written transcript, merely noting a correction, will not reach the majority of the audience who have heard and assimilated your initial claim.
We therefore request that you immediately retract your entire message and issue a clear public apology for misrepresenting the facts relating to the safety concerns of Covid-19 vaccines in children.
We request that your retraction and apology are circulated as widely as your initial message, and specifically to all schools where this material may have been shown to children.
We are expecting a response confirming that you have taken appropriate action, or otherwise justify the reasons why you have not done so.
Rt. Hon. Gavin Williamson – Secretary of State for Education
Rt. Hon. Oliver Dowden – Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Shirley-Anne Somerville – Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills
Over the last several months we have requested from the Center of Disease Control (CDC) evidence for the isolation and existence for the any and all viruses, including CoV – 2 and 19, MERS, Influenza, Polio, Measles, HIV, XMRV, HTLV-1, HTLV-III/LAV, HPV, Ebola, Zika, just to name a few of the so-called viruses, disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
These written requests were made by Ms. Christine Massey to CDC/ATSDR FOIA Chief Officer Mr. Robert Andoh, to locate and deliver ANY records, research and/or findings for ANY “viral” isolation and purification (by anyone, anywhere, anytime in the World) from a patient sample via maceration, filtration and/or the use of an ultracentrifuge or what is called the ‘Gold Standard’ for isolating and identifying a pathological micro or nana organism. The ‘Gold Standard’ for isolating and identifying microbes is referred to as Koch’s and Rivers Postulates which was established many years ago.
The CDC Chief FOIA, Mr. Roger Andoh provided straightforward responses to each one of our requests, admitting in writing that they have NO RECORD of ANY KIND, for the following so-called phantom “viruses”, including CoV – 2 -19, HIV, HPV, XMRV, HTMV-1, HTMV-111/LV, Measles, Influenza, MERS, EBOLA, ZIKA, POLIO:
1. June 7, 2021: CDC admits they have no record of any “COV – 2 or 19 virus” purified from any patient sample via maceration, filtration and use of an ultracentrifuge, by anyone, anywhere, ever:
2. June 7, 2021: CDC admits they have no record of any “HPV virus” purified from any patient sample via maceration, filtration and use of an ultracentrifuge, by anyone, anywhere, ever: (note: CDC made an error in their original response and later provided the corrected version below):
3. June 7, 2021: CDC admits they have no record of any “Measles virus” purified from any patient sample via maceration, filtration and use of an ultracentrifuge, by anyone, anywhere, ever! No Isolation, No Purification and No Identification for the Measles Virus!
4. A Letter from the CDC Concerning the Childhood and Adult USA “Immunization Schedule”:
[Note: there was a reference to “influenza” in this request, but it doesn’t affect our request in any way because it was in the context of our example of the record we were looking to validate that the CDC does not have ANY record or research or findings for ANY so-called virus that is responsible for ANY sickness or disease – EVER!]
5. June 10, 2021: CDC admits they have no record of any “MERS virus” purified from any patient sample via maceration, filtration and use of an ultracentrifuge, by anyone, anywhere, ever:
6. CDC June 11 2021: CDC admits they have no record of any “POLIO virus” purified from any patient sample via maceration, filtration and use of an ultracentrifuge, by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever:
7. March 15, 2021 CDC FOIA response: no records of any “Ebola virus” isolation or purification from a patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever:
8. March 19, 2021, U.S. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) admit they have no record of any “Zika virus” isolated or purified from a patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever:
9. March 23, 2021 CDC admitted in a FOIA response that they have no record of any “HIV virus”, “Hepatitis viruis”, “STD virus”, and “TB bacillus bacterium” purified isolate from a patient sample, by anyone, anywhere, ever:
10. April 7th, 2021, the CDC states that they have no record of “XMRV virus” purification or isolation from a patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever:
11. April 7th, 2021 the CDC states that they have no record of “HTLV-1 virus” purification or isolation from a patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever:
12. April 7th, 2021, the CDC states that they have no record of “HTLV-III/LAV virus” purification or isolation from a patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever:
13. April 12, 2021: CDC admits they have no record of any “influenza virus” isolated or purified from a patient sample, by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever:
[Note: there was a reference to “influenza” in this request, but it doesn’t affect our request in any way because it was in the context of our example of the record we were looking to validate that the CDC does not have ANY record or research or findings for ANY so-called virus that is responsible for ANY sickness or disease – EVER!]
If no one any where at any time in the World has isolated and proven the existence of any such novel coronavirus or for any virus as a unique pathogen, how on earth can any pharmaceutical company provide a treatment with a vaccine for a virus that does NOT even exist?
Is the virus or pathogen a mythical virus that needs a mythical (but expensive and poisonous!) vaccine to destroy it?
Or is this phantom virus the creation of ‘bad actors’ and ‘luciferians’ for the purpose of redistributing the wealth of the world to themselves and at the same time reduce the surplus population of so-called ‘useless eaters’?
As Voltaire once warned us:
“Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
As stated quite clearly by Chief Officer Mr. Roger Andoh in his CDC FOIA letters:
“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”
As Rappoport has stated,
“Since that is the case, that there are no quantified virus isolates, how can one be sure of what is being determined as COVID -19 is, in fact, COVID -19?”
You cannot because you are looking for something that does not even exist!
You see the symptoms of cov – 19 are all symptoms of chemical and radiation poisoning. And the corona virus is not a virus at all but a symptom of cell membrane degeneration I call the ‘corona effect’!
The ‘Corona Effect’ Caused by Systemic Chemical and Radiation Poisoning Leading to Pathological Blood Coagulation, Hypoxia and Death
The two micrographs above show the ‘CORONA EFFECT’ on the red blood cells with the ‘SPIKED PROTEIN’ caused by decompensated acidosis of the interstitial and then vascular fluids from an acidic lifestyle and specifically, exposure to toxic pulsating electro-magnetic fields at 2.4gHz or higher, chemical poisoning from the food and water ingested, toxic acidic air pollution and chem-trails and to top-it-all-off a chemical laden inoculation! Please check your feelings and false beliefs at the door before YOU prematurely cause YOUSELF harm!
WHO report vindicates CCHR and the many groups that have fought worldwide for the recognition of psychiatric human rights violations, including involuntary commitment and forced electroshock and other biomedical, including drug treatments.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has released a damning report that lashes out against coercive psychiatric practices, which it says “are pervasive and are increasingly used in services in countries around the world, despite the lack of evidence that they offer any benefits, and the significant evidence that they lead to physical and psychological harm and even death.”[1] It points to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which in essence, calls for a ban on “forced hospitalization and forced treatment.”[2]
Citizens Commission on Human Rights International welcomes the report not just for it recognizing psychiatric abuses and torture as being rife, but also as a vindication of CCHR’s efforts since 1969 and other groups that have fought for the recognition of patents’ rights violations that WHO now acknowledges. CCHR’s Mental Health Declaration of Human Rights, written in 1969, includes many of the rights that the W.H.O. report now addresses. [3]
For example, WHO points to a series of UN guidelines and Human Rights Council resolutions that have called on countries to tackle the “unlawful or arbitrary institutionalization, overmedication and treatment practices [seen in the field of mental health] that fail to respect… autonomy, will and preferences.”[4] People who are subjected to coercive practices report feelings of dehumanization, disempowerment and being disrespected, WHO further states.[5]
CRPD says patients must not be put at risk of “torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” and recommends prohibiting “coercive practices such as forced admission and treatment, seclusion and restraint, as well as the administering of antipsychotic medication, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and psychosurgery without informed consent.”[6]
Coercive Practices Create Harm
Psychiatry has failed to take responsibility for the fact that its own coercive practices have caused the stigmatization which drives medical students and patients away from it, while it tries to blame this on its critics. WHO says stigmatization exists among the general population, policy makers and others when they see those with mental disabilities as being “at risk of harming themselves or others, or that they need medical treatment to keep them safe”—a psychiatric mantra—which results in a general acceptance of coercive practices such as involuntary admission and treatment or seclusion and restraint.[7]
Abusive practices CCHR has documented include:
In the U.S., children—who are too young to consent to electroshock—are subjected to it, even at the age of five or younger. American psychiatrists are administering it despite W.H.O. reporting sixteen years ago that “There are no indications for the use of ECT on minors, and hence this should be prohibited through legislation.” Yet the American Psychiatric Association has called for greater use of this brain-damaging, barbaric practice on minors.[8]
Many patients are forcibly detained and drugged under U.S. involuntary commitment laws, and with telepsychiatry now available, psychiatric hospitals are using this to incarcerate people against their will for their insurance.
Recent reports of the troubled teen industry in the U.S. highlight how coercive restraint use in psychiatric and behavioral facilities is common, despite leading to deaths of youths, without accountability. Teenagers gasping for air, crying out that they “can’t breathe” have died undergoing restraint to control their behavior.[9]
In New Zealand, a Royal Commission Inquiry into Child Abuse begins its investigation on June 14 into the torture of children with an electroshock device at the now-closed state psychiatric institution, Lake Alice. Children were not anesthetized but punitively shocked directly to various body parts, including genitalia.[10]
Despite a March 2020 Food and Drug Administration ban on a similar shock device used at the Judge Rotenberg Center in Massachusetts for behavior modification, the torturous procedure is still being used.[11]
Until recently, psychiatrists such as Patrick McGorry in Australia, pre-drugged patients in the Brave New World theory that this could prevent them from becoming psychotic, yet the antipsychotics prescribed for this list psychosis as a side effect. Similar practices are researched in the U.S.[12]
Many U.S. states allow electroshock to be given to involuntary patients against their will, constituting torture, as UN agencies have clearly stated. The WHO report specifically highlights the problem that “coercive practices are used in some cases because they are mandated in the national [or state] laws of countries.”[13]
Further, coercion is “built into mental health systems, including in professional education and training, and is reinforced through national mental health and other legislation.”[14]
These laws need to change, similar to those enacted in Australia where criminal penalties are enshrined in several mental health laws, should certain psychiatric treatments be administered, violating patients’ rights.
Countries must also ensure that “informed consent” is in place and that “the right to refuse admission and treatment is also respected.”[15] “People wishing to come off psychotropic drugs should also be actively supported to do so, and several recent resources have been developed to support people to achieve this,” WHO says.[16]
No Accountability: No Funding
WHO sees community mental health as the alternative to egregious hospitalization and the biomedical paradigm—psychotropic drugs, electroshock and psychosurgery—for treating people’s emotional and mental problems. This would require a massive injection of funds. However, the checks and balances do not exist to prevent abuses occurring in the community. Greater accountability, including criminal penalties are needed.
The same funding limitations also apply to psychiatric research, which the WHO highlights have been dominated by a biomedical model—neuroscience, genetics and psychopharmacology. It quotes the astounding admission from Thomas Insell, former director of the National Institute for Mental Health (2002 to 2015), who said: “When I look back on that, I realize that while I think I succeeded at getting lots of really cool papers published by cool scientists at fairly large costs—I think US$ 20 billion—I don’t think we moved the needle in reducing suicide, reducing hospitalizations, improving recovery for the tens of millions of people who have mental illness.”[17]
We cannot keep flooding more money into a failing and harmful mental health system, when accountability either doesn’t exist or is so ineffective that perpetrators can get away with murder.
Abolish Involuntary Hospitalization
In the U.S., in the wake of acts of senseless violence, psychiatrists have called for greater rights to involuntarily commit individuals—the antithesis of what the WHO is advocating. In fact, it debunks the idea that involuntary admission is necessary under so-called grounds such as “dangerousness” or “lack of insight.’”[18] Or that the person is “‘at risk of harming themselves or others, or that they need medical treatment to keep them safe,’” with WHO saying that such practices lead to an “over-emphasis on biomedical treatment options and a general acceptance of coercive practices such as involuntary admission and treatment or seclusion and restraint.”[19]
“Although challenging, it is important for countries…to eliminate practices that restrict the right to legal capacity, such as involuntary admission and treatment,” it says.[20]
The late Dr. Thomas Szasz, professor of psychiatry, a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and co-founder of CCHR, stressed this point sixty years ago. Indeed, he was more forthright in stating: “Involuntary mental hospitalization is like slavery. Refining the standards for commitment is like prettifying the slave plantations. The problem is not how to improve commitment, but how to abolish it.” Further, “The most important deprivation of human and constitutional rights inflicted upon persons said to be mentally ill is involuntary mental hospitalization….”[21]
CCHR will continue to monitor and document psychiatric abuses and with this WHO guideline against involuntary treatment, refer this to attorneys who may be able to seek charges of torture where forced treatment is administered. Until laws enact the necessary protections, more pressure is needed to bring abuses to account through the courts.
[1] “Guidance on Community Mental Health Services: Promoting Person-Centered and Rights-Based Approaches,” World Health Organization, 10 June 2021, p. 8, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025707 (to download report)
I’m sure the grant money for this study came with the stipulation that they stick to the script that autism is a genetic disorder lots of unfortunate children are born with. It’s important that autism busywork like this continues so the public thinks that the medical community cares about autism.
How do I know this?
Everything in the piece is meant to downplay the health and humanitarian disaster that autism represents. Reporter Lauren Talarico provides the blanket definition that understates any of the horrific symptoms children and families have to live with:
Autism is a neuro-developmental disorder. It can affect speech, social interactions and the ability to communicate.
(No mention of parents changing the diapers on their non-verbal young adult son who wears a helmet because he bangs his head on the wall endlessly.)
Likewise there are no words like crisis or epidemic used. Instead Dr. Olivier Lichtarge, professor of molecular and human genetics, uses phrases like ‘a surprisingly large number of children’ to describe two percent of U.S. kids with autism.
While we are told that one in 54 children are now diagnosed with autism, there is not one word about the unstoppable increases that have preceded it: 2004: one in 166, 2007: one in 150, 2009: one in 110, 2012: one in 88, 2014: one in 68, 2018: one in 59, (also in 2018: one in 40 according to a separate study published in JAMA), one in 54, 2020.
Somehow Lichtarge thinks that looking for mutating genes will matter when the rate eventually reaches one in 10, one in 5.
Lichtarge shows no embarrassment over the complete failure of the scientific/medical community to figure out anything significant about autism despite billions of dollars in research funding and 20 years of trying.
This is how lost they are:
More and more children are being diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and researchers are trying to figure out why.
“It is a rising fraction for reasons we do not understand,” Dr. Lichtarge said.
Doctors are not sure what causes it.
“The basis of autism is not quite clear. It’s obviously genetic. It also may have an environmental interplay,”
“There is every reason to hope that we can understand it better in the near future,” he said.
Lichtarge cleverly sidesteps the issue of an environmental trigger that marks these genetically susceptible kids for lifelong damage with the singular, vague mention of ‘an environmental interplay.’ Yet this is something he has no interest in exploring.
And don’t think the horrific number of one in 54 kids matters really. Notice the phrase is “1 in 54 kids diagnosed with Autism,” not 1 in 54 kids with autism.
This is a neat way of saying that the rate may be the result of “better diagnosing” and it’s has used for two decades as the catch phrase to mean that more kids don’t actually have autism. They’ve always been here; more are being diagnosed.
No one wants to prevent autism
We are told that the endgame of identifying those “harmful mutations….linked to autism” is merely so “scientists can develop the best treatments.”
All in all, there are no findings here that will help a single child.
Talarico also fails to ask why Lichtarge isn’t interested in adults with autism and looking at their genetics and their treatment plans.
Of course Lichtarge won’t have a problem finding kids to study; they’re on every block and in every school. Too bad he doesn’t want to use some of his funding to look for the elusive one in 54 adults with autism..
Predictably the photo companying the piece show a cute smiling girl painting a paper covered with colorful puzzle pieces. And thus it will remain: the eternal mystery of autism, the puzzle no one wants to solve.
VAERS data released today showed 329,021 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 5,888 deaths and 28,441 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 4, 2021.
This week’s number of reported adverse events among all age groups following COVID vaccines surpassed 329,000, according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Today’s data show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 4, a total of 329,021 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 5,888 deaths — an increase of 723 deaths over the previous week. There were 28,441 serious injury reports, up 3,082 compared with last week.
Among 12- to 17-year-olds, there were 59 reports of heart inflammation and 19 cases of blood clotting disorders.
In the U.S., 299.1 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of June 4. This includes 126 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 162 million doses of Pfizer and 11 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.
Of the 3,211 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 53% were reported after Pfizer vaccinations, 42% following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine and 253 cases, or 8%, of Bell’s Palsy cases were reported in conjunction with J&J.
CDC to hold emergency hearing after identifying 226 cases of heart inflammation in young people
As The Defender reported today, the CDC on Thursday announced plans to convene an emergency meeting of its advisers on June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.
As The Defender reported Thursday, before the announcement, the CDC on June 1 had quietly updated its website to acknowledge a higher-than-expected number of cases of myocarditis among young teens after the second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine.
Based on a May 24 report from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group, the CDC on June 1 added new language to its guidance:
“Data from VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] show that in the 30-day window following dose 2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, there was a higher number of observed than expected myocarditis/pericarditis cases in 16–24-year-olds.”
The updated language differed significantly from the CDC’s statement two weeks earlier, which said rates of myocarditis were not higher among vaccinated people.
During a Thursday meeting of advisors to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDC officials presented data showing a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger following mRNA vaccines.
The CDC identified 226 reports that might meet the agency’s “working case definition” of myocarditis. The majority of those affected have recovered, but 41 had ongoing symptoms, 15 are still hospitalized and three are in the intensive care unit.
On June 10, The Defender reported the Oregon Health Authority said it was aware of at least 11 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis — inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart — in all age groups following COVID vaccination.One of the cases is a 15-year-old teen in Beaverton, Oregon, who was hospitalized for heart inflammation after receiving his second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
“The hallmark symptom of myocarditis and pericarditis is chest pain or shortness of breath,” Jonathan Modie, an Oregon Health Authority spokesperson, said in an email. “In rare cases, it can also present in the form of heart palpitations. Anyone suffering from unexplained chest pain should contact a medical provider or seek immediate emergency care.”
A search of the latest available data in VAERS revealed 900 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, among all age groups reported in the U.S following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and June 4, 2021. Of the 900 cases reported, 533 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 331 cases to Moderna and 32 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Experts tell FDA for kids, benefits of COVID vaccines don’t outweigh the risks
As The Defender reported June 11, an FDA advisory committee held a virtual meeting Thursday to discuss what data would be needed to vaccinate children under 12 against COVID under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or licensure.
Several experts spoke out against the plan, saying the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for young children. Peter Doshi, Ph,D, associate professor University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor of The BMJ, said during the open public hearing session, there is no emergency that would warrant using EUA to authorize COVID vaccines for children.
Kim Witczak, an FDA consumer representative, expressed great concerns over the premature approval of COVID vaccines for children. Witczak said data shows children are neither in danger or dangerous and questioned the timing of last Friday’s CDC announcement of the rise in children being hospitalized with COVID.
Dr. Cody Meissner, director of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts University School of Medicine, said children are at low risk of severe disease from the virus and more study is needed about safety in younger age groups.
Witczak and Doshi were two of 27 researchers and clinicians around the world who launched a citizen’s petition demanding the FDA withhold full approval of COVID vaccines until efficacy and safety measures are met.
The members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee were not asked to provide specific advice or to vote during the meeting.
Moderna, Pfizer push to vaccinate kids as young as 5 by September
Moderna this week asked the FDA to expand emergency use of its COVID vaccine for adolescents aged 12 to 17. The vaccine maker said its COVID vaccine was 100% effective in a study of 3,700 12-to-17-year-olds.
Moderna and Pfizer both this week said they expect to make their vaccines available to children as young as 5 by September.
As The Defender reported this week, Pfizer is advancing late-stage clinical trials of its COVID vaccine, in lower doses, on children ages 5 to 11 years old and expects to apply for approval early this fall. The study will enroll up to 4,500 children at more than 90 clinical sites in the U.S., Finland, Poland and Spain, the company said.
Based on safety, efficacy and tolerability data from the 144 children included in Pfizer’s phase 1 trial, the company will use 10 micrograms of each vaccine dose for kids between the ages of 5 and 11 in phase 2/3 trials, and 3 micrograms of each dose for those 5 and younger.
Moderna said it also expects its COVID vaccine will be available for kids as young as 5 by early fall. CEO Stéphane Bancel said Monday he thinks the data will become available sometime in September.
New Cleveland Clinic study shows vaccine provides no added benefit to those who already had COVID
A new preprint study by the Cleveland Clinic found people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 were less likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals who never had the virus — suggesting the vaccine is of no benefit to people who already had COVID.
As The Defender reported, the study, available on medRxiv, provides insight into how the immune system protects the body once a COVID infection is confirmed.
The clinic studied 52,238 employees. Of those, 49,659 never had the virus and 2,579 had COVID and recovered. Of the 2,579 who previously were infected, 1,359, or 53%, remained unvaccinated, compared with 41%, or 22,777 who were vaccinated.
Of all infections during the study period, 99.3% occurred in participants who were not infected previously and remained unvaccinated. In contrast, 0.7% of infections occurred in participants who were not previously infected but were currently vaccinated. Significantly, not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.
Pfizer skipped critical testing, documents reveal
New documents obtained by TrialSite News suggest routine quality testing issues were overlooked in the rush to authorize use of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, and that U.S. and other governments are conducting a massive vaccination program with an incompletely characterized experimental vaccine.
As The Defender reported June 7, regulatory documents revealed Pfizer didn’t thoroughly examine biodistribution and pharmacokinetics issues relating to its vaccine before submitting the vaccine to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for review.
Pfizer also did not use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) for all of its studies, but instead relied on a “surrogate” mRNA that produced the luciferase protein.
According to TrialSite News, it’s standard practice for the EMA to disclose its assessment of investigational new drug submissions. In the case of Pfizer’s vaccine, the EMA assessment included a summary of the agency’s evaluation of the non-clinical vaccine distribution studies reported to EMA by Pfizer — but the EMA did not disclose the results of Pfizer’s biodistribution studies in its public EMA summary.
95 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries
According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”
On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. After repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions, a health communications specialist from the CDC’s Vaccine Task Force contacted us on March 29 — three weeks after our initial inquiry.
The individual received our request for information from VAERS, but said she had never received our list of questions, even though employees we talked to several times said CDC press officers were working through the questions and confirmed the representative had received them. We provided the list of questions again along with a new deadline, but never received a response.
On May 19, a CDC employee said our questions had been reviewed and our inquiry was pending in their system, but would not provide us with a copy of the response. We were told we would be contacted by phone or email with the response.
On June 4, the CDC employee we contacted said nobody had responded to our inquiries. We were advised to submit our questions again, which we have done numerous times.
It has been 95 days since we sent our first email inquiring into VAERS data and reports and we have yet to receive a response.
According to the CDC, a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger, but only 226 reports meet the agency’s “working case definition.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced Thursday it will convene an emergency meeting of its advisers on June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines, CBS News reported.
According to the CDC, a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger. The CDC identified 226 reports that might meet the agency’s “working case definition” of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, the agency disclosed Thursday during an FDA hearing.
The majority of those affected have recovered, but 41 had ongoing symptoms, 15 are still hospitalized and three are in the intensive care unit.
Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office said during Thursday’s meeting there had been a higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation among young people recently vaccinated with their second doses of mRNA vaccine.
CDC data showed 196 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis among 18- to 24-year-olds through May 31, compared with an expected rate of between eight and 83 cases.
Among 16- to 17-year-olds, 79 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported through May 31. The expected rate among people in this age group is between two and 19 cases, Shimabukuro said during his presentation.
Shimabukuro said the CDC’s findings were “mostly consistent” with reports of rare cases of heart inflammation that had been studied in Israel and reported by the U.S. Department of Defense earlier this year.
Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to researchers at the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”
A search in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) revealed 900 cases of pericarditis and myocarditis reported in the U.S., among all age groups, following COVID vaccination, between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 4, 2021.
Of the 900 cases reported, 59 cases occurred in the 12- to 17-year-old group –– all but one case was attributed to Pfizer.
On May 10, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the EUA for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to include children aged 12-15 years. On June 10, Moderna asked the FDA to expand emergency use of its COVID vaccine in adolescents ages 12 to 17.
The CDC had previously said it was investigating reports that some teenagers and young adults vaccinated against COVID may have experienced heart problems, according to the agency’s advisory group.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in a statement said reports of myocarditis to date seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination. Most cases appeared to be “mild” and follow-up is ongoing.
The CDC’s Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group originally said its monitoring systems had not found more cases of myocarditis than would be expected in the population, but members of the committee on vaccinations said healthcare providers should be made aware of the reports of the “potential adverse event.”
But as The Defender reported June 10, the CDC subsequently acknowledged — in guidance updated on its website June 1 — a higher-than-expected number of cases of myocarditis among young teens after the second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine. It wasn’t until Thursday’s FDA meeting that the agency publicly discussed the higher rate and followed up by announcing plans to hold an emergency meeting.
EU and Israel investigate reports of heart inflammation
On June 2, Israeli health officials found a “probable” link between Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — which the country has relied on almost exclusively in its vaccination drive — and dozens of cases of heart inflammation in young men following the second dose.
In a statement, Pfizer said there is still no indication the cases are due to its vaccine. Myocarditis is often caused by viral infections, and COVID infections have been reported to cause the condition, the drugmaker said.
Pfizer’s partner, BioNTech, said more than 300 million doses of the COVID vaccine have been administered globally and the “benefit-risk profile” of the vaccine remains positive.
On May 7, EU regulators called on Pfizer and Moderna to provide additional data related to the companies’ COVID vaccines and a potential link to heart inflammation, after the agency completed a safety review of all four COVID vaccines authorized for emergency use in the EU.
A report issued by European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) disclosed its members were aware of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following Pfizer vaccination. Regulators said they didn’t see an indication the vaccine caused these cases, but as a prevention, PRAC requested Pfizer provide further data, including an analysis of events according to age and gender in its next pandemic summary safety report and will consider if any other regulatory action is needed.
Today my colleague from Kentucky, Chris Wiest, received an awesome ruling from the Circuit Court of Boone County declaring that all of Governor Andy Bashear’s emergency orders and actions are unconstitutional and void. The ruling was in the state-court challenge to the governor’s emergency powers executive orders, filed by Wiest on behalf of Beans Cafe’ & Bakery.
Dr. Stephen Petty, an actual expert in masks, testified at the trial about their uselessness under the circumstances in which they’re being idolized. Here’s an excerpt from the order pertaining to Dr. Petty. For those bureaucrats and social media tyrants who would censor this, this is from an actual court order issued today. Not that you care:
Stephen E. Petty, P.E., CIH, testified as an expert and was accepted as such without objection. Mr. Petty has served as an expert witness in approximately 400 cases relating to toxic or infectious exposure, personal protective equipment (“PPE”), and as a warning expert. He also served as an epidemiology expert for the plaintiffs in the Monsanto “Roundup” cases, and for those in the Dupont C8 litigation. In connection with his service as an expert, he was deposed nearly 100 times and has provided court testimony in approximately 20 trials. Mr. Petty holds nine U.S. patents, has written a book comprising nearly 1,000 pages on forensics engineering, is a certified industrial hygienist, and a recognized expert with the Occupational Safety and Health Agency. Mr. Petty helped write the rules on risk assessment for the State of Ohio and has trained Ohio’s risk assessors.
Mr. Petty explained that the field of his expertise is “to anticipate and recognize and control things that could hurt people, everything from making them sick to killing them.” He testified that, in this context, he has analyzed the use of masks and social distancing in connection with Covid-19. He testified that both the six-foot-distancing rule, and mask mandates, are wholly ineffective at reducing the spread of this virus. Masks are worthless, he explained, because they are not capable of filtering anything as small as Covid-19 aerosols. In addition, masks are not respirators and lack the limited protections that respirators can provide.
The N-95 respirator, which he states is in the bottom class of what may be classified as a respirator, is rated to filter 95% of all particles that are larger than .3 microns. However, a Covid-19 particle, which is only between .09 to .12 micron, is much smaller. Mr. Petty further explained that an N-95 will not even filter above .3 microns if it is not used in accordance with industry standards. Among the requirements, respirators must be properly fitted to seal along the face, and they also must be timely replaced. Mr. Petty stated that N-95 masks, which he said are often utilized as surgical masks, are “not intended to keep infectious disease from either the surgeon or from the patient infecting each other” but only to catch the “big droplets” from the surgeon’s mouth.”
According to Mr. Petty, masks have no standards, are not respirators, and do not even qualify as protective equipment. In contrast, respirators have standards, including rules that state respirators may not be worn by persons with facial hair, must be fitted to ensure a seal, and must be timely replaced—or, as in higher end respirators, the cartridges must be replaced to prevent saturation. In addition, standards for respirators also require users to obtain a medical clearance because the breathing restriction can impair lung function or cause other problems for persons having such limitations. Putting those persons in a respirator can harm their well-being.
Concerning the effectiveness of respirators, Mr. Petty explained that it comes down to “big stuff” versus “small stuff.” Big stuff can be taken out by the body’s defenses, such as its mucus tissue, where droplets can be caught and eliminated. The small stuff, however—like aerosols—are more dangerous. Masks cannot filter the small stuff. According to Petty, because Covid-19 particles are comprised of aerosols, it is really, really, small stuff. And, as he pointed out, an N-95 is designed to filter larger particles. Even for particles as large as .3 micron, Mr. Petty testified that an N-95’s effectiveness is in direct proportion to its seal. In fact, he stated it becomes completely ineffective if 3% or more of the contact area with the face is not sealed.
Mr. Petty testified that masks leak, do not filter out the small stuff, cannot be sealed, are commonly worn by persons with facial hair, and may be contaminated due to repetitive use and the manner of use. He emphatically stated that mask wearing provides no benefit whatsoever, either to the wearer or others.
He explained that the big droplets fall to the ground right away, the smaller droplets will float longer, and aerosols will remain suspended for days or longer if the air is stirred. Mr. Petty testified that the duration of time that particles remain suspended can be determined using “Stoke’s Law.” Based on it, for particles the size of Covid-19 (.12 to .09 micron) to fall five feet would take between 5 and 58 days in still air. Thus, particles are suspended in the air even from previous days. And so, he asks, “If it takes days for the particles to fall, how in the world does a six-foot rule have any meaning?”
Mr. Petty acknowledged that both OSHA and CDC have recommended that people wear masks. However, he called this “at best dishonest.”61 As an example on this, he pointed to CDC guidance documents where, on page 1, it recommends wearing a mask; but then on page 6, admits that “masks, do not provide . . . a reliable level of protection from . . . smaller airborne particles.”62 According to Mr. Petty, those agencies have smart individuals who know better. Mr. Petty points out that, even before March 2020, it was known that Covid-19 particles are tiny aerosols. And on this, he states that he insisted that fact early on. He also points to a more recent letter by numerous medical researchers, physicians and experts with Ph.D.s, asking the CDC to address the implications of Covid-19 aerosols. During Dr. Stack’s subsequent testimony, he also acknowledged that Covid-19 is spread “by . . . airborne transmission that could be aerosols . . . .”
Finally, Mr. Petty pointed to another recent study by Ben Sheldon of Stanford University out of Palo Alto. According to that study, “both the medical and non-medical face masks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious diseases, such as SARS, CoV-2 and COVID-19.”64 The Court finds the opinions expressed by Mr. Petty firmly established in logic. The inescapable conclusion from his testimony is that ordering masks to stop Covid-19 is like putting up chain-link fencing to keep out mosquitos. The six-foot- distancing requirements fare no better.
The judge summarizes the situation nicely:
It is obvious from even a cursory review that the orders issued over the past fifteen months “attempt to control” and seek “to form and determine future rights and duties” of Kentucky citizens. These included ordering the closure of all businesses, except those the Governor deemed essential. He ordered churches closed, prohibited social gatherings, including at weddings and funerals, prohibited travel, and through CHFS, even prohibited citizens from receiving scheduled surgeries and access to medical care. And then there is the order that everyone wear a mask. These are, undeniably, attempts to control, set policy, and determine rights and duties of the citizenry. Except in those instances where the federal courts have stepped in, Defendants assert authority to modify or re-impose these orders at their sole discretion. Consider, for example, the recent modification of the mask mandate. It orders persons who did not get vaccinated for Covid-19 to wear masks but lifts that requirement for others. That is setting policy and determining future rights and duties.
At the hearing, Defendants took exception to the Attorney General’s characterization of the Governor’s actions as a “lockdown,” and argued that prohibiting persons from entering those restaurants is not the same as ordering that they be closed. But that doesn’t minimize the impact on those who lost their businesses as a result, or those in nursing homes condemned to spend their final hours alone, deprived of the comfort from loved ones (or even any real contact with humanity), or those citizens who the Governor prohibited from celebrating their wedding day with more than ten persons, or those he forced to bury their dead alone, without the consoling presence of family and friends (and who likewise were deprived of paying their final respects), or those persons who were barred from entering church to worship Almighty God during Holy Week, and even Easter Sunday, or those persons who were denied access to health care, including cancer-screenings, or those denied entry into government buildings (which they pay for with their taxes) in order to obtain a necessary license, and who were forced to wait outside for hours in the sweltering heat, or rain, purportedly to keep them from getting sick.
What the people have endured over the past fifteen months—to borrow a phrase from United States District Judge Justin R. Walker—“is something this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel.” Yet, Defendants contend that the Governor’s rule by mere emergency decree must continue indefinitely, and independent of legislative limits. In effect, Defendants seek declaratory judgment that the Constitution provides this broad power so long as he utters the word, “emergency.” It does not. For this Court to accept Defendant’s position would not be honoring its oath to support the Constitution; it would be tantamount to a coup d’état against it.
Yes, life is now a dystopian novel. Let’s hope this patriot judge’s order stands up on appeal in the state appellate courts in Kentucky. And thanks to Chris Wiest and the AG of Kentucky for fighting the good fight. The order notes that the permanent injunction against the governor goes into effect on June 10, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
“…how can you give informed consent if there’s no package insert, with no
ingredients, no test note, no anything? The words are intentionally left
blank on the package insert for the shots and there’s no long-term data,
so I can’t tell people what will happen in 2, 3, 4, 5, ten years from now,
because they took this shot. So that, by default, is the informed consent
that I’m concerned with.”
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to New York pharmacist Joel Wood about his dismissal for his refusal to administer experimental biological agents without providing his patients the ability to give their informed consent to receive them.
On May 5th, Wood called an anonymous ethics line at the Kinney Drugs corporation where he was employed to express concerns over both vaccine shedding and vaccination in youth. On May 9th he wrote an email to the corporation in which he stated: “I have been an employee for Kinneys for over 5 years. I have always felt that they have made safety for staff and patients a priority. However, I would like to know what the company is doing to address the safety concern of shedding of vaccine in the work place. It is a known phenomenon, and specifically mentioned in the Pfizer study on page 67 as a concern. It is possible to have contact thru both physical touching (which is not the concern at work) but also inhalation – this is a concern at work. The masks do not provide any safety. I would like to see this addressed in an email to the company by this weekend.”
Wood continued: “If there is not an email that addresses these concerns, I will forward my complaint to OSHA as a violation of safety.
“I am also concerned with the lack of patient safety and informed consent that involves the Moderna COVID-19 shot. I have heard from many staff and patients that they did not know that the shot was NOT FDA-approved. I know for a fact the staff who are administering this shot are not telling people that it is not an approved vaccine. This creates an issue when patients get their second shot and are informed that it is not approved and say, ‘Well, the first shot was’; no, it was not.
“I would also like to address the elephant in the room. I understand the need to follow advice from our regulatory governmental agencies. However when those agencies are wrong or make inappropriate recommendations, it is our patients that feel the brunt of this…
“I fear that Kinney is moving in a direction that is the opposite of our motto. Experience the difference means just that, if we do not change our behavior and inform the public the real science and health information that exists in the world, we do a disservice to the community and also ourselves as healthcare providers. We are now going to be administering a shot to children 12 and older for a disease that was called the common cold by the New York Times twice. We have no long-term data about this shot in children.”
Wood concluded his letter to Kinneys: “If there is not an email sent to the company that starts to address these concerns, I will be writing letters to OSHA and well as news organizations as a whistleblower for the crimes that are being committed. I do not believe that it is intentional, but we are acting against international human rights laws that discuss vaccines and discrimination. We have a responsibility to tell the public the reality about this shot, what it really does, that there is no pandemic, and that the numbers were inflated to make it appear like a pandemic. We need to inform them about the vaccine shedding that might be occurring.”
After receiving no answer to address his concerns, Wood addressed a formal complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). On May 11th, he received an answer that read: “At this time OSHA has no standards or jurisdiction when it comes to COVID-19 concerns or complaints. We have been told to give all complainants these 3 numbers to contact if you so choose:”, listing the New York State Governor’s office, the New York State COVID-19 hotline, and the New York State Department of Labor COVID violation hotline. Wood was subsequently fired from his position at Kinney Drugs.
America’s Frontline Doctors spoke to New York pharmacist Joel Wood, who was fired after five years in his job for refusing to administer COVID-19 vaccines without informed consent.
“I’ve been a pharmacist in New York State for seven years and I’ve been working with this company in the retail setting for seven years, and ever since the coronavirus outbreak in the beginning of 2020, I’ve had my concerns as someone who works in the front line trying to make sure that my patients and the public are safe, are taken care of, to the best of the ability that we can as pharmacist and health care providers has been my number one concern.
“So I became very invested in the coronavirus outbreak and pandemic, but as time went on I started to have more concerns over what was going on with the whole story of the coronavirus pandemic and outbreak, from things like grabs for power, from different governments in with located within the United States, and I also saw abroad in the world as well. But New York State, the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has had a massive power grab, and in my opinion violated a lot of concerns that I have as a health care provider, mandates and things like that.
“So it was to the forefront of my attention what was going on, and was something more going on than just what we saw at face value of ‘this is a pandemic.’
“I had my concerns about administering the coronavirus when I heard that we were going to start administering it to children.
“I also did have concerns – I’ve seen some reports of women, most likely younger women of childbearing age, having adverse reactions to either the vaccine, or potentially even the vaccine shedding – you know people who have gotten the vaccine become a vector to shed the vaccine, as noted in Pfizer’s trial.
“So the combination of both the children 12 years and up being given the vaccine, or having the ability to receive the vaccine, as well as women of childbearing age – I started to kind of have some concern what was going on with the vaccine, but also what was going on with the coronavirus pandemic, period.
“But the majority of my concerns stemmed from the lack of solid, I have to say science, backed-up evidence. I mean multiple health organizations, from the World Health Organization to the Centers for Disease Control and to some degree the FDA, in terms of their approval process for this vaccine, they’ve been all over the place. I mean multiple doctors and scientists from across the world have written into the WHO with different concerns; respiratory droplets compared to aerosol, that kind of goes into the mask detail. The CDC has published data that leads to the potential controversy for masks. I mean, I’ve read an article in which the CDC describes the masks were not statistically significant. I was taught in school that if it’s not significant, that’s not something that you look at.
“So combinations of those have led me to believe that the administration of these vaccines in any group in which the coronavirus does not have a high death rate may be unwarranted and potentially, as it is an experimental vaccine – not FDA approved – violates Nuremberg trial law.
“So my ultimate decision to stop administering these COVID-19 vaccines, as I stated, came from the combination of children 12 and up, and specifically women bleeding, menstruation issues as it relates to women specifically of childbearing age; there’s no long term data to what this vaccine does, and technically it’s impossible to give informed consent, in my opinion, because the package insert is blank. The package insert for the drug itself, for the vaccine, if it even is a vaccine, is blank, and there’s no long-term data. So I am concerned for what effects then could happen from women who take this, specifically of childbearing age, what could be the end result? I have no idea, and I’m not speculating that anything awful could happen, but we don’t know – and that’s a concern, that’s something I look at – risk versus benefit is what is what my job is all about.
“Same thing with children. Children who are less than 18 – the survival rate of the coronavirus is like 99.999. The only age group that I feel could and potentially should have concern with receiving this vaccine is 65 and older, as their survival rate was less than 99-point-x, we can just say.
“So I also was administering the shot as of January 11th when the rollout happened in New York, right along, because that was what all of the governing bodies were saying: The states, the CDC, FDA, World Health Organization – everybody was discussing the importance of the shots and need to get to herd immunity, so I was doing my part – or I thought I was doing my part – by helping us get there.
“But I noticed as we started to get there, and people started to receive the shot and get both doses, if they were getting the Pfizer and Moderna, for example, it seems like we’re never going to reach this herd immunity and they just keep pushing the vaccine.
“I mean, now in New York State, you can win anywhere from $20 to $5 million with the lottery, just for signing up and getting the vaccine. For me, that’s a huge concern on multiple different levels. I mean one, on the very face value, the government of New York under the leadership of Governor Cuomo, and along with the federal government as well, at least for part of this, is using our federal and state tax dollars to get the money for this vaccine, which my question is may or may not be causing more harm, and also now we are using tax money that should be going towards schools, is my is my understanding of what the New York State lottery was supposed to be for when it was revamped believe over a decade ago, now we’re using that money to give people for getting the vaccine? It’s just highly irregular. I’ve never seen anything like that before in my life. It’s a concern.
“I also have concerns, as I previously mentioned, about violations of the Nuremberg trial, human rights as it pertains to the Geneva conference in the Nuremberg trials. This is an experimental vaccine, it’s not FDA approved.
“And from there, my concerns go out to: Is this coronavirus pandemic a real pandemic? No more people died from it month over month in 2020 than in previous years. The CDC has come out that 6% of deaths were attributed specifically to coronavirus, meaning that the other 94% had underlying comorbid diseases, which we would generally assume similar to like the flu, we don’t say that everyone just died from the flu if you had the flu, something else helped you get there. That’s how that’s how it presents itself.
“The CDC has been, in my opinion, manipulating and shifting how they are counting deaths and cases to establish a point that if anyone believes that we are not in a pandemic, there is a massive issue and concern with that. So moving forward, if we are actually not in a pandemic, there is fraud and deceit associated with receiving this experiment which both violate the Nuremberg trial.
“The other part of the Nuremberg trial that concerns me is coercion. It’s also stated in the Nuremberg trials that you have to have free, informed consent to be able to have someone sign up for your experiment. And we are coercing people now to have to get the vaccine to be able to take their mask off. So it’s also a false pretense that you have to get the vaccine to take the mask off, but that’s not how we should be doing an experiment, it gives a false sense of reality to people that were not truly informed as to what could be happening.”
Just for the record, what has been your stance on vaccines in general, prior to the emergence of COVID-19, and what has been your experience regarding the whole issue of informed consent? Has there not been a problem until now?
“I don’t have a concern with vaccines in general. I mean, I do have some minor concerns, specifically as it pertains to the pediatric administration of vaccines, but it’s not necessarily the vaccines itself as much it is the tenacity to which we give all these vaccines. I mean, just for example, the amount of aluminum in a child’s vaccine series could be more than what the FDA allows to have in an adult’s i.v. So just as a quick example of where my concerns for vaccines stem from, that’s pretty much my only concern with vaccines, like the current childhood immunization schedule I think is a little over the top. But otherwise no, I don’t have a problem with other vaccines, I don’t have a problem with administering other vaccines. The informed consent has never come up as a major issue for me, in general because they’re all FDA approved. In the very least, every other vaccine that I have ever administered has been FDA approved. So then from there, it’s more of the informed consent of like, ‘these are the side effects, this is to look what to look out for, what could happen; if this happens, do this,’ which is common for any and all medications, new medications, or any and all medications that I would be giving in a pharmacy. Letting people know what the risks and benefits are from the shots that are given.
“The informed consent is a massive concern this time because the package insert is blank. So if someone were to ask me, ‘Hey Dr. Wood, what’s in this?’ I couldn’t tell you. I do know some of the things, I do know some of what’s in it, but I couldn’t give you specific details from the package insert. And then also, ‘What could happen to me?’ I can tell you what has happened to people previously to this point; I can tell you adverse reactions that I have seen from the VAERS reporting, including all of the deaths, the rashes; I can tell you what I have seen up to this point, but I can’t tell you what’s going to happen to you a year from now or two years from now, five, seven, ten years – I have no idea. So informed consent is for me the biggest concern, as it pertains to this coronavirus shot.
“In New York, and in I believe most of the rest of the United States, pharmacists are administering vaccines and have been quite a while, typically in the very least the influenza, maybe the pneumonia or shingles vaccine. But since the beginning of January, retail pharmacies of which I was working for have been administering the coronavirus shot – I will call it a shot, it’s not a vaccine in my opinion. So I have been giving the coronavirus shot probably upwards of over at least 500 people, if not more, and I’ve expressed what my concern is. I went to my employer and said I don’t feel comfortable giving this. We can’t give the people full, informed consent.
“When I told people it wasn’t FDA-approved, people didn’t even know it wasn’t FDA-approved. Or people would say, ‘Well, the first one was.’ That by itself indicates that pharmacists were not telling people that it was not even an FDA-approved shot yet. And second to that, how can you give informed consent if there’s no package insert, with no ingredients, no test note, no anything? The words are intentionally left blank on the package insert for the shots and there’s no long-term data, so I can’t tell people what will happen in 2, 3, 4, 5, ten years from now, because they took this shot. So that, by default, is the informed consent that I’m concerned with.”
Can you tell us about your complaint to OSHA? What is their jurisdiction? What were you hoping to achieve? And what did they finally answer?
“So I had reached out to OSHA after I had reached out to my employer about concerns of vaccine shedding. The vaccine shedding phenomenon is a well-documented concern, and specifically for the coronavirus shot: Pfizer’s own study mentions they were worried about environmental spreading of the vaccine, specifically to pregnant women through both inhalation and skin-to-skin contact. So that leads me to believe that it’s at least possible, or they were worried about it, that vaccine shedding could be a thing.
“I reached out to OSHA because my employer ignored my concerns of vaccine shedding. I have not received the shot yet, so I was concerned about other people, both employees who have received it, and patients and customers who have received it, shedding the vaccine, and what my company was going to do to protect me and other people like me who have not received it. They said nothing.
“I reached out to OSHA and said, ‘What can be done? I have a concern in my own position, job, business, as well as any other retail pharmacy in the country – if you chose not to get the shot, but you are around people who have gotten it, and they are shedding the vax, they are shedding parts of the shot, that’s a concern. So I reached out to OSHA, and OSHA emailed me back and said that they currently have no jurisdiction over the coronavirus shot, there’s nothing in place, there’s no policies or procedures as it pertains to the coronavirus, and that I needed to reach out to New York State, both the New York State governor’s office and the Department of Labor as a means to get an answer, which I was not happy with, I did not accept. My concern for OSHA’s complaint is, how can a federal body not have something in place for after a brand-new experimental shot is released from big pharma, and the only people that have the answers are the same people that I am potentially concerned with are violating human rights set forth in the Geneva laws put forth after the Nuremberg trials?
“Her response indicates exactly what I think it says: We don’t have any jurisdiction, we don’t know anything about this; reach out to the New York Department of Labor and the governor’s office. That is a huge concern for anyone who is worried about his safety and health in the office. Anyone across the country right now could have a concern over whether someone is or is not vaccinated, and that’s part of the debate, I believe, that’s going on in the country. Before, it meant forcing vaccines, or forcing masks, or all of this stuff – and if OSHA’s response is to just default to whatever the state says, then you are potentially at the mercy of whoever your state governor is. And I don’t I don’t mean to turn it into a political, Republican/Democrat, red versus blue concern, but in the very least both certain Democrats and certain Republicans have taken opposite stances. So just that being said alone, it’s very concerning that in one state, for example, you can eliminate the mask mandates and there’s no vaccine passports, but in other states, that’s the only way we’re operating. So OSHA’s response is very concerning to me. That’s part of the federal government that in my opinion is supposed to be watching out for workplace safety concerns, and I agree 100% – I think her answer is kind of just wool over the eyes, the programmed response to say ‘we don’t have any jurisdiction, here’s who you can talk to…’ and then guess what? It’s not OSHA’s problem anymore, they have addressed it, they emailed me back. I mean, it’s so bizarre and terrifying.”
You said risk versus benefit is what your job is all about. Could you elaborate on that more, and explain to us how that specifically relates to your responsibilities as a pharmacist vis-à-vis COVID-19?
“Yes, the risk versus benefit: One of the great conundrums of how all healthcare works. That’s the basis for my job as a pharmacist, and I believe that’s the basis for almost every other health care profession out there. We have the knowledge through teaching, training, education, to assess the risk versus disease state, or the risk versus treatment, versus the benefit of not having treatment, or the benefit of getting treatment, so whether it’s triple bypass surgery, your doctor, your cardiologist, your surgeon looks and measures and decides what’s going to be the healthiest outcome, the best outcome for you.
“Same thing for me, it just happens for me, as a pharmacist, drugs is what I look at and evaluate. And then when it came to the COVID-19, initially I was under the impression that this was the only thing that was going to get us over this, over the hump, through this awful time in history, was to give these vaccines, give these shots.
“But as time went on, I started to be concerned more with what the shots were doing to people, that’s when I started to change my opinion. And I noticed the risk/benefit may not be the same. It appears to me the risk of the coronavirus itself COVID-19 in most age groups less than 65, maybe even 50, the negative outweighs the risk of the shot. Getting COVID-19 in someone less than 50 poses almost zero health risk to you.
“So the benefit of the shot, we don’t know. All the shot does, at this point, technically, is prevent you from getting severe disease. You can still pass the coronavirus, you can still get the coronavirus, it just prevents you from getting severe disease. So that’s the risk/benefit that I look at. What is the benefit to this shot? Just getting severe just preventing severe disease? When 80% of cases are asymptomatic, the coronavirus itself kind of prevents severe disease. Coronavirus has been around for decades, they are part of what causes the common cold.”
Do you believe that there is a code of silence among pharmacists regarding this issue?
“I do not believe that there is a code of silence among pharmacists. I’m more inclined to believe that there is a very deep-rooted psychological hand at play by certain groups of people or certain bodies or certain powers, I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s a silence code.
“And it was hard for myself to do it, too. We are trained – why would we ever think that any one of the federal governing bodies or even worldly, in the example of the World Health Organization, why would we believe that they would be telling us lies? So I don’t think it’s a code of silence, I just think we’re trained and taught to think the CDC, FDA, and the World Health Organization are all quality, upstanding government bodies that aim to solve public health crises.
“And that is not to say that they are not those things and that they do not do that. I don’t want to sound like a complete martyr. Again, I’m not saying that they do. My concern is, I don’t know what’s going on, and that’s why I have concerns over the administration of this shot.”
Have you received feedback from your colleagues? What did they think about the stand you’ve taken?
“I have reached out to a few colleagues and expressed my concerns. Most of them think that I have a decent case, or that the case that I am making isn’t necessarily completely left-field bizarre, even though it is kind of left-field. I don’t know that they’re willing to take a stand, I mean, I was fired from my position. I could only imagine that in any other pharmacy, company, corporation, chain – or most, I would say, for a pharmacist who is not willing to do an aspect of their job, as in giving shots and vaccinations, whether it’s COVID or any vaccine, but specifically the COVID one, it’s going to be hard for a company to keep them on or want to keep them on because there’s a lot of other pharmacists out there who will do it because they need a job, they need the paycheck. So it’s hard for someone to risk it all unless they feel strongly about it.”
At what point did you understand that making this stand may mean the termination of your employment, and when you did realize that, what was it that pushed you to decide to go on anyway?
“I had always known that by taking the stance of not doing a role in your job, when you choose not to do something in your position or your job that is what is expected, you always risk being fired, terminated, reprimanded, what have you. So I always knew that would be a concern, at any point I had decided to take the stance.
“But what officially gave me the courage to decide to do this was when my wife agreed with me that being able to vaccinate children 12 and up was just not right and we needed to do something, I needed to do something. We needed to take a stand and express our concerns for the health and safety of, most importantly, children, and I think potentially even everyone who is eligible to get this shot 12 and up, and it’s going to get younger soon I imagine, they’re going to try for it. So it was my wife who gave me the encouragement and kind of the okay to be like, ‘Yeah, this is a possibility, if you do get fired we’ll do whatever we have to, but it’s the right thing to do.”
Does this move and does the termination of your job represent financial hardship for your family?
“The move does represent financial hardship for my family, my wife and I have a lot of student loan debt; just that alone is a huge concern as a means of bills we have to pay, and now I’m losing a very good salaried job, so it will it will be difficult to weather the storm…”
What does your family say? Are they supportive?
“My family is supportive. I would say for the most part I think the majority of my family is supportive because they support me, and first and foremost that’s what families do, that’s what that’s what blood is, but I think parts of my family Also question, ‘what is he talking about? What is he thinking? How can you know?’ But that kind of goes back to the pharmacists keeping a code of silence and other health care providers – why would anyone question health authorities like the CDC, FDA, World Health Organization? It just sounds so bizarre, and I don’t disagree with him, I mean it does sound bizarre, but for me, I’m educated as a pharmacist and I’ve also been keeping track of all things related to coronavirus because I wanted to make sure that first and foremost my family was safe when the outbreak happened, and then secondly, it’s my job to make sure that people in the public are taken care of, and in the public scene as a pharmacist, in the pharmacy we’re a store that’s open, so anyone could be a patient of mine, anyone could come in off the streets and ask me a question and that could be anyone from around the world. I’ve worked in cities where I see people and meet people who are from around the world who don’t speak English, don’t speak English very well, so for me it’s the real undertaking I needed to do, because anyone and everyone could be one of my patients and I took an oath to protect and serve and make sure that people received quality health care with no harm.”
Do you think that you’ll be able to identify another source of employment?
“I definitely believe that I would be able to find another source for employment from someone who is like-minded, like myself, and has made commitments to protecting health in the public eye. I think the biggest concern is just kind of waiting when that will happen kind of the who, what, where, why, when will that job happen I’m not sure, but I’ve also decided I wasn’t happy as I could be as a pharmacist in my previous job, just from what I was seeing happening in the whole healthcare landscape.
“So the next job that I hopefully get will be where I can feel more impactful that I’m actually creating and changing people’s health and health outcomes in as in as dynamic away as possible. But yes, I do believe that there are people, companies, employers out there who, whether or not they are specifically concerned with whether I am or I’m not vaccinated, or if they’re concerned with the stance that I’ve taken, I think there are employers out there who are looking for someone who is willing and wanting to provide quality health care and that has always been my goal.”
Over the years the medical establishment has acquired a well-deserved reputation for ignoring good discoveries (which would make a dramatic difference to human health) and continuing with useless practices (which do more harm than good) long after they should have abandoned them. The medical profession, or, rather, perhaps I should say ‘the medical establishment’ has always been slow to accept and assimilate new ideas – and slow to see the obvious.
I have long thought that the main problem with modern medical education is that it is largely based upon learning by rote and upon eliminating all original thought. This is deliberate since the aim of an orthodox modern medical education is to help maintain the status quo (and preserve the position of the pharmaceutical industry). Right from the very beginning, young students are made to learn long lists of information. They learn the names of the bones, the arteries, the nerves and the veins in the body. They learn the names of the muscles and they learn the histology of the various organs. They then learn lists of clinical signs and symptoms. And they learn lists of drugs. At no point are students encouraged to think for themselves.
As a result it is not surprising that after graduation most doctors continue to do as they are told. The average doctor is strangely incapable of critical thought. Given the indoctrination they have undergone it is hardly surprising that doctors readily accept everything they are told by the drug companies (which more or less control post graduate education) and equally readily reject alternative medicine – something which never makes much of an appearance in the undergraduate syllabus.
There is nothing new about this.
The greatest thinkers – the ones who have, in the end, contributed most to medicine and human health – have always been scorned or ignored (or preferably both) by the medical establishment. The establishment has always manipulated the truth to suit its own political, religious or commercial purposes. Simple truths which are inconvenient have always been suppressed. It happened in the past, it will happen in the future and it is happening now.
Few medical stories illustrate the way the medical establishment works better than the story of how scurvy was discovered and how the treatment for it was ignored for centuries.
In 1535, Jacques Cartier sailed from France to Newfoundland with a crew of 110 men. Within six weeks a hundred of his men had developed scurvy. Luckily for Cartier and his men a native told them to drink the juice from the fruit of local trees. The men recovered in days. From that time on wise sea captains made sure that their men were given regular supplies of orange or lemon juice. In a book called The Surgeons Mate, published in 1636 John Woodall recommended that these juices be used to prevent scurvy. But the medical establishment was slow to accept this sensible suggestion.
It wasn’t until two centuries later, in 1747, that the idea was reintroduced by James Lind, who conducted a proper clinical trial and proved that scurvy could be prevented with the right diet. It was Lind’s work which enabled Captain Cook (he was a Lieutenant at the time) to sail around the world without a single case of scurvy.
The admiralty and the medical establishment continued to ignore all this. In the Seven Years War, from 1756 to 1763, approximately half of the 185,000 sailors involved died of scurvy. In 1779 the Channel Fleet had 2,400 cases of scurvy after a single ten week cruise.
Eventually, in 1795 the medical establishment (and the navy) succumbed to common sense and lemon juice became a compulsory part of every sailor’s diet. This breakthrough took well over two centuries to be accepted.
Then there is Paracelsus.
There is no doubt that Paracelsus (Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim to his friends) is the father of modern medicine. He tore into the precepts of established medical thinking with all the zeal of a missionary. He revolutionised medical thinking throughout Europe and scandalised the medical establishment by claiming to have learned more from his contact with witches and midwives than from his study of ancient and well-revered medical texts. No idea or theory was too bizarre to be studied and considered and no belief, no practice and no concept too sacred to be rejected. He was the first man to associate mining with chest disease, to use mercury in the treatment of syphilis, to advocate allowing wounds to drain instead of smothering them with layers of dried dung and to argue that some foods contained poisons which harmed the human body. Paracelsus scandalised the establishment by claiming that he was interested more in pleasing the sick than his own profession. He was, not surprisingly, rejected by the medical establishment and widely and persistently persecuted for his beliefs. It was years after his death that his ideas were recognised.
And there is Vesalius.
In the sixteenth century Andreas Vesalius achieved contemporary notoriety and eternal fame as the author of the first textbook of human anatomy, ‘De Humanis Corporis Fabrica’. Up until Vesalius medical students had studied anatomy using texts prepared by Galen. Since Galen used pigs not human corpses for his studies his anatomical notes were, to say the least, rather misleading.
Vesalius’s frank rejection of many of Galen’s anatomical claims earned him considerable disapproval. The medical establishment still firmly believed that Galen could do no wrong. They weren’t interested in anything as superficial and irrelevant as evidence.
Like so many original thinkers before and after him, Vesalius was unable to cope with the outcry. He burnt his remaining manuscripts, abandoned his study of anatomy and took a job as court physician to Charles V in Madrid.
Vesalius wasn’t the only anatomist whose work was rejected. In the 17th century, British doctor William Harvey spent eight years researching the circulation of the blood – and getting it right. His patience was rewarded with ridicule. He received nothing but abuse. He lost many friends and his practice shrank.
When Ambrose Pare, the great French surgeon, first started work as an army surgeon it was accepted practice to stop a haemorrhage by sealing a wound with a red hot iron. Amputations were performed with a red hot knife and the wounds which were left were sealed with boiling oil. One day Pare ran out of boiling oil and used a mild emollient to dress the wounds of the men he was treating. He worried all night about what he had done but the next day he found that his patients were not only healthy but that they were also in less pain than the men whose wounds had been sealed with boiling oil. Pare was wise enough to learn from this and from that day on he started dressing wounds with an emollient rather than boiling oil. He also introduced ligatures, artificial limbs and many surgical instruments. Inevitably, Pare met the usual fate of innovators and reformers (who get a rougher ride within the world of medicine than anywhere else). He was denounced by other surgeons as dangerous and unprofessional. Older surgeons banded together to oppose him and in their attempts to discredit him they attacked him for all sorts of things – for example, his ignorance of Latin and Greek. Pare eventually succeeded because the soldiers he treated trusted him and wanted to be treated by him. They weren’t interested in the views of the French medical establishment.
A look back at hospitals is also revealing.
When Tsar Paul came to power in Russia in 1796 he was so horrified at the state of the hospital in Moscow that he ordered it to be rebuilt. In Frankfurt in the 18th century physicians considered working in hospital to be equivalent to a sentence of death.
In 1788, Jacobus-Rene Tenon published a report on the hospitals of Paris which shocked city officials. He described how the Hotel Dieu (the magnificent looking hospital next to Notre Dame) contained 1200 beds but up to 7,000 patients – with up to six patients crammed into each bed. The stench in the hospital was so foul that people who entered would do so holding a vinegar soaked sponge to their noses. Very few patients escaped from the hospital with their lives. When reformer John Howard toured European hospitals he angrily reported that no fresh air, no sunlight, straw as bedding, no bandages and a milk and water diet supplemented with weak soup were standard. The reports of Tenon and Howard were ignored and dismissed for years and it took decades for the medical establishment to make any real changes.
In the 18th century the treatment of the mentally ill was abysmal. Daniel Defoe, best remembered for his story of the adventures of Robinson Crusoe, wrote a vicious attack on mental hospitals. ‘Is it not enough to make anyone mad,’ he asked, ‘ to be suddenly clap’d up, stripp’d, whipp’d, ill fed and worse us’d? To have no reason assigned for such treatment, no crime alleged or accusers to confront? And what is worse, no soul to appeal to but merciless creatures who answer but in laughter, surliness, contradiction and too often stripes?’
No one took much notice and medical practitioners continued to treat mentally ill patients without respect or care.
At the Bethlem Royal Hospital half naked patients were kept chained in irons. Physicians bled their patients once a year and the more troublesome patients were put on a tranquillising wheel. Until 1770 visitors could pay a penny to see the ‘fun’ at Bedlam. John Wesley, founder of the Wesleyan Church, who considered himself a benefactor of the mentally ill, suggested pouring water onto the heads of the mentally ill and forcing them to eat nothing but apples for a month. Wesley was one of the first men to use electricity in the attempted treatment of the mentally ill. Despite the protests of reformers such as Philippe Pinel (who shocked the establishment in the late 18th century by claiming that the mentally ill were sick and needed treatment) mental hospitals were, well into the 19th century, still quite unsuitable for people needing medical treatment.
There was never any evidence to show that it did any good but blood-letting was a favourite therapeutic tool for centuries. The fact that removing blood from a patient made him or her quieter was regarded as proof that it was doing some good. (This is no dafter than the rationale used to explain some modern treatments.) Blood-letting was easy to perform and it was something to do. Doctors have always felt the need to do something to their patients. (Possibly because it is difficult to explain away a big fee if all you do is give advice.) Leeches were hugely popular in the 19th century. In 1824, two million leeches were imported into France. In 1832, the figure had risen to 57 million a year.
In 1843, the American poet, novelist and anatomist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, read to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement a paper entitled ‘On The Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever’. He argued that the disease could be carried from patient to patient by doctors. He suggested that surgeons should consider changing their clothes and washing their hands after leaving a patient with puerperal fever. His lecture annoyed the medical establishment and his advice was ignored completely.
A similar fate befell Ignaz Philipp Semmelweiss who, in 1846, at the age of 28, became an assistant in an obstetric ward at the Allgemeines Krankenhaus in Vienna. Semmelweiss noticed that the number of women dying in his ward was higher than the number dying in other wards. It wasn’t difficult to notice this. Women would beg, in tears, not to be taken into Semmelweiss’s ward.
Deciding that he wasn’t that bad a doctor, Semmelweiss looked for an explanation and came to the conclusion that the major difference was that patients on his ward were looked after by medical students whereas the patients on other wards were looked after by midwives. Semmelweiss then discovered that the students came straight to the ward from the dissecting room where they had had their hands stuck into the corpses of women who had died from puerperal fever. The midwives never went near to the dissecting room. Semmelweiss instructed the medical students that they should start washing their hands in a solution of calcium chloride after coming from the dissecting room. The remedy produced a dramatic drop in the death rate on his ward.
Predictably the medical establishment was not well pleased – even though Semmelweiss had proved his point very dramatically. The unfortunate young doctor couldn’t cope with the rejection. He became an outcast and died in a mental hospital a few years later. The medical establishment had scored another hollow victory. Once again the patients were the losers.
You might have thought that the medical establishment would have welcomed anaesthesia. After all, before anaesthetics were available, surgeons had to get their patients drunk or knock them out with a blow to the head. Surgeons would often operate with the patient held down by four strong men. The first operation under anaesthesia was performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1846. But the establishment was not going to accept this new-fangled nonsense lying down. The main objection was that anaesthetics were being used to help women who were in labour. And that, said the establishment, just wasn’t acceptable. It was, said the wise men, unnatural and unhealthy for women to deliver babies without suffering pain. ‘In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children,’ says the Bible. However, the religious barbarians were eventually overcome by Dr James Simpson who trumped the Bible quoters with this quote: ‘And the Good Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept; and He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof.’ The opposition to anaesthesia was finally quelled when Queen Victoria gave birth to Prince Leopold while under the influence of chloroform.
In 1867 Joseph Lister published a paper in The Lancet entitled ‘On the Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Medicine’. Lister had found a solution to the age old problem of post-operative infection. But the medical establishment doesn’t like change, even if it means keeping patients alive. And Lister found himself being attacked by doctors who ignored the evidence but disapproved of his new techniques simply because they were new. It was decades before the ‘antiseptic principle’ was accepted.
One of the reasons why hospital infections are so commonplace today is that doctors and nurses seem to believe that they can use antibiotics instead of washing their hands. Incompetence, carelessness and ignorance mean that the quality of cleanliness in the average modern hospital is little better than it was in a hospital in the Middle Ages.
Until surprisingly recently, it was routine for surgery on babies to be performed without anaesthesia on the grounds that babies are incapable of feeling pain. There was no evidence for this claim (one which any mother would be able to oppose with credible if anecdotal evidence) but anaesthetists were taught that babies had immature nervous systems and so didn’t need painkillers.
Above I have described just a few of the hundreds (probably thousands) of examples I could give to illustrate the way that the medical establishment, in recent years allied with the drug industry, has always opposed original thought and has protected the status quo – regardless of the effect on patients.
The medical establishment has acted in the interests of the profession but against the interests of patients, and thoughtful and creative individuals have always had a hard time. The value of serendipity has also been ignored, of course. Both penicillin and X-rays were the result of serendipity.
The real tragedy is that absolutely nothing has changed for the better. Indeed, things have arguably got worse.
The medical establishment is still responsible for protecting and promoting medical procedures which do not work and have never worked (and which expose patients to great risk) while at the same time it opposes and suppresses treatments which do work and have been proved to work.
Today, anyone in the medical profession who dares to offer thoughts or warnings which don’t fit in with the specific requirements of the medical establishment will get the Semmelweiss treatment. They will be laughed at and suppressed.
[Original video is available at Dr. Vernon Coleman BrandNewTube channel. As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Dr. Andrew Kaufman with Dr. Sam Bailey: “Hunting for Viruses”
They’re called the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
As their home page states, they “regulate the practice of medicine in Ontario. Physicians are required to be members to practice medicine in Ontario.”
In other words, CPSO is THE medical board. They run the show. If practicing doctors make a wrong move or say the wrong thing, CPSO is there to step on their faces and discipline them and even cancel their licenses to practice.
But now a new rebel group of Canadian MDs has emerged. Why? Because CPSO has issued a fascist edict threatening practicing doctors. Read the threat carefully.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [CPSO] Statement on Public Health Misinformation (4/30/21): [1]
“The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.”
WE’RE YOUR BOSSES. YOU DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO. SHUT YOUR MOUTHS. MARCH STRAIGHT AHEAD. KILL YOUR PATIENTS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT OBEY US.
The new rebels against this monster call themselves the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth. This is a brief excerpt from their response: [2]
“On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19.”
“We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.”
“As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.”
“The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients…”
I wondered what medical treatments, in general, CPSO supports and tolerates. It took me three minutes to find a Toronto outfit called the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Foundation (CAMH). They promote electro-convulsive therapy. In other words, shock treatment.
In other words, delivering electric shocks to the brain. As a cure for “mental illness.” I call it torture.
Apparently, this treatment is just fine and dandy, but telling patients the COVID lockdowns are criminal is forbidden by the Nazi bureaucrats at CPSO. Saying the vaccine is dangerous is forbidden. Saying masks are useless and harmful is forbidden.
What would happen if these medical rebels, the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth—say, 10,000 of them—took this war to the wall?
Practiced non-harmful medicine, kept warning their patients about the sociopathic COVID regulations and the vaccine, refused to knuckle under to the Nazi bureaucrats, even to the point of having their licenses stripped and going to jail?
What would happen, as many thousands/millions of Canadians rallied to their side?
I’ll tell you what would happen. Sanity. Revolution. The downfall of the scum.
We’re at Nuremberg 2.0, people. If you don’t know what that means, look it up.
Doctors clear their vision and their brains and do their level best to HEAL, or they follow orders of the Commandants and maim and kill. It’s one side or the other.
In my 83 years, I’ve known a few very good doctors, and a number of The Cold Ones. The Cold Ones administer, without feeling or remorse, the Book of Death.
They’re ice on the outside, and rotting fungus and stench within.
Many of them sit at the top of medical boards.
They turn open societies into concentration camps.
On 25 May 2021, the Indian Bar Association (IBA) served a 51-page legal notice on Dr Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at the World Health Organisation (WHO), for:
“[H]er act of spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfil her agenda.”
The Mumbai-based IBA is an association of lawyers who strive to bring transparency and accountability to the Indian justice system. It is actively involved in the dissemination of legal knowledge and provides guidance and support to advocates and ordinary people in their fight for justice.
The legal notice says Dr Swaminathan has been:
“Running a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19, despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data compiled and presented by esteemed, highly qualified, experienced medical doctors and scientists,”
And:
“Issuing statements in social media and mainstream media, thereby influencing the public against the use of Ivermectin and attacking the credibility of acclaimed bodies/institutes like ICMR and AIIMS, Delhi, which have included ‘Ivermectin’ in the ‘National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.”
The IBA states that legal action is being taken against Dr Swaminathan in order to stop her from causing further damage to the lives of citizens of India.
The IBA says that Dr Swaminathan has ignored these studies and reports and has deliberately suppressed the data regarding the effectiveness of Ivermectin, with an intent to dissuade the people of India from using it.
However, two key medical bodies, the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi, have refused to accept her stand and have retained the recommendation for Ivermectin, under a ‘May Do’ category, for patients with mild symptoms and those in home isolation, as stated in ‘The National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.
It is interesting to note that the content of several web links to news articles and reports included in the notice served upon Dr Swaminathan, which was visible before issuing the notice, has either been removed or deleted.
It seems that the vaccine manufacturers and many governments are desperate to protect their pro-vaccine agenda and will attempt to censor information and news regarding the efficacy of Ivermectin.
Colin Todhunter is an independent journalist who writes on development, environmental issues, politics, food and agriculture. In August 2018 he was named as one of 400 Living Peace and Justice Leaders and Models by Transcend Media Services, in recognition of his journalism.
Thanks to the diligent efforts of one of my listeners, I received a paper yesterday that puts another nail in the coffin for the existence of SARS-CoV-2. The paper is titled “Appearances Can be Deceiving – Viral-like Inclusions in Covid-19 Negative Renal Biopsies by Electron Microscopy.” The authors are Clarrisa A. Cassol, et al., and the citation is Kidney360 1:824-828, 2020. This is a peer-reviewed journal affiliated with the American Society of Nephrology; in other words, this paper comes squarely from what is called acceptable, mainstream science.
Many of you have probably seen the electron-micrograph pictures of SARS-CoV-2, the ones in black and white, with the black dots within the faint outline of the circle. I have attached two such images from papers that claim these photos show direct evidence of the existence of the virus. These are the pictures that virologists show us, not the computer-generated, colorful images that you see in magazines and on the internet. These are the “real” pictures of the virus, and they are offered as “proof” that the virus exists.
However, it turns out these photos are actually NOT corona viruses, and the CDC, among others, has known this fact since at least 2004. The above paper examines the evidence used to claim that these images represent viruses, rather than normal “structures” within a cell, particularly sick cells. Here is what the paper says:
“We have observed morphologically indistinguishable inclusions within podocytes and tubular epithelial cells both in patients negative for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as well as in renal biopsies from the pre-COVID-19 era” (emphasis added).
In other words, the researchers saw these same structures in people with no evidence of Covid and in samples they took before Covid even happened, before the virus was said to even exist.
In addition, they say:
“We postulated that endogenous mimickers could be present that are morphologically indistinguishable from SARS-CoV-2 virions ultrastructurally.”
And:
“Viral-like inclusions, consisting both of single vesicles with diameters between 50 and 138 nm, as well as packed groups within larger vesicles, were found in all 15 cases, either in podocytes. Tubular epithelia, or vascular epithelial cells (figure 1).”
In all 15 cases that they examined, they found structures identical to what is being called SARS-CoV-2. They were scattered all over the kidneys and blood vessels; they are not viruses, but normal parts of the cells.
Then they go on to describe how these particles come about:
“A number of potential natural mimickers that can generate intracellular groups of round vesicles mimicking
SARS-CoV-2 virions could be listed, the most likely being endocytic vesicles and endosomal components such as microvesicular bodies containing exosomes, among others. Endocytosis leads to the formation of 60-120 nm vesicles, which is within the size range described for SARS-CoV-2 (60-140nm). These endocytic vesicles may be coated by different proteins, one of the most common being clathrin. The presence of coating proteins may be responsible for the presence of an electron-dense area surrounding these vesicles, giving the appearance of a viral corona.”
In other words, remember the famous “corona” on the corona virus? It turns out it’s just a common protein coating on normal vesicles, picking up the dyes in the electron-microscope preparation. The corona appearance is just another creative fiction, dreamed up by virologists and their graphic design teams.
Finally, the paper goes on to say that, naturally, you see more of these particles in sick people than in healthy people, which is exactly what I have been suggesting this past year. Dead and dying cells make these particles in the dying process and partly to get rid of poisons.
But the final nail comes in this quote:
“The potential for confusion of coronavirus particles with normal cellular components was in fact highlighted in a detailed ultrastructural study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of SARS-CoV responsible for the 2003 SARS outbreak.”[1]
In other words, the CDC in 2004 knew that researchers couldn’t reliably know these particles were coronavirus particles. Not a word has been heard about this since. All virologists use these pictures as proof of the existence of this virus. It is a fraud, based on junk science, like everything else connected with “Covid 19.”
Scientific propaganda about vaccines has reached dizzying heights, as officials point the uninformed public toward the Day of Liberation, when a COVID shot, otherwise known as God, will rescue Earth.
Here, from a chapter in my 1988 book, AIDS INC., is an excerpt exposing some of the infamous moments in vaccination history—hidden by the press, or simply forgotten.
For those denialists who cling to the notion that vaccines are remarkably safe and effective, this article is a pill you can swallow, bitter to be sure, but immunizing against the effects of bald lies from the bent medical establishment.
Understand: this is only a partial history of disasters and revelations, and it stops at 1988.
“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
“In a recent British outbreak of whooping cough, for example, even fully immunized children contracted the disease in fairly large numbers; and the rates of serious complications and death were reduced only slightly. In another recent outbreak of pertussis, 46 of the 85 fully immunized children studied eventually contracted the disease.”
“In 1977, 34 new cases of measles were reported on the campus of UCLA, in a population that was supposedly 91% immune, according to careful serological testing. Another 20 cases of measles were reported in the Pecos, New Mexico, area within a period of a few months in 1981, and 75% of them had been fully immunized, some of them quite recently. A survey of sixth-graders in a well-immunized urban community revealed that about 15% of this age group are still susceptible to rubella, a figure essentially identical with that of the pre-vaccine era.”
“Finally, although the overall incidence of typical acute measles in the U.S. has dropped sharply from about 400,000 cases annually in the early 1960s to about 30,000 cases by 1974-76, the death rate remained exactly the same; and, with the peak incidence now occurring in adolescents and young adults, the risk of pneumonia and demonstrable liver abnormalities has actually increased substantially, according to one recent study, to well over 3% and 2%, respectively.” Richard Moskowitz, MD, The Case Against Immunizations, 1983, American Institute of Homeopathy.
“Of all reported whooping cough cases between 1979 and 1984 in children over 7 months of age – that is, old enough to have received the primary course of the DPT shots (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) – 41% occurred in children who had received three or more shots and 22% in children who had one or two immunizations.”
“Among children under 7 months of age who had whooping cough, 34% had been immunized between one and three times…”
“… Based on the only U.S. findings on adverse DPT reactions, an FDA-financed study at the University of California, Los Angeles, one out of every 350 children will have a convulsion; one in 180 children will experience high-pitched screaming [can indicate brain damage]; and one in 66 will have a fever of 105 degrees or more.” Jennifer Hyman, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, special supplement on DPT, dated April, 1987.
“A study undertaken in 1979 at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the sponsorship of the Food and Drug Administration, and which has been confirmed by other studies, indicates that in the U.S.A. approximately 1,000 infants die annually as a direct result of DPT vaccinations, and these are classified as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) deaths. These represent about 10 to 15% of the total number of SIDS deaths occurring annually in the U.S.A. (between 8,000 and 10,000 depending on which statistics are used).” Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, CW Daniel Company Limited, Saffron Walden, Essex, England, 1987.
“Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded… figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America’s children every year.” DPT: A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fischer, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
“While 70-80% of British children were immunized against pertussis in 1970-71, the rate is now 39%. The committee predicts that the next pertussis epidemic will probably turn out to be more severe than the one in 1974/75. However, they do not explain why, in 1970/71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population; whereas in 1974/75, with a declining rate of vaccination, a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities.” Wolfgang Ehrengut, Lancet, Feb. 18, 1978, p. 370.
“… Barker and Pichichero, in a prospective study of 1232 children in Denver, Colorado, found after DTP that only 7% of those vaccinated were free from untoward reactions, which included pyrexia (53%), acute behavioral changes (82%), prolonged screaming (13%), and listlessness, anorexia and vomiting. 71% of those receiving second injections of DTP experienced two or more of the reactions monitored.” Lancet, May 28, 1983, p. 1217
“Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58.
“Pertussis (whooping cough) immunization is controversial, as the side effects have received a great deal of publicity. The counter claim is that the effectiveness and protection offered by the procedure far outweigh the possible ill effects… annual deaths, per million children, from this disease over the period from 1900 to the mid-nineteen seventies, shows that from a high point of just under 900 deaths per million children (under age 15) in 1905, the decline has been consistent and dramatic. There had been a lowering of mortality rates of approximately 80% by the time immunization was introduced on a mass scale, in the mid-nineteen fifties. The decline has continued, albeit at a slower rate, ever since. No credit can be given to vaccination for the major part of the decline since it was not in use.” Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 63.
“… the swine-flu vaccination program was one of its (CDC) greatest blunders. It all began in 1976 when CDC scientists saw that a virus involved in a flu attack outbreak at Fort Dix, N.J., was similar to the swine-flu virus that killed 500,000 Americans in 1918. Health officials immediately launched a 100-million dollar program to immunize every American. But the expected epidemic never materialized, and the vaccine led to partial paralysis in 532 people. There were 32 deaths.” U.S. News and World Report, Joseph Carey, October 14, 1985, p. 70, “How Medical Sleuths Track Killer Diseases.”
“Despite (cases) in which (smallpox) vaccination plainly failed to protect the population, and despite the rampant side-effects of the methods, the proponents of vaccination continued their attempts to justify the methods by claims that the disease had declined in Europe as a whole during the period of its compulsory use. If the decline could be correlated with the use of the vaccination, then all else could be set aside, and the advantage between its current low incidence could be shown to outweigh the periodic failures of the method, and to favour the continued use of vaccination. However, the credit for the decline in the incidence of smallpox could not be given to vaccination. The fact is that its incidence declined in all parts of Europe, whether or not vaccination was employed.” Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, pp. 6-7.
“Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination).” W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898.
“In this incident (Kyoto, Japan, 1948) – the most serious of its kind – a toxic batch of alum-precipitated toxoid (APT) was responsible for illness in over 600 infants and for no fewer than 68 deaths.”
“On 20 and 22 October, 1948, a large number of babies and children in the city of Kyoto received their first injection of APT. On the 4th and 5th of November, 15,561 babies and children aged some months to 13 years received their second dose. One to two days later, 606 of those who had been injected fell ill. Of these, 9 died of acute diphtheritic paralysis in seven to fourteen days, and 59 of late paralysis mainly in four to seven weeks.” Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization, Athone Press, University of London, 1967.
“Accidents may, however, follow the use of this so-called killed (rabies) vaccine owing to inadequate processing. A very serious occurrence of this sort occurred at Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, in 1960. No fewer than 18 out of 66 persons vaccinated with Fermi’s carbolized (rabies ) vaccine suffered from encephalomyelitis and every one of the eighteen died.” Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.
“At a press conference in Washington on 24 July, 1942, the Secretary of War reported that 28,585 cases of jaundice had been observed in the (American) Army between 1 January and 4 July after yellow fever vaccination, and of these 62 proved fatal.” Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.
“The world’s biggest trial (conducted in south India) to assess the value of BCG tuberculosis vaccine has made the startling revelation that the vaccine ‘does not give any protection against bacillary forms of tuberculosis.’ The study said to be ‘most exhaustive and meticulous,’ was launched in 1968 by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) with assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia.”
“The incidence of new cases among the BCG vaccinated group was slightly (but statistically insignificantly) higher than in the control group, a finding that led to the conclusion that BCG’s protective effect ‘was zero.’” New Scientist, November 15, 1979, as quoted by Hans Ruesch in Naked Empress, Civis Publishers, Switzerland, 1982.
“Between 10 December 1929 and 30 April 1930, 251 of 412 infants born in Lubeck received three doses of BCG vaccine by the mouth during the first ten days of life. Of these 251, 72 died of tuberculosis, most of them in two to five months and all but one before the end of the first year. In addition, 135 suffered from clinical tuberculosis but eventually recovered; and 44 became tuberculin-positive but remained well. None of the 161 unvaccinated infants born at the time was affected in this way and none of these died of tuberculosis within the following three years.” Hazards of Immunization, Wilson.
“We conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to test the efficacy of the 14-valent pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine in 2295 high-risk patients… Seventy-one episodes of proved or probable pneumococcal pneumonia or bronchitis occurred among 63 of the patients (27 placebo recipients and 36 vaccine recipients)… We were unable to demonstrate any efficacy of the pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia or bronchitis in this population.” New England Journal of Medicine, November 20, 1986, p. 1318, Michael Simberkoff et al.
In the spring of 1955, Cutter Labs started selling their standard polio vaccine. The vaccine was infective, and 200 cases of polio resulted among recipients. Of these, there were eleven deaths. About 100 cases of paralysis resulted. JR
“But already before Salk developed his vaccine, polio had been constantly regressing; the 39 cases out of every 100,000 inhabitants registered in 1942 had gradually diminished from year to year until they were reduced to only 15 cases in 1952… according to M. Beddow Baylay, the English surgeon and medical historian.” Slaughter of the Innocent, Hans Reusch, Civitas Publish ers, Switzerland, and Swain, New York, 1983.
“Many published stories and reports have stated, implied and otherwise led professional people and the public to believe that the sharp reduction of cases (and of deaths) from poliomyelitis in 1955 as compared to 1954 is attributable to the Salk vaccine…That it is a misconception follows from these considerations. The number of children inoculated has been too small to account for the decrease. The sharp decrease was apparent before the inoculations began or could take effect and was of the same order as the decrease following the immediate post-inoculation period.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, vol. 20, no. 1, 1987.
“So far it is hardly possible to gain insight into the extent of the immunization catastrophe of 1955 in the United States. It may be considered certain that the officially ascertained 200 cases (of polio) which were caused directly or indirectly by the (polio) vaccination constitute minimum figures… It can hardly be estimated how many of the 1359 (polio) cases among vaccinated persons must be regarded as failures of the vaccine and how many of them were infected by the vaccine. A careful study of the epidemiologic course of polio in the United States yields indications of grave significance. In numerous states of the U.S.A., typical early epidemics developed with the immunizations in the spring of 1955…The vaccination incidents of the year 1955 cannot be exclusively traced back to the failure of one manufacturing firm.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980, vol. 19, no. 4, “Story of the Salk Vaccine (Part 2).”
“Suffice it to say that most of the large (polio) epidemics that have occurred in this country since the introduction of the Salk vaccine have followed the wide-scale use of the vaccine and have been characterized by an uncommon early seasonal onset. To name a few, there is the Massachusetts epidemic of 1955; the Chicago epidemic of 1956; and the Des Moines epidemic of 1959.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980 vol. 19, no. 4.
“The live (Sabin) poliovirus vaccine has been the predominant cause of domestically arising cases of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States since 1972. To avoid the occurrence of such cases, it would be necessary to discontinue the routine use of live poliovirus vaccine.” Jonas Salk, Science, March 4, 1977, p. 845.
“By the (U.S.) government’s own admission, there has been a 41% failure rate in persons who were previously vaccinated against the (measles) virus.” Dr. Anthony Morris, John Chriss, BG Young, “Occurrence of Measles in Previously Vaccinated Individuals,” 1979; presented at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology at Fort Detrick, Maryland, April 27, 1979.
“Prior to the time doctors began giving rubella vaccinations, an estimated 85% of adults were naturally immune to the disease (for life). Because of immunization, the vast majority of women never acquire natural immunity (or lifetime protection).” Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, Let’s Live, December 1983, as quoted by Carolyn Reuben in the LA WEEKLY, June 28, 1985.
“Adminstration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such falsely protected children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… ”
The above quotes reflect only a mere fraction of an available literature.
It is criminally deceiving to say, “Vaccines are simple; they stimulate the immune system and confer immunity against specific germ agents.”
Official reports on vaccine reactions are often at odds with unofficial estimates because of the method of analysis used. If adverse vaccine-reaction is defined as a small set of possible effects experienced within 72 hours of an inoculation, then figures will be smaller. But doctors like G.T. Stewart, of the University of Glasgow, have found through meticulous investigation, including visits to hospitals and interviews with parents of children vaccinated, that reactions as severe as brain-damage (e.g., from the DPT vaccine) can be overlooked, go unreported and can be assumed to have come from other causes.
—Well, that was my finding, in 1988, when I looked beneath the surface of the vaccine question.
Now we are in very deep waters. COVID-19 hysteria has been tuned up to the NEED for a vaccine.
WE need to slough off this promoted bad dream and stand firm against the little gods who traffic their vials in every doctor’s office, hospital, school, drug store, and tented parking lot—making them into shooting galleries.
We already have natural immune systems. They work.
On June 13, 2021, Swiss citizens are called to vote for the outlawing of synthetic pesticides. A citizens’ initiative, turned referendum, supported and endorsed by Navdanya International on the path towards a true agrofood systems transition. In case the ‘Yes’ vote should win, the ban would extend from agriculture, to private use, and to the import and marketing of foodstuffs containing synthetic chemicals. Voters will also have to decide on the proposal to remove public subsidies for farmers who are not willing to convert to ecological production practices.
The initiative holds significant symbolic value as Switzerland is home to one of the most powerful agribusiness corporations in the world, Syngenta. Recently acquired by ChemChina, Syngenta was recently at the center of the Paraquat Papers scandal, named after the herbicide produced by the company and considered one of the most toxic and dangerous in the world.
The Swiss initiative is intended to inspire similar actions in other countries.
The president of Navdanya International, Vandana Shiva, commented: “We are members of one Earth family. Poisons and pesticides kill insects and biodiversity, they are destroying the infrastructure of life. Poisons are causing a health emergency, as chronic diseases such as cancer, autism, infertility are connected to toxins in food and environmental pollution. Through knowledge manipulation and propaganda, the Poison Cartel also undermines independent science and threatens democracy by trying to silence citizens’ efforts towards pesticide-free communities. The health of the planet, her biodiversity, our health makes poison-free food and farming a survival imperative. As our work in Navdanya over 3 decades has shown, we can grow more and better food through biodiversity-intensive, chemical-free organic farming. I congratulate and support the Swiss Referendum as a significant step towards Earth Democracy to defend the rights of the biodiversity of species, including all human beings. Poison free food and farming is our birthright.”
Navdanya International
Good news: Vandana Shiva supports our initiative! «We are members of One Earth Family. Poisons and Pesticides kill insects and biodiversity, they are destroying the infrastructure of life. Poisons are causing a health emergency. (…) (1/6) pic.twitter.com/Pg0G7ovxDH
— #PestizidinitiativeJA am 13. Juni (@LebenstattGift) June 4, 2021
Today James talks to Christian Westbrook (aka the Ice Age Farmer) about the problems facing the global food supply—from the coming global solar minimum to the globalist plan to “reset the table” and transform global food systems. More importantly, we discuss what can be done about these problems.
Let’s say a minor religion emerges in Ohio. Its basis is a story about a miraculous tree growing in an arid desert.
The only problem is, if the members of this Church bothered to check, they would discover the exact place where the tree supposedly grew was no desert. Instead, it was an ocean. The ocean had been there for a billion years.
But no one bothers to check. They collectively INVENT AND ACCEPT the notion of the tree in the desert. They’re not aware that this is what they’re doing, but they ARE doing it.
They build rituals and ceremonies and art—“data banks”—around the idea of the tree.
The same factors are present in the case of promoting a new virus. In this situation—the virus is collectively dreamed up and accepted by virologists—the “checking” would occur by doing a retrospective step-by-step analysis of what happened in the lab where the virus was “discovered.”
But no analysis is carried out. None of the professionals believes it’s necessary. The traditional methods of virus-discovery are beyond reproach.
And if an outsider, a skeptic demands an inquiry into the process of discovery, he is labeled a sinner. The lab is an inner sanctum. The mere presence of an outsider looking over the shoulders of the researchers (priests) at work would be an offense against the Church.
What we’re left with is a collective idea whose content is: “new virus.”
That’s all.
“Would you like to look at our line of hats that go with your new virus?”
“How about a mutant strain?”
“The vaccine, of course, is free.”
Another collective idea: the 300 official mental disorders, promoted by the American Psychiatric Association. The truth is, the so-called disorders have no accompanying definitive lab tests, for diagnosis.
Collective ideas give rise to data banks and data sets that bolster and expand the original ideas.
“25% of all college students [2] have at least one mental disorder.” Here are the studies and surveys and confirmations from leading researchers—data sets.
“Three major public health organizations have formed a task force to study solutions to the growing mental illness problem among college students.” More data sets will be created and deposited in data banks.
“MIT and Harvard, cooperating in a federally funded program, are developing AI software that will predict future trends in mental illness among college students, in an effort to identify preventive measures which might head off this growing problem…” More data sets placed in data banks—but this time, all the work, and its logic, are hidden behind walls of automatic AI.
Collectivism=collective ideas=data banks filled with supposed confirmation of the truth of the ideas.
The whole op involves creating more and more layers between the data sets and the original collective ideas, until no one considers examining those ideas.
As IoT (Internet of Things), enabled by 5G tech, makes more of the functions of society automatic, successive generations of the populations are pushed farther and farther away from the collective ideas which form the basis of AI programs.
Here is a passage from John Klyczek’s article, “From UNESCO Study 11 to UNESCO 2050: Project BEST and the Forty-Year Plan to Reimagine Education for the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” [3] published at unlimitedhangout.com. Consider the sheer number of layers, data sets, and AI involved in the monster project Klyczek is describing:
“…UNESCO’s Study 11 was carried out through international public-private partnerships between communist, socialist, and capitalist countries coordinating efforts between multinational telecommunications and computer corporations. Working in concert with academic institutions and national government agencies, Study 11 affiliates lobbied to restructure laws in order to globalize school systems through proto-internet technologies manufactured by Big Tech companies, such as Microsoft, IBM, and Apple, which are now steering the Fourth Industrial Revolution into a new political system of communitarian technocracy driven by a new economic system of ‘stakeholder capitalism’ through ‘community-based’ public-private partnerships that are managed by Big Data.”
“…schools around the entire world are forced to rely on the technocratic IT infrastructure that has been set up by Study 11 and Project BEST through their public-private partnerships with Microsoft, Apple, and IBM. These partnerships are now converting brick-and-mortar schoolhouses into virtual classrooms that digitally data-mine students through computer hardware devices, such as Apple iPads and Macbooks, which transmit video teleconferencing through software programs, including Microsoft Teams, supplemented by adaptive-learning courseware and other artificial-intelligence applications like IBM’s Watson Education.”
Getting the picture? Imagine how many parents are hypnotized and baffled by the total load of data sets which establish this new global education system, vs. the number of parents who will see through the layers of the con to the collectivist root.
Want a parallel? Try the current debate over the origin of the “pandemic virus.” It jumped from bat to human. No, perhaps other animals carried it. No, it was born in a Wuhan lab. Fauci and his agency funded gain-of function research at the lab. Well, perhaps they did, but the total amount of money was really an insignificant pittance. What did Fauci know, and when did he know it? Layer after layer, built higher and higher.
And at bottom, the virus was never isolated (never discovered), and it was never authentically sequenced. It was an idea, collectively concocted. [4]
Every death from, and case of, COVID virus infection can be explained (as I have, over the past year) without the need for, or reference to, a virus. [5]
In the old days, a stage magician would show his empty hands, then start pulling the edge of a colored handkerchief from one closed fist. A whole string of handkerchiefs would appear. But now, the magician presents 12 empty cabinets stacked on top of one another, and he seems to make those handkerchiefs ascend from the lowest to the highest cabinet.
Each cabinet is a data bank, and he isn’t even on the stage. He’s a hundred miles away talking to the audience via Zoom.
And soon, he won’t be a he. He’ll be a constructed image of a human.
And the image won’t be transporting handkerchiefs. It’ll be notifying people they have a disease; and the drugs will arrive promptly at their door.
The drugs will be toxic and won’t heal. The diagnosis will be flawed or completely irrelevant. The standard cause of the so-called disease will be false. The research on which the cause was based will be fake.
Just like now. But the layers of AI data all along the line will transmit a more powerful illusion.
Responding to Freedom of Information Requests, 69 Health/Science Institutions Failed to Provide Proof of “SARS-Cov-2” Isolation — by Anyone, Anywhere, Ever
69 health/science FOI’s institutions globally had all failed to provide or cite even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification, by anyone, anywhere, ever.
6/10/2021 — Update by Truth Comes to Light editor:
See related Freedom of Information Act response from Melbourne, Victoria, Department of Health and Human Services as shared with us by a reader. The closing statement is most relevant:
Texas Wine Grape Growers Sue Bayer-Monsanto Over Dicamba Drift Damage
The volatile nature of the pesticide dicamba has meant that it can wind up miles away from where it was sprayed.
Dicamba, and dicamba-resistant seeds, were meant to be the next huge product for Monsanto, which was bought by agrochemical giant Bayer back in 2018. But “dicamba drift,” the name for the phenomenon in which dicamba particles float through the air onto plants that have no protection against it, has affected farmers and forests across the country. Most often, we’ve seen dicamba drift pegged as a damaging agent on unprotected soybean fields, but soy is far from the only victim. A new lawsuit claims that dicamba drift leveled extensive damage on vineyards—in Texas.
When we think of American wine production we tend to think of California first, then maybe Washington state, Oregon and the Finger Lakes region of New York. But grapes are grown just about everywhere and many wine grape varieties are well suited for non-coastal environments as well. In the High Plains region of Texas, just south of the Texas Panhandle, wine grape (and wine) production has been a recent local success story; Texas wines have even won awards held elsewhere.
In the larger wine-grape-growing regions of the United States, like in Northern California, dicamba drift has not been a substantial problem. Dicamba can drift for about three miles from where it was applied, which means that any affected crops need to be within that range to be hit. Napa and Sonoma counties in California, just for example, don’t have substantial dicamba-treated crops that close to the vineyards; there’s much more money to be made in growing grapes in those counties than growing cotton or soy.
But in Texas, cotton is a major crop and can be very close to the vineyards. Those vineyards’ owners, according to a press release from the law firm that filed the case, “saw their highly productive vineyards wither and, in some cases, die as a result of the dicamba-resistant seed system’s use on over two million surrounding acres of cotton.” That release says that 57 Texas wine grape growers have filed suit against Bayer-Monsanto and BASF (which also sells dicamba products) for “hundreds of millions of dollars.”
The suit alleges that some grape growers saw a truly insane 90 percent reduction in their yield owing to dicamba drift. And grapevines, unlike some other crops, cannot simply be replanted the next year for a similar yield; they require decades to mature and produce the right quality of fruit for some wines.
The European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) has called for an immediate ban on glyphosate-based herbicides and other harmful pesticides.
In a press release on Friday EFFAT stated “Protecting agri-workers’ health is EFFAT’s number one priority. EFFAT calls for an immediate ban on glyphosate in the renewal process, which ends in 2022. EFFAT also calls for more investments in the promotion of alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful pesticides and urges a clear governance in charge of a smooth transition with the involvement of Trade Unions. Existing jobs must be protected and new quality ones created.
“The newly adopted position on the issue responds to EFFAT’s commitment to a more sustainable agriculture which underpins, inter alia, free trade agreements with binding requirement to respect highest environmental and social standards, investments in workers’ skills, social protection and research and development towards sustainable pest management.
“As sufficient evidence exists on the risks related to the use of glyphosate for workers, human health and biodiversity, EFFAT calls for the immediate ban of glyphosate as an active substance in herbicide products in the renewal process which is expected to end in 2022. The precautionary principle should guide EFSA and ECHA assessments.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Out Your Long-Term Exposure
“If a transition period is to be set, it should be as short as possible and only apply for limited cases in professional use, whilst for uses in public areas, private gardens, railway tracks, desiccation, and all cases where Integrated Pest management (IPM) can be used, the ban should apply immediately. In any case, there should be no more use of glyphosate in Europe from 2024.
“EFSA, ECHA and the European Commission should carry out their assessment in atransparent and reliable way, free of the influence of the agro-chemical industry. The protection of agricultural workers’ health and safety must be considered as one of the main priorities throughout the scientific evaluation that will guide the process. The use of Personal protective equipment (PPE) should not be given a prominent position in the scientific assessment, as evidence shows that PPE is not always available, and its effectiveness is often over-estimated.
“Alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful chemicals already exist and must be further promoted. This includes agronomic practices, mechanical and biological weed control, animal grazing and natural herbicides.
“A 13-week pilot study run by the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna in 2019 demonstrates that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides from prenatal period to adulthood induced endocrine disruptive effects and altered reproductive developmental parameters in male and female rats. A recent study has proven glyphosate acts as an endocrine disruptor in the case of exposure during pregnancy.
“EFFAT supports the ambitious environmental objectives of the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy, including the 50% reduction target for use and risk of pesticides by 2030.1 However, acting solely at a European level will not be sufficient to protect consumers’ health, safeguard our ecosystems and biodiversity and prevent soil erosion. On the contrary, it may affect jobs and the competitiveness of the EU agriculture sector. A vision towards a more sustainable agriculture without glyphosate and other hazardous chemical must be pursued at a global level. The EU should be at the forefront of this radical change, since the decisions taken in the EU will also have a substantial impact in other countries.
“It is not acceptable that harmful pesticides already banned in the EU keep being produced and exported by European agro-chemical companies. Foodstuff produced using pesticides banned in Europe should not enter the EU market.
“If the EU were to adopt a different approach to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), this could contribute to building a more sustainable vision for the agriculture sector. Agriculture and food always require specific attention in the negotiation of FTAs, as the economic, social and environmental sustainability of these sectors is fragile and easily disrupted. Moreover, the respect of equal environmental and social standards must be a precondition to engage in negotiations.”
Chalk up a victory vs. public health tyranny! In the face of massive public resistance, so-called ‘officials’ have retreated from their unscientific and misanthropic propaganda tactics.
Another round of record protests across in London (barely acknowledged in corporate media) has served as a bellwether for the surging distaste against several forms of public health Covid edicts.
After more than a year ignoring the data and science to lockdown the world, public health officials have begun reluctantly abandoning many of their heavy-handed tactics. Taking a “carrot and stick” approach, global populations have been continually beaten with a medical stick to force compliance. Yet few doing the ‘beating’ cared to look at history or do a simple cost-benefit analysis to examine the erroneous plan for their populations.
Continued analysis of the data behind lockdowns shows epic failures that have set society back in unimaginable ways. Forcing public health edicts illogically has forever weakened confidence in governmental and global health bodies.
Canadian economist Douglas W. Allen recently published an examination of over 80 Covid-19 studies, taking a critical look at the literature to assess the lockdown Cost vs. Benefits:
“There are about 45 stringency points from the least stringent country (Russia: 40.28) to the most stringent (Ireland: 84.26). Over this range, moving from the least to most stringent lockdown increases the cumulative deaths per million by 630 deaths. Contrary to the popular understanding, lockdown is not associated with fewer deaths per million, but more. “
Despite the false assertion by public health officials that the limited, available science pointed to lockdowns being the only solution, Allen refutes this, stating:
“By August there was enough information available to show that any reasonable cost/benefit analysis would show that lockdown was creating more harm than good. It is unreasonable to suggest that a proper decision could not have been made in the fall when the second wave of infections hit.”
The public is emboldened like never before to both return to normal and disobey public health officials pushing irrational, unscientific orders whose only roots stem from virtue signaling, political jockeying and/or petty power plays. It’s over. And would-be government employees refusing to see the writing on the wall will be voted out of office.
Established in April 2020 and composed by a group of multi-disciplinary professionals, the Pandemics Data & Analytics (or PANDA) organization understands this. PANDA stands for open science, rational debate about replacing flawed science, and for retrieving liberty and prosperity from the clutches of a dystopian “new normal”.
The organization recently released its 17-page analysis and Declaration for the Protection of Children and Young People. It states:
“Evidence already shows serious damage to the physical, mental and social wellbeing of children and young people, as well as their educational attainment and future prospects (Lewis et al., 2021). There was never a reason to disrupt the lives of children and young people and there is every reason to restore normality to this population. Policymakers should take immediate action to protect children and young people from further harm and injustice, now and in the future.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is facing down a scandal from several directions. First, internal emails revealed the agency relied upon politically motivated actors, rather than science, to craft its school reopening policy. Secondly, the agency’s mask guidance was peppered with confusion and questionable science.
Research examining mitigation practices and Covid-19 rates in Florida, New York and Massachusetts’ schools continued to drive home the CDC’s scientific misadventures. After looking at all the data encompassing public schools and districts for the 2020-2021 school year, the authors concluded “…we do not see a correlation between mask mandates and COVID-19 rates among students…”
Even at this advanced stage of public revelation and transparency to the failed policies of some tone-deaf public health officials, some are still desperately trying to move the goalposts. For example: After the goal of lowering case counts in an effort to return to normal was reached, officials in Australia and New Zealand demanded a zero-Covid approach! Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, Ontario has announced a three-step plan to reopen the province, starting with outdoor recreational amenities, as it gradually prepares to ease pandemic restrictions. But wait! Hold on! Forget about lower case counts or mortality rates, Ontario must wait at least two weeks after 60 per cent of adults have received one dose of the vaccine!
In the U.S., the reopening has happened too rapidly for power-hungry public officials still not ready to give up their ill-gotten fiefdoms. The vaccine passport idea continues to be a non-starter in the USA as many governors checkmated the idea with a slew of early executive orders and bills.
Defaulting to individual businesses, a few governors have resorted to making weary frontline business owners manually violate their patron’s health privacy by asking them to check the vaccine status of everyone who enters their establishment. This is the textbook definition of fascism, by the way: The marriage of government and industry.
Other businesses have simply removed their “face masks mandatory” signs and replaced them with masking suggestions for the unvaccinated. How many people are complying no one knows for sure.
A month ago, headlines told of an impending U.K. domestic vaccine passport despite widespread public distaste. It manifested in the form of an NHS app which had some concerning additional features as exposed during an interview on U.K.’s Talk Radio:
The NHS app has been updated to include far more than vaccine jabs.
Julia: “Data relating to mental health, lifestyle, ethnic origin, biometric data and alleged criminal behaviour; what the hell does that have to do with proving you’ve had two jabs!?”@JuliaHB1 | @silkiecarlopic.twitter.com/TFztDpoMpq
In a surprising plot twist, following this weekend’s capacity protests, plans for the U.K. vaccine passport have reportedly been scrapped. In a Telegraph exclusive, ‘officials’ working on Covid-19 status certification believe there is no chance the law will be changed to mandate vaccine passports’ use within the U.K. Called a “well-placed source” by The Telegraph stated, “No one is talking about it still as a potential thing … It has been killed off really.”
As travel and employment appear to be the new chokepoints to ram through vaccine certificates, are governments defaulting to private business to finish the op? Or will something happen that gives officials a rejuvenated push in the near future?
The following is a slightly shortened version of a BBC Portuguese-language report on a carefully conducted study published in 2020, which has been largely overlooked till now. The study shows that glyphosate contamination of water, driven by expanded GM soy production, leads to a large increase in infant mortality, as well as a higher probability of low birth weight and a higher probability of premature births.
Glyphosate is the most popular pesticide in Brazil. It represents 62% of the total herbicides used in the country and, in 2016, sales of this chemical in thousands of tons were higher than the sum of the seven other pesticides most commercialised in the national territory.
Used on GM glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, the herbicide contributed to Brazil becoming the largest producer of the grain in the world, surpassing the United States.
As a result, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of soy-producing states has grown far above the economy of the country as a whole in recent decades. And the income generated by agricultural activity has stimulated other economic sectors in the producing regions.
But the new study, carried out by researchers at the universities of Princeton, FGV (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Insper, reveals that this generation of wealth has a high cost. According to the study, the spraying of glyphosate on soybean crops led to a 5% increase in infant mortality in southern and central-western municipalities that receive water from soybean regions.
This represents a total of 503 more infant deaths per year associated with the use of glyphosate in soy production.
“There is great concern about the effects of herbicides on populations that are not directly involved in agriculture, who are not directly exposed to pesticides,” Rodrigo Soares, full professor at the Lemann Foundation Chair at Insper and one of the authors of the study, alongside Mateus Dias (Princeton) and Rudi Rocha (FGV), told the BBC.
“Although these substances are present in the body of more than 50% of the western population, we do not know if this is harmful or not,” added the researcher.
“Our article is one of the first to credibly show that this should indeed be a concern, as it demonstrates contamination through watercourses in areas far from the areas of use, in a way that has never been done before.”
Bayer, owner of Monsanto since 2018 – the company that launched glyphosate on the market in 1974, under the trade name Roundup – assesses the study as “unreliable and poorly conducted” and says the safety of its products is the highest priority of the company.
Aprosoja (Brazilian Association of Soy Producers), in turn, states that “the conclusions pointed out in the study do not seem to be supported by the scientific facts and reality found in the practice of Brazilian agriculture”.
Finally, CropLife Brasil, which represents the pesticide sector in the country, said that “for more than 40 years, glyphosate has undergone extensive safety tests, including 15 studies to assess the potential toxicity to human development and 10 studies to assess potential reproductive toxicity”.
“Regulatory authorities in Brazil, Europe, the USA and around the world have reviewed these studies and concluded that glyphosate does not pose a risk to human development or human reproduction,” said the organisation.
The use of glyphosate in Brazil
The most widely used herbicide in the world today, glyphosate was discovered by Monsanto in 1970. The pesticide is used to eliminate weeds in agriculture, acting by blocking an enzyme that is part of the synthesis of essential amino acids for plant development.
Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide – that is, it kills most plants. Because of this, it became widely used on crops genetically modified to resist the chemical, such as GM soybeans, marketed by Monsanto under the name Roundup Ready. Glyphosate herbicides were first sold by the company under the name Roundup. In 2000, however, the glyphosate patent expired, and the product is currently offered by several manufacturers under different trade names.
Genetically modified soy was first marketed by Monsanto in the United States in 1996.
In Brazil, a first authorization for use was granted in 1998, but was almost immediately suspended by the courts. In 2003, the government granted a temporary marketing authorization, which required the incineration of the remaining seeds to prevent their reuse in the following year.
In September of that year, a provisional measure allowed producers to reuse the seeds and, in October 2004, the temporary sale concession was renewed. Finally, in March 2005, the Biosafety Law permanently authorized the production and sale of transgenic soybean seeds.
The use of genetically modified soy has spread rapidly in Brazil since 2004, representing 93% of the grain-planted area in the mid-2010s, according to data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), cited by the study of researchers from Princeton, FGV and Insper.
Along with the productivity gain of the soybean crop, the use of glyphosate grew strongly in the country, more than tripling in volume between 2000 and 2010, from 39,500 tons to 127,600 tons.
Differences between Brazil and other countries
In the European Union, since 2015, there has been a wide debate about the possibility of banning the use of glyphosate, after a report by the International Cancer Research Agency (Iarc) that year classified the substance as “probable human carcinogen”, that is, as a possible cancer-causing agent.
In the United States, Bayer has already disbursed billions of dollars in deals to settle lawsuits over allegations that glyphosate causes cancer.
“In the European Union, unlike Brazil, the registration of pesticides is always for a finite time. Here, when a pesticide is registered, this registration is eternal, until it eventually comes to be questioned”, explains Alan Tygel, member of the coordination of the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life.
In Europe, currently, the authorization for the use of glyphosate is valid until December 2022. Austria became the first country in the region to ban the product in 2019, while Germany plans to do without the herbicide from 2024.
Another important difference, according to the activist, concerns the maximum allowed value of concentration of the pesticide in water, so that it is considered suitable for human consumption.
“Brazilian water can be considered potable containing up to 500 micrograms of glyphosate per litre, while water in the European Union can have a maximum of 0.1 micrograms of glyphosate,” said Tygel. “So, the Brazilian limit is 5,000 times higher than the European Union limit.”
If these existing regulatory differences were not enough, Brazilian agribusiness has been pressing in recent years for the approval of the Bill of Law 6,299/2002, which eases the rules for inspection and application of pesticides.
In addition, within the federal government there has been a change in the correlation between forces opposed to and in favour of the use of pesticides.
“Until 2016, there was within the government a certain balance of forces between agribusiness, family farming and public policies to encourage agroecology,” said Tygel.
“From that year on, one of the first actions of the Michel Temer government [MDB] was to end the Ministry of Agrarian Development, which developed these organic agriculture policies. Since then, we have seen an exponential increase in the number of pesticide registrations,” he said.
In 2020 alone, Brazil approved the registration of 493 pesticides, the largest number ever documented by the Ministry of Agriculture, which has compiled this data since 2000.
Glyphosate and infant mortality
The authors of the study “Down the River: Glyphosate Use in Agriculture and Birth Outcomes of Surrounding Populations” say that they decided to study the relationship between pesticide and infant mortality due to the heated debate over the use of genetically modified seeds and their combination with herbicides.
“We thought the debate was very passionate and very uninformed,” says Rodrigo Soares, from Insper. “Then we realized that the expansion of GM soy in Brazil, mainly in the Midwest and the South, as it was very fast and very marked after the introduction of the GM seeds, could be an interesting context for analysis.”
The regulatory change that allowed the use of transgenic soybean seeds in Brazil has generated what is called in economics a “natural experiment” – an event brought about by external causes, which changes the environment in which individuals, families, companies or cities operate, and that makes it possible to compare groups affected and not affected by this event.
“One concern that existed is that there could be water contamination, since toxicological studies in the United States, Argentina and Brazil detected the presence of glyphosate in rivers, but in a one-off, non-systematic way,” says Soares.
“To evaluate this, we used information about the hydrographic basins in the country and the relative position of the municipalities – above or below areas of intensive use of glyphosate,” explained the researcher.
“It was a way of understanding how the expansion of the use of transgenic soy and glyphosate in a given municipality could affect the municipalities that receive water that passes through that region where pesticides are used.”
What the researchers did then was to analyze, for the period between 2004 and 2010, when the greatest expansion of transgenic soybean production occurred in Brazil and the use of glyphosate tripled, the birth statistics of these municipalities “downstream” from areas of use intensive herbicide.
“What we have shown is that there is a deterioration in health conditions at birth in these municipalities downstream from the municipalities that expanded soy production,” said the professor at Insper.
Within this deterioration in health conditions at birth are: a higher probability of low birth weight, a higher probability of premature births and – the most serious – an increase in infant mortality.
“We have also produced a series of other empirical analyzes to show that this was in fact associated with water and that this in fact appears to be associated with the expansion of soy.”
Isolating the effect of glyphosate
For example, comparing data from municipalities “downstream” with municipalities “upstream” – which therefore do not receive water that has passed through areas of use of glyphosate – the researchers find that municipalities “upstream” are not affected by this worsening of birth statistics.
The researchers also demonstrate that the negative effects on health outcomes at birth are particularly strong for pregnancies most exposed to the period of application of glyphosate, which in Brazil typically occurs between October and March, since soybeans are planted in the country between October and January.
The worsening of birth data is also greater when it rains more in the glyphosate application season, which the researchers showed by crossing health statistics with rainfall data. This finding is in line with the idea that more of the product reaches the rivers when soil erosion by rain is most significant.
Mateus Dias, a doctoral student at Princeton University and coauthor of Soares in the study, explained the researchers’ decision to analyse municipalities downstream and upstream, instead of the municipalities that apply the glyphosate itself.
“Glyphosate use has an impact on soybean productivity, and this may end up affecting child mortality in that municipality in other ways – for example, higher productivity can generate higher income and this will reduce child mortality,” he said.
The researchers also assessed whether the expansion of soybeans affected soil erodibility due to the advancement of agriculture over forested areas.
“We showed that this did not happen, because these areas that started to plant soy seem to have been pastures before, so there was no radical change in vegetation and consequently, there was no significant change in soil erodibility,” says Dias.
Study results may contribute to better regulation
According to the researchers, the objective of the study is not to “demonise” glyphosate, but to contribute to an improvement in public policies to regulate the use of pesticides in the country.
“We know what the use of agricultural substances in general has meant throughout human history – fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. They have indeed enabled a revolution in terms of agricultural production and, in the net result, I believe that the effect was very positive,” said Soares, from Insper.
“We only have the production we have today, with its impact on the price of food and on the populations involved in agriculture that benefit from productivity gains, because of these substances,” he adds.
“This does not mean that we should not be aware of the potential negative effects,” he saod, defending changes in the regulations for the use and management of pesticides and the protection of water courses and water tables.
Alan Tygel, of the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life – created in 2011 and composed of more than a hundred social movements, trade unions and class entities, NGOs, cooperatives, universities and research institutions, has a more radical opinion.
“We believe that the central objective is in fact to end the use of these substances, especially since today there is no doubt about the technical capacity to produce food without the use of chemical and synthetic pesticides,” the activist said.
According to him, the campaign’s proposals are contained in a bill (PL 6670/2016), which institutes a National Pesticide Reduction Policy, with measures that range from the ban on aerial spraying, through state support for agroecology, to the ban on pesticides banned in their countries of origin and the end of tax exemptions for pesticides.
“We will fight for every small gain that we may have, because we know that each percentage less of pesticides used results in lives saved,” says Tygel.
“But we know that there is no possible coexistence between organic production and the massive use of pesticides. The path that we envision is a production model that can be adopted nationally and is totally free of pesticides and transgenics.”
— The study:
Down the river: Glyphosate use in agriculture and birth outcomes of surrounding populations
Mateus Dias, Rudi Rocha, Rodrigo R. Soares
Latin American and the Caribbean Economic Association
Dec 2020 http://vox.lacea.org/files/Working_Papers/lacea_wps_0024_dias_rocha_soares.pdf
As I’ve been demonstrating for a year, SARS-CoV-2 was never discovered, never isolated, never legitimately sequenced.
In yesterday’s article, I laid out how this fake pandemic story, focusing on Wuhan, obscured Wuhan’s role as the number-one global launch-point for opioid trafficking.
Synthetic opioids—especially fentanyl, which is a hundred times more potent than morphine—are killing and addicting and maiming millions of people worldwide. That’s the scope of what we’re talking about.
Understand that one of the cardinal effects of opioids is suppression of breathing. During the so-called COVID pandemic, you’ve heard this referred to as “hypoxia.”
Yes, hypoxia is listed as a COVID symptom. It has a number of causes that have nothing to do with a virus. But of course, in the rush to diagnose as many people as possible with COVID—and with a PCR test that spits out false-positives like water from a fire hose—opioid users suffering from hypoxia are labeled “victims of the coronavirus.”
Drugabuse.com: “…opiate [opioid] drugs also slow your breathing…and in case of an overdose, your breathing is slowed to a virtually non-existent and lethal level.”
“The opioids depress your breathing, bring on heavy sedation and make it impossible to wake up.”
For many months in 2020, New York was touted as the global “epicenter of the pandemic.”
Patients in New York mystified ER doctors because they showed up with hypoxia.
2018 estimate of deaths from opioid overdoses in New York: 3000. Many more people in the New York area are addicted to these drugs. In New York State, in 2017, the number of people discharged from hospitals, after treatment for opioid overdose or dependency: 25,000.
In 2020-21, people who have developed opioid hypoxia have been misdiagnosed with “COVID-19 lung problems.” A large number of these people are sedated further, in order to be put on ventilators—ignoring the need to deal with their overdose, their addiction, their withdrawal—and they die.
Backing up a few steps from all this, you can see how a diagnosis of COVID functions as a cover story, to conceal the destruction-and-death-toll resulting from opioids.
How convenient that the whole COVID fairy tale was launched in Wuhan, the city that is the number-one source for global opioid trafficking. The fairy tale obscured the real Wuhan story.
City-journal.org, May 12, 2020, “Wuhan’s other epidemic,” Christopher F. Rufo: “…many don’t know that Wuhan is also the source of another deadly epidemic: America’s fentanyl overdoses… Over the past decade, Wuhan has emerged as the global headquarters for fentanyl production. The city’s chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers hide production of the drug within their larger, licit manufacturing operations, then ship it abroad using deliberately mislabeled packaging, concealment techniques, and a complex network of forwarding addresses. According to a recent ABC News report, ‘huge amounts of these mail-order [fentanyl] components can be traced to a single, state-subsidized company [Yuancheng] in Wuhan.’”
And history matters:
Do you think the current Chinese political leadership has forgotten the two notorious 19th-century Opium Wars China lost? (Opium is the original natural opioid.)
In the 19th century, selling opium to China was very big business for England. Of course, addictive opium was devastating to China, who tried to stop the trade. Two Opium Wars against China (1839-42 and 1856-60) resulted. The Encyclopedia Britannica states:
“In each case the foreign powers were victorious and gained commercial privileges and legal and territorial concessions in China [including the uninterrupted sale of opium]. The conflicts marked the start of the era of unequal treaties and other inroads on Qing sovereignty that helped weaken and ultimately topple the dynasty [which had ruled since 1644]…”
It would be hard to overstate the lasting fury and resentment of Chinese rulers against the foreign powers who defeated and humiliated them in the Opium Wars.
The UK Daily Mail [2017]: “[a new drug coming into the UK is] not just heroin. It had been mixed with two lethal man-made opioids – fentanyl, a painkiller 100 times more potent than morphine; and carfentanyl, an elephant tranquilliser 10,000 times stronger than street heroin.”
“Now the drugs have arrived in Britain – and a spate of sudden deaths in Hull, the worst incident in the UK so far, shows their devastating impact. Just a few grains of carfentanyl – 0.00002g – can be fatal.”
“These lethal drugs have begun cropping up across the country – first found in Blyth, Northumberland, then suspected in deaths and drug busts from Leeds to London, St Albans to Southampton, Wakefield to Winchester, and Wales to Northern Ireland.” [In 2021, the UK government states that opioid addiction and death aren’t overwhelming concerns. I find it hard to believe these assurances.]
FOX Business, March 31, 2017. Headline: “DEA: Made in China Lethal Opioid Fueling US Drug Epidemic.”
“A homemade designer version of fentanyl, the highly addictive opioid which is similar to morphine but is 50 to 100 times more potent, has been the center of drug busts across the country this month—with law enforcement pinpointing its origin from underground labs in China. The DEA says the China-U.S. supply is further fueling the country’s drug epidemic.”
“’This [Chinese] stuff is unbelievably potent. It is so powerful that even a tiny amount can kill you,’ DEA spokesman Rusty Payne tells FOX Business. ‘China is by far the most significant manufacturer of illicit designer synthetic drugs. There is so much manufacturing of new drugs, [it’s] amazing what is coming out of China. Hundreds of [versions], including synthetic fentanyl and fentanyl-based compounds’.”
“China only made the drug [fentanyl] illegal in 2015, and at that point black market Chinese labs began increasing production of their own versions, including the one turning up recently across the country [the US] called furanyl fentanyl.”
“’While heroin gets harder to buy on the street or from a dealer, fentanyl comes via FedEx,’ Brad Lamm, CEO of Intervention.com, tells FOX Business.”
“Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez announced this week details on a mail-order furanyl fentanyl smuggling ring bust. The operation had been bringing the drug — which has been dubbed ‘White China’ — into the U.S from Asia. NYPD Chief of Detective Bob Boyce said that this was the first time investigators have seen this type of fentanyl in New York City.”
“Also this week, Cincinnati Customs and Border Protection agents said they seized 83 shipments of illegal synthetic drugs, including 36 pounds of furanyl fentanyl, from China.”
The Boston Globe [2017]: “An extremely powerful drug used as an elephant tranquilizer has quickly become a new killer in the nation’s opioid epidemic, and New England authorities and health workers are bracing for its arrival.”
“The drug, carfentanil, is a synthetic opioid that is 10,000 times stronger than morphine and 100 times more potent than fentanyl, another deadly synthetic opioid.”
“The Drug Enforcement Administration has issued a nationwide alert about the drug, which its acting chief called ‘crazy dangerous.’ In Massachusetts, State Police have warned their crime lab staff about how to handle carfentanil during analysis. Even inhaling the drug or absorbing it through a cut can be fatal.”
“Law enforcement and health officials believe most users do not know they are ingesting carfentanil, which apparently is often mistakenly thought to be heroin or a mixture of heroin and fentanyl, a weaker but still lethal synthetic opioid.”
“If carfentanil’s trade route is similar to that of fentanyl, the path stretches from Chinese manufacturers to Mexican processors to smugglers who supply dealers in the United States, law enforcement officials said.”
“’There’s no quality control, so when it gets here the distributors don’t know what they have and the user has no idea,’ said Timothy Desmond, a special agent with the New England division of the DEA. ‘That’s where it’s a game of Russian roulette’.”
“Hamilton County officials are baffled by the marketing strategy behind such a lethal drug. ‘It doesn’t really make sense that you would want to kill your customers’,” Fallon said.
“Law enforcement officials also are concerned that carfentanil will harm first responders. The DEA has warned police not to conduct field tests on seized drugs that might contain carfentanil. Instead, the agency urged officers to secure their samples and deliver them only to colleagues with training and equipment to handle the drug.”
In 2020-21, the opioid catastrophe continues.
And its number-one trafficking source, Wuhan, is famous only for birthing a pandemic that doesn’t exist because the virus causing it has never been proven to exist.
In an open letter to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, more than 40 doctors, medics and scientists in the UK say children are more vulnerable to the potential long-term effects of COVID vaccines.
A group of more than 40 doctors, medics and scientists is calling the UK government’s plan to vaccinate children for COVID “irresponsible, unethical and unnecessary.”
In an open letter addressed to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the group said no one under 18 should be vaccinated for COVID because evidence shows the virus poses almost no risk to healthy children.
The letter was written in response to leaked documents from the UK National Health service detailing how UK health authorities plan to give COVID vaccines to children over 12 years old.
According to the documents, children as young as 5 years old could be vaccinated as early as July — a move the government said may be necessary to keep COVID cases down as lockdowns lift across the country.
The authors of the letter said the risk of death from COVID in healthy children is 1 in 1.25 million. COVID vaccines, however, are linked to strokes due to cerebral venous thromboses in people under 40 — a finding that “led to the suspension of the Oxford-AstraZeneca children’s trial,” the authors said.
The letter states:
“Children have a lifetime ahead of them, and their immunological and neurological systems are still in development, making them potentially more vulnerable to adverse effects than adults.”
Read “COVID-19 Child Vaccination: Safety and Ethical Concerns — An Open Letter From UK Doctors to Dr. June Raine, Chief Executive, MHRA”:
We wish to notify you of our grave concerns regarding all proposals to administer COVID-19 vaccines to children. Recently leaked Government documents suggested that a COVID-19 vaccine rollout in children over 12 years old is already planned for September 2021, and the possibility of children as young as 5 years old being vaccinated in the summer in a worst-case scenario.
We have been deeply disturbed to hear several Government and SAGE representatives calling in the media for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout to be “turning to children as fast as we can”. Teaching materials circulated to London schools contain emotionally loaded questions and inaccuracies. In addition, there has been disturbing language used by teaching union leaders, implying that coercion of children to accept the COVID-19 vaccines through peer pressure in schools was to be encouraged, despite the fact that coercion to accept a medical treatment is against UK and International Laws and Declarations. Rhetoric such as this is irresponsible and unethical, and encourages the public to demand the vaccination of minors with a product still at the research stage and about which no medium- or long-term effects are known, against a disease which presents no material risk to them. A summary of our reasons is given below and a more detailed fully referenced explanation is available.
Risks and benefits in medical treatments
Vaccines, like any other medical treatment, come with varied risks and benefits. Therefore, we must consider each product, individually, on its merits, and specifically for which patients or sections of the population is the risk/benefit ratio acceptable. For COVID-19 vaccines, the potential benefits are clear for the elderly and vulnerable, however, for children, the balance of benefit and risk would be quite different. We are raising these concerns as part of an informed debate, which is a vital part of the proper, scientific process. We must ensure that there is no repeat of any past tragedies which have occurred especially when vaccines are rushed to market. For example, the swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, rolled out following the pandemic of 2010, resulted in over one thousand cases of narcolepsy, a devastating brain injury, in children and teenagers, before being withdrawn. Dengvaxia, a new vaccine against Dengue, was also rolled out to children ahead of the full trial outcomes, and 19 children died of possible antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) before the vaccine was withdrawn. We must not risk a repeat of this with the COVID-19 vaccines, which would not only impact on the children and families affected, but would also have a hugely damaging effect on vaccination uptake in general.
No medical intervention should be introduced on a ‘one size fits all’ basis, but instead should be fully assessed for suitability according to the characteristics of the age cohort and of the individuals concerned, weighing up the risk versus benefit profile for each cohort and the individuals within a group. This approach was outlined last October, by the head of the Government Vaccine Task Force, Kate Bingham, who said “We just need to vaccinate everyone at risk. There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”
Children do not need vaccination for their own protection
Healthy children are at almost no risk from COVID-19, with risk of death as low as 1 in 2.5 million. No previously healthy child under the age of 15 died during the pandemic in the UK and admissions to hospital or intensive care are exceedingly rare with most children having no or very mild symptoms. Although Long-Covid has been cited as a reason for vaccinating children, there is little hard data. It appears less common and much shorter-lived than in adults and none of the vaccine trials have studied this outcome. The inflammatory condition, PIMS, was listed as a potential adverse effect in the Oxford AstraZeneca children’s trial. Naturally acquired immunity will give broader and better lasting immunity than vaccination. Indeed, many children will already be immune. Individual children at very high risk can already receive vaccination on compassionate grounds.
Children do not need vaccination to support herd immunity
Already, two thirds of the adult population have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Models that assume vaccination of children is required to reach herd immunity have failed to account for the proportion who had immunity prior to March 2020 and those who have acquired it naturally. Recent modelling suggested that the UK had achieved the required herd immunity threshold on 12 April 2021.
Children do not transmit SARS-CoV-2 as readily as adults, moreover adults living or working with young children are at lower risk of severe COVID-19. Schools have not been shown to be the focus on spread to the community, teachers have a lower risk of COVID-19 than other working age adults.
Short-term safety concerns
As of 13th May, the MHRA22 has received a total of 224,544 adverse events, including 1,145 deaths in association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Reports of strokes due to cerebral venous thrombosis were initially in low numbers but as awareness increased, many more reports led to the conclusion that AstraZeneca vaccine should not be used for adults under 40 years of age and this unpredicted finding has also led to the suspension of the Oxford AstraZeneca children’s trial.
Similar events have been noted with Pfizer & Moderna vaccines on the US adverse reporting system (VAERS) and it is likely that this is a class effect related to production of spike protein. New UK guidelines on managing Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) include all COVID-19 vaccines in their advice. The possibility of further unexpected safety issues cannot be ruled out. In Israel, where the vaccines have been widely rolled out to young people and teenagers, the Pfizer vaccine has been linked to several cases of myocarditis in young men and concerns have been raised about reports of altered menstrual cycles and abnormal bleeding in young women following the vaccine.
Most concerning with regard to possible vaccination of children, is that there have now been a number of deaths associated with vaccination reported to VAERS in the US, despite the vaccines only being given to children within trials and a very recent rollout to 16-17 year olds.
Long-term safety concerns
All Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials are ongoing and not due to conclude until late 2022/early 2023. The vaccines are, therefore, currently experimental with only limited short-term and no long-term adult safety data available. In addition, many are using a completely new mRNA vaccine technology, which has never previously been approved for use in humans. The mRNA is effectively a pro-drug and it is not known how much spike protein any individual will produce. Potential late-onset effects can take months or years to become apparent. The limited children’s trials undertaken to date are totally underpowered to rule out uncommon but severe side effects.
Children have a lifetime ahead of them, and their immunological and neurological systems are still in development, making them potentially more vulnerable to adverse effects than adults. A number of specific concerns have been raised already, including autoimmune disease and possible effects on placentation and fertility. A recently published paper raised the possibility that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could trigger prion-based, neurodegenerative disease. All potential risks, known and unknown, must be balanced against risks of COVID-19 itself, so a very different benefit/risk balance will apply to children than to adults.
Conclusion
There is important wisdom in the Hippocratic Oath which states, “First do no harm”. All medical interventions carry a risk of harm, so we have a duty to act with caution and proportionality. This is particularly the case when considering mass intervention in a healthy population, in which situation there must be firm evidence of benefits far greater than harms. The current, available evidence clearly shows that the risk versus benefit calculation does NOT support administering rushed and experimental COVID-19 vaccines to children, who have virtually no risk from COVID-19, yet face known and unknown risks from the vaccines. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection”. As adults we have a duty of care to protect children from unnecessary and foreseeable harm.
We conclude that it is irresponsible, unethical and indeed, unnecessary, to include children under 18 years in the national COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Clinical trials in children also pose huge ethical dilemmas, in light of the lack of potential benefit to trial participants and the unknown risks. The end of the current Phase 3 trials should be awaited as well as several years of safety data in adults, to rule out, or quantify, all potential adverse effects.
We call upon our governments and the regulators not to repeat mistakes from history, and to reject the calls to vaccinate children against COVID-19. Extreme caution has been exercised over many aspects of the pandemic, but surely now is the most important time to exercise true caution – we must not be the generation of adults that, through unnecessary haste and fear, risks the health of children.
Signatories
Dr Rosamond Jones, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician
Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former parliamentary undersecretary of state 2001-2003, former consultant in Public Health Medicine
Prof Anthony Fryer, PhD, FRCPath, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry, Keele University
Professor Karol Sikora, MA, MBBChir, PhD, FRCR, FRCP, FFPM, Dean of Medicine, Buckingham
University, Professor of Oncology
Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMed Sci, Professor of Oncology, St Georges Hospital London
Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD. Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh
Professor Anthony J Brookes, Department of Genetics & Genome Biology, University of Leicester
Dr John A Lee, MBBS, PhD, FRCPath, retired Consultant Histopathologist, former Clinical Professor
of Pathology at Hull York Medical School
Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH (ret). Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA, MBBS, DRCOG, retired doctor
This article takes off from the work of investigative reporter, Whitney Webb. Much of what I’m laying out here confirms her exposure of “the other Wuhan.” Webb writes at Unlimited Hangout and The Last American Vagabond.
When I put together Webb’s findings with my own COVID research, startling new dimensions of the false “pandemic” story come to light.
Who would have thought that, in less than a year, the image of the opioid drug, fentanyl, would undergo a face lift, enhancing it from “most destructive killer drug in the world” to “lifesaver in the treatment of COVID patients?”
And if this PR miracle is not a sufficient stunner, it just so happens that Opioid Central for illegally trafficking fentanyl to the planet is Wuhan, now the focus of claims that COVID was born in a lab there.
(Fake) pandemic transforms fentanyl into “vital COVID medication.”
(Fake) pandemic starts in Wuhan.
Wuhan is the city where killer drug fentanyl is shipped out to dealers all over the world.
High-level operators, focusing on Wuhan, manage to obscure, from the broad public, the city’s global role in killing millions of people with opioids…by claiming a pandemic was born in Wuhan. “The ONLY thing you have to know about Wuhan is the virus broke out there.”
This has the earmarks of a highly successful cover story.
Here’s a prime illustration of fentanyl’s PR facelift:
NJ [New Jersey] Spotlight News, April 14, 2020, “No Longer a Scourge, Fentanyl Is Now Most-Needed Drug in COVID-19 War.”
“…fentanyl, one of the drugs given to patients so they can withstand the pain of having a breathing tube inserted, is in short supply along with a handful of other crucial drugs.”
“The first wave of critical shortages exposed by the coronavirus was medical masks and gowns. Then it was ventilators. Now, a handful of crucial drugs are in short supply in overrun ICUs throughout northern New Jersey and New York City, many of which are needed to use the ventilators.”
“At the top of the list is fentanyl, the deadly synthetic painkiller — 100 times more powerful than morphine — the very drug that has become public enemy No. 1 in the nation’s war on opioid addiction. Demand for fentanyl has doubled nationwide and shot up more than 500% in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan region, the current global epicenter of the pandemic.”
“Fentanyl may have been killing people in record numbers on the streets of New Jersey in recent years, but in our hospitals, it is now saving lives.”
“Demand for fentanyl is followed by Propofol, a sedative also used with ventilators, according to Soumi Saha, Premier’s senior director of advocacy…Close behind those two is a new category of drugs to face shortages — neuromuscular blockers, which are also being used for ventilator patients because they keep them from involuntarily coughing on the healthcare worker inserting the vent tube.”
“During normal times, patients stay on ventilators for three or four days. Now, not only has the number of ventilated patients spiked, but the time they remain on the device is two to three weeks.”
I gave you an extended quote from that New Jersey article, because I’ll cover the real story behind ventilators later in this piece.
Right now, here are a few references pointing to Wuhan as Opioid Central.
City-journal.org, May 12, 2020, “Wuhan’s other epidemic,” Christopher F. Rufo: “…many don’t know that Wuhan is also the source of another deadly epidemic: America’s fentanyl overdoses… Over the past decade, Wuhan has emerged as the global headquarters for fentanyl production. The city’s chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers hide production of the drug within their larger, licit manufacturing operations, then ship it abroad using deliberately mislabeled packaging, concealment techniques, and a complex network of forwarding addresses. According to a recent ABC News report, ‘huge amounts of these mail-order [fentanyl] components can be traced to a single, state-subsidized company in Wuhan.’”
The Atlantic, August 18, 2019, “The Brazen Way a Chinese Company Pumped Fentanyl Ingredients Into the US,” by Ben Westhoff: “According to Bryce Pardo, a fentanyl expert at the Rand Corporation, the two most commonly used fentanyl precursors—think of them as ingredients—are chemicals called NPP and 4-ANPP. When I first started researching them, in early 2017, advertisements for the chemicals were all over the internet, from a wide variety of different companies. Later, I determined that the majority of those companies were under the Yuancheng [company] umbrella.”
“Posing as a buyer, I answered an online advertisement for fentanyl precursors and was put in touch with a Yuancheng salesman who called himself Sean. We arranged to meet at the company’s main office in Wuhan, in the Wuchang district, near a busy subway station in a blue-collar neighborhood…”
LA Times, April 24, 2020: “For drug traffickers interested in getting in on the fentanyl business, all roads once led to Wuhan.”
“The sprawling industrial city built along the Yangtze River in east-central China is known for its production of chemicals, including the ingredients needed to cook fentanyl and other powerful synthetic opioids.”
“Vendors there shipped huge quantities around the world. The biggest customers were Mexican drug cartels, which have embraced fentanyl in recent years because it is cheaper and easier to produce than heroin.”
The Times article cites the pandemic as the reason for a decline in the fentanyl business. But lockdowns increased people’s desires for drugs. And of course, since economies have started loosening up, fentanyl trafficking operations are certainly booming again.
The highly successful cover story I described above…were there reasons for this cover, other than an attempt to conceal, from the broad public, Wuhan as the global center of opioid trafficking?
I can think of two other reasons. The first one I would introduce this way: “We’re killing people in the streets with fentanyl, but that’s not enough. We want to kill them in the hospitals, too.”
Heavy hitters, intent on getting rid of the elderly on a wide scale, saw an opportunity. And now we come to the ventilator story.
There is no doubt that, globally speaking, there has been a mad and destructive rush to put people diagnosed with COVID on breathing ventilators.
To deploy these devices in hospitals requires intubation, which is painful and very disruptive. Patients must be sedated. They must be kept sedated, while they’re hooked up to the breathing machines— for days and weeks.
Enter fentanyl and other opioids.
Since the whole story of the COVID virus was a fake from the get-go, some group would have to bear the burden of dying, in order to inflate death numbers; in order to make it appear that the “pandemic” was a fire sweeping through the world.
The group was and is the elderly, and in a series of articles on this gruesome subject a year ago, I left no doubt about the truth staring us in the face. (Note: CDC, May 14, 2021: “8 out 10 COVID-19 deaths reported in the US have been in adults 65 years old and older.”)
COVID is old people. Their premature deaths are forced. Their statistical numbers are gold for the planners of the operation. And this has nothing to do with a virus.
The Hill, (undated, late April 2020), reports on “data…gathered at Northwell Health, New York state’s largest hospital system. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) examines 5,700 patients hospitalized with coronavirus infections in the New York City region, with final outcomes recorded for 2,634 patients. The average patient age was 63 years old… For the next oldest age group, ages 66 years and older, patients receiving mechanical [breathing] ventilation recorded a 97.2 percent mortality rate.”
97.2 percent of elderly patients put on breathing ventilators died.
Just in case other obvious strategies failed to produce premature death in the elderly, ventilators provided the method:
VENTILATORS PLUS SEDATION WITH OPIOIDS.
THE OPIOIDS CAUSE SUPPRESSION OF BREATHING AND DEATH.
OF COURSE, THAT SUPPRESSION OF BREATHING (“HYPOXIA”) IS CALLED A CARDINAL SYMPTOM OF COVID.
Don’t even think of saying, “Well, you see, those old people put on ventilators were already very sick and close to dying.” NO medical treatment that kills 97.2 percent of patients in a well-defined group is continued, unless there are orders mandating it. Unless there is insurance money to be saved. Unless the doctors are willing to follow orders and keep using the treatment, despite the results.
So yes, opioids were transformed, by a cover story, from a killer street drug to a “lifesaving treatment” for COVID—but at the deepest level, that meant murdering the elderly with the drugs.
The second reason for the cover story would have involved moving up the time table for launching the fake pandemic story in Wuhan.
Was there some sort of accident, in which the people of Wuhan were exposed to fentanyl, with deadly consequences? Desperately needing a phony cover-up explanation—was “THE VIRUS” story invoked?
I can only speculate about that possibility. However, China is famous for loose enforcement of safety regulations in factories, and it’s possible that some sort of accident occurred, which blew fentanyl or its components through the city of Wuhan, killing people on the spot.
There are analogous recent incidents in China.
The Wikipedia page for the 2019 Xiangshui chemical plant explosion, which killed 78 people and injured 617, mentions other events as well:
“On 27 November 2007, an explosion occurred in one of the chemical factories in Chenjiagang Chemical Zone, with seven killed and around 50 injured…In the early morning of 11 February 2011, rumors of toxic chemical release and potential imminent explosions in the Chenjiagang Chemical Industry Park led over ten thousand residents to evacuate in panic from the towns of Chenjiagang and Shuanggang during which four people died and many were injured. On the afternoon of May 18 and again on July 26 in 2011, there were explosions at local factories.”
As I keep reminding readers, the whole “pandemic” is a covert op. Such operations always deploy cover stories, in order to hide what is really being done, how it’s being done, and why.
Speaking of which, there are several major pharmaceutical companies who’ve faced heavy exposure for their roles in the opioid criminal trafficking business. For example, Purdue, and Johnson & Johnson. A third one is (Mossad-connected) Teva.
If you could offer Warren Buffet an ice cream cone with a truth-serum cherry on top, it would be interesting to ask him whether the PR campaign to push opioids as life-saving COVID treatments helped stabilize his 42,789,295 shares of beleaguered Teva, worth $412,916,000.
To connect one more dot (for now,) the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation holds 50 million shares, worth $11 billion, in Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway. It is the Gates Foundation’s top investment.
You may be wondering what’s been happening to I.G. Farbensanto lately. It’s been a while since we’ve heard from, or about, them, so it may be worthwhile to newer readers to apprise them of whom we’re talking about. I.G. Farbensanto is our nickname for Big Agribusiness, and we used to call it Mon(ster)santo, until the big German chemical firm Bayer – a former component of I.G. Farben, the notorious German chemicals cartel that included not only Bayer, but BASR (also a still existing company, Badische Anilin und Soda-Fabrik) and some other companies – Bayer bought Monsanto (and Monsanto’s legal problems) a few years ago. Accordingly, we changed our nickname for Big Agribusiness to IG Farbensanto. Our other reason for the monikers was the dubious history of Big Agribusiness and its practices regarding GMOs, which I assume most readers here are familiar with.
The federal judge overseeing nationwide Roundup litigation on Wednesday denied Bayer’s latest attempt to limit its legal liability from future cancer claims associated with its glyphosate-based herbicides, citing numerous “glaring flaws” in a settlement proposed to apply to Roundup users who have not yet sued the company but may want to do so in the future.
Saying parts of the plan were “clearly unreasonable” and unfair to cancer sufferers who would be part of the class settlement, U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria castigated Bayer and the small group of lawyers who put the plan together in conjunction with Bayer.
He pointed out that the company has been “losing trials left and right” in claims brought by people suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides were the cause.
Bayer has owned Monsanto since 2018 and has been struggling to defend the cancer claims ever since. Cancer victims have won three trials held to date, and tens of thousands of other plaintiffs have filed lawsuits alleging exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused them to develop NHL while Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.
…
Judge Chhabria said in his decision that the company’s desire to set up a “science panel” to determine whether or not the herbicides actually cause cancer rather than leave that question to future juries is because of the trial losses the company has so far suffered.
The “reason Monsanto wants a science panel so badly is that the company has lost the ‘battle of the experts’ in three trials, the judge wrote in his order. “At present, the playing field on the issue of expert testimony related to causation is slanted heavily in favor of plaintiffs.”
Gee… fancy that. A multinational corporation which was formerly a part of I.G. Farben seeks to avoid legal liability for its products? Color me not surprised.
The article goes on to mention various other plans I.G. Farbensanto has for avoiding its mounting legal problems.
Here I have a suggestion for the I.G. Farbensanto board: why not take a page out of Big Pharma’s playbook, and invest heavily (and covertly) in gain-of-GMO-function research? This could easily be tied to quackcine research ala the suggestion of some scientific papers a few years ago where this very thing was being proposed: GMOs doubling as quackcines. With a few donations into the right pockets, one might be able to get the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization on board. At this point, you could hire a couple of Harvard chemistry professors, and locate your research facility in – oh, I don’t know, say, in Wuhan, China – and perhaps even be able to create a quackcine which is the “only” cure for a new kind of virus (that you could also support gain-of-function research into). Then you could use all of your influence on the propotainment media networks (which get lots of advertising revenue from you to begin with) to “fudge the numbers” a bit, and create a worldwide campaign of fear, while simultaneously getting your newly installed puppet in the White House to approve a slap-dash emergency GMO-quackcine approval plan (you could maybe call it Operation Warp Speed), bypassing the normal long-term trials, and, for good measure, exempting your firm from any liability for any “adverse GMO consumption reactions” because your new plants were rushed into production because the world was facing a crisis. On the way to achieving all this, you could also persuade your rubber glove company to support a campaign of food distancing, and wearing rubber gloves at all times, especially while dining. You could also persuade social media platforms to hire “fact checkers” in return for some carefully laundered donations, and censor any contrarian views. This way you won’t have to worry about any pesky lawsuits from whatever long-term effects of your products as might pop up in a few years.
In the meantime, one way to implement this would be to set up liaison committees with with various Big Pharma companies, to learn their techniques for avoiding legal liabilities for dubious products. While doing this, you could also donate heavily to the campaigns of Congressmen and Senators, and get special legislation passed to limit your liability, and establish “GMO courts” resembling “vaccine courts” to ensure that your liability is strictly limited.
This is not an article about whether face masks work.
As my readers know, for the past year I’ve been demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been proven to exist. Therefore, face masks are nothing more (or less) than a mind-control ritual.
However, much has been written about the harm the masks cause.
And now we have an official declaration. On April 2, 2021, Health Canada issued an advisory, warning people not to “use face masks labelled to contain graphene or biomass graphene.”
Andrew Maynard covers this issue in a medium.com article, “Manufacturers have been using nanotechnology-derived graphene in face masks—now there are safety concerns.”
Those concerns? Masks could create lung problems.
Of course, since COVID-19 is claimed to be a lung disease, you can see where that leads: the remedy turns out to cause what it’s supposed to prevent. I could write a book detailing how many times this “coincidence” pops up in the field of medicine.
Maynard’s article traces the safety concerns to a Chinese mask manufacturer, Shandong, but points out that millions of graphene-containing masks are in use around the world, produced by a whole host of companies.
So far, it’s not clear whether the nanoparticles of graphene in the masks also contain metals—which are highly destructive.
The mainstream literature on graphene is ambiguous: yes, it’s probably toxic to the lungs; perhaps not seriously so; perhaps only temporarily; there are more questions than answers.
Since there are more questions, why have these masks been certified anywhere in the world for public use? Why haven’t the CDC and the WHO made definitive statements about safety concerns?
At materialstoday.com, we have, “Is graphene safe?”
“But, it is the very nature of graphene that might be cause for concern: thin and lightweight, yet tough and intractable particles are notoriously worrisome in terms of the detrimental effects they can have on our health, particularly when breathed in…”
“Ken Donaldson is a respiratory toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh and he and his colleagues are among the first to raise the warning flag on graphene, at least for nanoscopic platelets of the material. It is not too great a leap of the imagination to imagine how such tiny flakes of carbon might be transported deep within the lungs similar to asbestos fibres and coal dust. Once lodged within, there is no likely mechanism for the removal or break down of such inert particles and they might reside on these sensitive tissues triggering a chronic inflammatory response or interfering with the normal cellular functions.”
Does this make any sane person feel safe about wearing a mask and breathing in those graphene particles all day long?
In fact, you could rightly call the masks graphene-inhalation transporters.
“We have a new idea and a new product. It’s designed to force you to breathe in nanoparticles of graphene. Who knows? There might be health benefits. Try it and see.”
Yes, try it. And if you then develop a lung infection, since that is called a cardinal pandemic symptom, you could hit the jackpot and earn a diagnosis of COVID-19.
At which point the fun really begins, as you try to explain to your doctor that the cause isn’t a virus, but rather nanoparticles of graphene in your mask. If you play your cards right, you could end up in the psych ward with other “conspiracy theorists.”
“Can you believe it, nurse? I had this guy a few hours ago coughing and dripping mucus all over the place. Inflamed lungs. Classic COVID case. But he tells me he’s breathing in NANOPARTICLES. I gave him a sedative and sent him to the Crazy Pen. Where do these people get these stories? Have you ever heard of graphene? That’s what they put in pencils, right?”
“I don’t know, Doc. My cousin thinks she’s breathing in these nanos, too. I told her she needs a Thorazine drip.”
There’s a good chance the masks are COVID-diagnosis promoters. Step one: breathe in nanoparticles of graphene. Step two: therefore develop a so-called major COVID symptom—lung infection. Step three: test false-positive on the PCR test (happens millions of times, as I’ve documented). And boom, you’re a COVID case.
In keeping with local laws, I’ve applied for a license to own a mask as a weapon. If I gain approval, I plan to seal it in a glass box and mount it on the wall next to my grenade launcher and Civil War cannonball.
Doctors and journalists all over the world are creating panic over the fungal infections currently alleged to be affecting people in India.
It is claimed by some that the fungal infections are a new symptom of covid-19.
Others say the fungal infections are caused by the over-prescribing of steroids for covid-19.
And yet more blame diabetes mellitus.
Both of these may contribute to the fungal problem but I do not believe they are the sole or even the main cause.
I believe this is yet more scare mongering designed to encourage people to accept one of the experimental pseudo-vaccines.
The alleged epidemic of fungal infections is caused by mask wearing. The problem is particularly prevalent in India where poor people cannot afford to buy new masks on a regular basis, thus the same mask is being worn again and again. Also, the hot weather, which increases sweating, exacerbates fungal infections in those wearing face masks.
I warned that this would happen nine months ago.
Fungi love dark, moist areas. That’s why fungi can grow in damp houses – particularly in bathrooms. Fungal infections grow in skin folds where there is little light but a good deal of moisture. Mushrooms grow in moist areas.
There are millions of types of fungi and more than one type can grow on the skin. When a mask is worn for more than two hours or so there is a huge risk that fungal growths will develop and will affect the skin, the nose, the mouth and the lungs.
The authorities don’t like to admit it but the fungal infections now affecting so many people are caused by the masks they are wearing. And, of course, masks are damaging immune systems – which increases susceptibility to all types of infection (bacterial and fungal in particular). Added to this, lockdowns and the covid ‘vaccine’ may also damage the immune system, leaving people susceptible to fungal infections and complications caused by fungal infections.
Here are relevant short extracts from my book Proof that Masks Do More Harm than Good:
1) Many people wear the same mask for more than two hours (which is dangerous), wear disposable masks more than once (which is dangerous), fail to wash cloth masks (which means they accumulate bacteria, fungi and viruses – all of which are breathed in) touch their mask while it is in position (which makes the mask even worse than useless), put masks into their pockets or handbags and then put them back on creased and grubby (a very dangerous thing to do since the wearer will then be breathing in whatever bugs have been transmitted to the mask.)
2) Leading German virologist Professor Streeck has criticised the use of masks, which he has said are a wonderful breeding ground for bacteria and fungi.
3) `I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections,’ said Dr James Meehan. ‘Reports coming from my colleagues all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise. Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly in a non-sterile fashion. They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off their car seat, off the rear-view mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time.’
The solution is simple. Persuade people to remove their masks.
The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece, and a new report linked the AstraZeneca vaccine to strokes in young adults.
The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece.
Adding to the vaccine makers’ woes is a new report out of London from researchers who identified the first cases of strokes occurring in young adults who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was co-developed by the University of Oxford University in the UK.
Belgium suspends use of J&J vaccine
Belgium said Wednesday it was suspending vaccinations with J&J vaccine, for people under the age of 41, following the death of a woman from blood clots after she received the shot. This is the second time Belgium has paused the one-shot vaccine.
“The Inter-ministerial conference has decided to temporarily administer Janssen’s vaccine to the general population from the age of 41 years, pending a more detailed benefit-risk analysis by the EMA,” said a statement issued by Belgium’s federal health minister and seven regional counterparts.
The woman, who was under the age of 40, died May 21 after being admitted to the hospital with severe thrombosis and platelet deficiency, Reuters reported.
The government asked for urgent advice from the European Union’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), before it would consider lifting the suspension.
The EMA said it is reviewing the death of the woman in Belgium, along with other reports of blood clots, with the Belgian and Slovenian medicines agencies, and has asked J&J to carry out a series of additional studies to help assess a possible link between the shot and rare blood clots.
J&J said April 20 it would resume the roll-out in the EU of its COVID vaccine, marketed under the company’s Janssen subsidiary — with a warning on its label — after several countries, including Belgium, first paused the vaccine amid concerns of its possible link to blood clotting disorders.
The EMA confirmed a “possible link,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks. The drug regulator’s safety committee (PRAC) said a warning should be added to the product label, but the blood clot-related disorders should be listed as “very rare” side effects of the vaccine.
On April 23, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) voted to resume the use of J&J’s vaccine without restrictions after the vaccine was paused to investigate reports of rare blood clots. The recommendation by the CDC’s advisory panel said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks and recommended use for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization.
Researchers identify strokes in young adults after AstraZeneca shot
The first cases of large-vessel arterial occlusion strokes in young adults linked to AstraZeneca’s vaccine were described in detail for the first time in a letter published online in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
“These are the first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” senior author, Dr. David Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, told Medscape Medical News.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” Werring explained.
Werring noted the reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are describing only three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said.
The first case, a 35-year-old woman, experienced intermittent headaches on the right side and around her eyes for six days after vaccination. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm and leg.
Imaging revealed the woman had a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and treatment with anticoagulant and fondaparinux, but suffered brain stem death and subsequently died.
The second case, a 37-year-old woman, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after vaccination with AstraZeneca. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as blood clots in her lungs and brain. She improved clinically with treatment.
The third case occurred in a 43-year-old man who presented 21 days after vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery. He was treated and remains stable.
The researchers said young patients presenting with ischaemic stroke after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT.
Ontario man dies from ‘rare but real’ blood clot after first dose of AstraZeneca
An Ontario man in his 40s died after receiving his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, public health officials confirmed Tuesday.
Dr. Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s associate chief medical officer of health, said his death is being investigated, but the man suffered from VITT.
“While the investigation is ongoing and a final cause of death has yet to be officially determined, it has been confirmed that the individual did have VITT at the time of his death,” Yaffe said Tuesday. “The risks associated with this vaccine are [rare], but they are real.”
Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams restricted AstraZeneca vaccinations for people who have not yet received the first dose as of May 11, due to a higher-than-expected rate of blood clots.
Greece investigating four cases of blood clots after AstraZeneca shot
Α 63-year-old woman from Greece died of blood clots after vaccination with AstraZeneca. The case was one of four being investigated by the National Organization for Medicines (EOF) for a potential correlation between AstraZeneca’s vaccine and rare blood clots, according to the Greek City Times.
Also in Greece, a 44-year-old woman is in serious condition after experiencing VITT. Her case was the second incident found by EOF to be linked to the vaccine, according to the Greek Reporter.
A third blood clotting incident involved a 35-year-old man from Crete who suffered two blood clots after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine. The man was hospitalized after suffering a clot in his leg a few days after getting the jab. He suffered a second blood clot in his brain while hospitalized
As The Defender reported April 7, European regulators said they confirmed a “possible link” between AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine and “very rare” blood clots, but concluded the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks.
The EMA did not recommend restricting use of the vaccine based on age, gender or other risk factors, but did say cases of blood clotting after vaccination “should be” listed as a possible side effect, according to a statement issued by the agency’s safety committee.
The AstraZeneca vaccine is not yet authorized for use in the U.S.
You would think that during the worst Pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu life insurance companies would be hedging their bets to avoid major losses from Covid-19. I haven’t written a life policy for several years so I was wondering what was going on? I called one of the brokers I deal with that interacts with hundreds of big life insurers to get an inside look into how the Covid crisis has changed their business.
Imagine my surprise when she said it was pretty much business as usual! Last year when the hysteria was just getting ramped up she did say the companies temporarily tightened up underwriting and reduced the amount of coverage they would offer. But as time went by and the hard data came rolling in those same companies went back to business as usual.
I asked her specifically if life insurers wanted a Covid test as part of the underwriting process and she said none that she was aware of. Hmm, that’s pretty interesting isn’t it? The most lethal pandemic in decades descends on the globe with deadly mutations taking millions of innocent lives and the life insurance companies couldn’t care less.
I also asked if the cost per thousand of coverage had increased due to Covid and again she said no. Rates were pretty much the same as they were before the Covid Pandemic ravaged the earth. Life Insurance companies are very risk adverse. They don’t like losing money to unnecessary claims. The fact they’re treating Covid as a nonevent should be an indicator that something is very wrong with the whole narrative.
When controversial Bill Gates-funded vaccine trials culminated in the deaths of seven children, the West’s media looked the other way.
We’ve seen a lot of India in the news recently. A lot more than we usually do. There’s an apocalypse of sorts going on there, if the popular media is to be believed. But as is often the case, these reports are devoid of any context or perspective. While the world’s media can’t get enough of India today, in its rush to support a narrative of terror about Covid-19, twelve years ago when there was a real story going on there, the world’s media was nowhere to be seen.
SOME BACKGROUND
In 2009, a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) funded NGO carried out unauthorised clinical trials of a vaccine on some of the poorest, most vulnerable children in the world. It did so without providing information about the risks involved, without the informed consent of the children or their parents and without even declaring that it was conducting a clinical trial. After vaccination, many of the participating children became ill and seven of them died. Such were the findings of a parliamentary committee charged with investigating this wretched affair. The committee accused the NGO of “child abuse” and produced a raft of evidence to back up its claim. This entire incident barely registered on the radar of Western media.
PATH (formerly the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health) is a Seattle based NGO, heavily funded by BMGF but which also receives significant grants from the US government. Between 1995 and the time of writing (May 2021), PATH had received more than $2.5bn from BMGF.
In 2009, PATH carried out a project to administer the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. The project’s aim was, in PATH’s own words, “to generate and disseminate evidence for informed public sector introduction of HPV vaccines”. It was conducted in four countries: India, Uganda, Peru and Vietnam. Another Gates-funded organization, Gavi, had originally been considered to run the project, but responsibility was ultimately delegated to PATH. The project was directly funded by BMGF.
Significantly, each of the countries selected for the project had a different ethnic population and each had a state-funded national immunisation program. The use of different ethnic groups in the trial allowed for comparison of the effects of the vaccine across diverse population groups (ethnicity being a factor in the safety and efficacy of certain drugs), The immunisation programs of the countries involved provided a potentially lucrative market for the companies whose drugs were to be studied: should the drugs prove successful and be included on these countries’ state-funded national immunisation schedules, this would represent an annual windfall of profits for the companies involved.
Two types of HPV vaccine were used in the trial: Gardasil by Merck and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline(GSK). In this article, we are going to examine PATH’s trial of Gardasil in India.
It’s worth noting here the relationship between BMGF and one of the companies whose drugs were being tested. In 2002, BMGF had, controversially, bought $205m worth of stocks in the pharmaceutical sector, a purchase which included shares in Merck & Co. The move had raised eyebrows because of the obvious conflict of interest between the foundation’s role as a medical charity and its role as an owner of businesses in the same sector.
The Wall Street Journalreported, in August 2009, that the foundation had sold its shares in Merck between 31st March and 30th June of that year, which would have been around the same time that the field trials of the HPV vaccine were starting in India. So for the entirety of this project (which was already in operation by October 2006), right up to its final field trials, BMGF had a dual role: as both a charity with a responsibility for care, and as a business owner with a responsibility for profit.
Such conflicts of interest have been a hallmark of BMGF since 2002. When Gates was makingregularTVappearances last year to promote Covid-19 vaccination, giving especially ringing endorsements of the Pfizer-BioNTech effort, his objectivity was never brought into question. Yet his foundation is the part-owner of several vaccine manufacturers, includingPfizer, BioNTech and CureVac.
HPV VACCINE
HPV vaccine aims to prevent cervical cancer. Gardasil had been launched successfully by Merck in the US in 2006, but its sales suffered after a series of articles in American medical journals had judged that its risks outweighed its benefits. Especially damaging was an analysis of reports made to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) about adverse reactions to Gardasil. This analysis was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on August 19th 2009. The 12,424 adverse reactions which had been reported included 772 which were considered serious, 32 of which were deaths. Other reported serious side effects included autoimmune disorders, venous thromboembolic events (blood clots) and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
In the same edition of JAMA, Dr. Charlotte Haug, then editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote, “Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened. So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk from the vaccine.” Dr. Haug also noted, “When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit”, in a clear dig at Gardasil manufacturer Merck.
Merck’s attempts to promote Gardasil had been controversial. Dr. Angela Raffle, one the UK’s leading experts on cervical cancer screening, described Merck’s marketing strategy as “a battering ram at the Department of Health and carpet bombing on the peripheries.” Dr. Raffle was concerned that the push to mass vaccination would harm the successful screening programme which had operated in the UK since the 1960s. “My worry is that the commercially motivated rush to make us panic into introducing HPV vaccine quickly will put us back and worsen our cervical cancer control programme.”
Professor Diane Harper, then of Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire, had led 2 trials of the vaccine and was adamant that Gardasil could not protect against all strains of HPV. When Merck launched a huge public relations campaign in 2007 to persuade European governments to use the product to vaccinate all the continent’s young girls against cervical cancer, she said, “Mass vaccination programmes (would be) a great big public health experiment….We don’t know a lot of things. We don’t know the vaccine will continue to be effective. To be honest, we don’t have efficacy data in these young girls right now. We’re vaccinating against a virus that attacks women throughout their whole life and continues to cause cancer. If we vaccinate girls at 10 or 11 we won’t know for 20 to 25 years whether it is going to work or not. This is a big thing to take on.”
So at the time that PATH was carrying out its trials in India, Uganda, Peru and Vietnam, Gardasil was a controversial vaccine: its safety, efficacy and Merck’s attempts to promote it were being questioned, not by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, but by the international medical establishment and the respected mainstream media.
THE GIRLS OF KHAMMAM
Children of the Koya tribe, Khammam
Khammam district, in 2009, was a part of the eastern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh (boundary changes made in 2014 mean that today Khammam district belongs to the state of Telangana). The region is predominantly rural and is considered to be one of the poorest and least developed parts of India. Khammam is home to several ethnic tribal groups,with some estimates putting its tribal population at about 21.5% (approximately 600,000 people). As is common for indiginous people throughout the world, the tribal groups of Khammam suffer from a lack of access to education. Consequently, their level of literacy is of a standard considerably lower than that of the region as a whole.
Some 14,000 girls were injected with Gardasil in Khammam district during 2009. The girls recruited for PATH’s project were between 10 and 14 years of age and all came from low-income, predominantly tribal backgrounds. Many of the girls did not reside with their families; instead they lived in ashram pathshalas (government-run hostels), which were situated close to the schools the children attended. Professor Linsey McGoey, of the University of Essex, later stated she believed girls at ashram pathshalas had been targeted for the project as this was a way of “side-stepping the need to seek parental consent for the shots.”
Although we have seen a lot of India in the news recently, coverage of this country and its affairs is usually low-key. Despite being home to almost one fifth of the world’s population, reporting on India is sparse. Few of us are aware, for example, of its abysmal history of health and safety or its long-standingtradition of corruption in government.
Such failings have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous profit-seekers for decades. Western media only reports on the consequences of these actions when their magnitude is too great to ignore. We learned that up to 7,000 people were killed and more than half a million were injured after being exposed to deadly methyl isocyanate gas, following a gas leak at the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal. But we learned nothing in the years leading up to it of the culture of poor standards and disregard for regulation which was ultimately responsible for the disaster.
So it was typical that PATH’s project to administer and study the effects of the HPV vaccine went unheralded in the West. Typical, too, that the same was true in India itself: the Indian media is no more renowned for its reporting on tribal groups than the Western media is for its coverage of Indians. Despite concerns expressed about the project in October 2009 by Sama, a Delhi-based NGO that advocates for women’s health, the matter remained absent from India’s news.
This project, then, couldn’t have been more off-the-map had it taken place on the moon, and it remained so for several months until, early in 2010, stories began to filter out from Khammam that something had gone terribly wrong: many of the girls who had been involved in the trials had subsequently fallen ill and four of them had died.
In March 2010, members of Sama visited Khammam to find out more about the emerging stories. They were told that up to 120 girls had experienced adverse reactions, including epileptic seizures, severe stomach ache, headaches and mood swings. The Sama representatives remained in Khammam to investigate the situation further.
The involvement of Sama finally brought the matter to the attention of the Indian media and, amid a barrage of negative publicity, the Indian Council of Medical Research (IMCR) suspended the PATH project. At this point theIndian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Healthbegan an investigation into the affair.
On May 17th, Sama produced a damning report highlighting, among other things: that the trials had been promoted as a government immunisation programme and not a research project, that the girls had not been made aware that they could choose not to participate in the trials, and that parental consent had neither been asked for nor given in many cases.
The report stated that “Many of the vaccinated girls continue to suffer from stomach aches, headaches, giddiness and exhaustion. There have been reports of early onset of menstruation, heavy bleeding and severe menstrual cramps, extreme mood swings, irritability, and uneasiness following the vaccination. No systematic follow up or monitoring has been carried out by the vaccine providers.” Sama also disputed the Andhra Pradesh State Government’s claim that the deaths of four of the girls who had participated in the trials had nothing to do with vaccination.
THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
The wheels of bureaucracy are slow to turn. It was more than three years later, on 30th August 2013, when the report of the Indian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health was finally published. Although many had expected the report to be a whitewash, it was anything but: it made for shocking reading.
The report excoriated both PATH and the IMCR, concluding that the “safety and rights of children were highly compromised and violated.” The committee found that PATH, despite operating in India since 1999, had no legal permission to do so. It noted that although the organisation had finally received a certificate from India’s Registrar of Companies in September 2009, this certificate itself was in breach of the law.
The report stated that “PATH….has violated all laws and regulations laid down for clinical trials….its sole aim has been to promote the commercial interests of HPV vaccine manufacturers….This is a serious breach of trust….as the project involved the life and safety of girl children and adolescents who were mostly unaware of the implications of vaccination. The violation is also a serious breach of medical ethics. This act of PATH is a clear cut violation of the human rights of these girl children and adolescents. It is also an established case of child abuse.”
The committee charged thatPATH had lied to it and had attempted to mislead it during the course of its investigation and recommended that the Indian Government report PATH’s violations of human rights to the WHO, UNICEF and the US Government.
The report declared that PATH’s whole scheme was a cynical attempt to ensure ongoing profits for Merck and GSK. “The choice of countries and population groups; the monopolistic nature, at that point of time, of the product being pushed; the unlimited market potential and opportunities in the universal immunisation programmes of the respective countries are all pointers to a well planned scheme to commercially exploit a situation. Had PATH been successful….this would have generated a windfall profit for the manufacturers by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses. It is well known that once introduced to the immunisation programme it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination.”
It went on, “To achieve this end effortlessly, without going through the arduous and strictly regulated route of clinical trials, PATH resorted to an element of subterfuge by calling the clinical trials ‘Observational Studies’ or ‘a Demonstration Project’ and various such expressions. Thus the interest, safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized by PATH by using self-determined and self-servicing nomenclature which is not only highly deplorable but also a serious breach of the law of the land.”
These charges were echoed by leading voices in India’s medical community. “It is shocking to see how an American organization used surreptitious methods to establish itself in India,” said Chandra M.Gulhati, editor of India’s influential Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, “(this) was not philanthropy”. Samiran Nundy, editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of India and a long-standing critic of corrupt practices in health, did not mince his words: “This is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.”
The standing committee’s report was also highly critical of the relationship between PATH and members of several of India’s health agencies, highlighting multiple conflicts of interest.
On the issue of informed consent, the committee confirmed the allegations made by Sama to be true, finding that the majority of consent forms weren’t signed by either the children or their parents, that many consent forms were postdated or not dated at all, that multiple forms had been signed by the same people (often the caretakers of the hostels the girls lived in) and that many signatures didn’t match the name on the form. It found that parents had not been given information on the necessity of vaccination, its pros and cons or its potential side effects.
No insurance was provided for any of the children in the event of injury and “PATH did not provide for urgent expert medical attention in case of serious adverse events.” Further, PATH seriously contravened Indian health regulations by carrying out a clinical trial of a drug on children before first conducting a trial of the drug with adults as subjects.
Regarding the girls who had died, the committee criticized PATH, Indian medical authorities and the Andhra Pradesh State Government for summarily dismissing the link between their deaths and vaccination without conducting thorough investigations. By 2016, some 1,200 of the girls who had been subjects in the two HPV vaccine trials in India were reporting serious long-term side effects, more than 5% of the total cohort of 23,500. By then, the total number of deaths had risen to seven.
A DEATHLY SILENCE
This appalling breach of medical ethics and human rights went almost completely unmentioned outside India. The Indian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health had literally accused an American NGO of child abuse, providing extensive evidence to support their charge, yet practically no mention of this was to be found anywhere in the Western media.
Popular science publications Nature and Science each contained a brief article about the debacle, but neither goes into any detail about PATH’s legal and ethical breaches. While the Science article is at least slightly critical, the Nature piece gives more space to a rebuttal of the charges by PATH director Vivien Tsu.
The Guardian, for all its claims to give a voice to the most vulnerable in the world, stayed curiously silent about the young girls of Khammam. That is, except for one article, published in October 2013, about six weeks after the release of the standing committee’s report.
The article was written not by one of the girls or one of their parents, not by one of the women from Sama who had advocated on the girls’ behalf, not even by one of the Indian parliamentarians who had been charged with investigating the affair. No. It was written by an American man called Seth Berkely. Berkely is the CEO of Gavi, another BMGF funded health behemoth.
Berkely used his forum in The Guardian to claim that the girls who had died after being vaccinated in Khammam had committed suicide. Speaking about the 14,000 subjects involved in the trials, he said, “it would have been unusual if none of them went on to kill themselves.” Compassion wasn’t the only element missing from his article. Not once did Berkley address the multiple breaches of law and ethics which had occurred or the role of PATH and that of his employers, the Gates Foundation, in his dismissal of this iniquity.
The Guardianbegan receiving funding from BMGF in August 2010. Prior to that arrangement, in 2007, the newspaper had published two separate articles which were critical of the lobbying tactics used by Merck to promote Gardasil and which questioned the efficacy of its use in mass vaccination programs. Subsequent to their arrangement with Gates, all coverage by the Guardian of this drug (and of HPV vaccination in general) has been positive.
HOW THINGS TURNED OUT
The Indian government was reluctant to take any of the measures recommended by the committee. After all, there were huge amounts of money being made available to the state, institutions and individuals from organisations likePATH. So no official reports of human rights violations were ever made by the Indian government to the WHO, to Unicef or to the American government, as had been recommended by the standing committee. However, in 2017, it announced it would no longer accept grants from BMGF for its Immunisation Technical Support Unit, an organisation which provides “vaccination strategy advice” in relation to an estimated 27 million infants. Nevertheless, the Indian government continues to accept the foundation’s grants in other areas.
Merck, and their HPV vaccine Gardasil, have done very well since the dismal events recounted in this article. The Khammam scandal never really affected the company, due to a lack of awareness about it outside India. In 2018 alone, Gardasil sales amounted to more than $3bn, thanks to its inclusion on immunisation schedules around the world, and its launch that year in China.
PATHhas never been better. Just like Merck, the lack of reporting about what happened in Khammam meant the organisation didn’t suffer. Since 2010, it has continued to receive huge funding from BMGF and, to a lesser extent, the US Government. During this period, BMGF has provided PATH with more than $1.2bn in funding.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has continued expanding its web of influence. Describing the organisation’s practices around the time of the events outlined here, Jacob Levich said, “In essence, BMGF would buy up stockpiled drugs that had failed to create sufficient demand in the West, press them on the periphery at a discount, and lock in long-term purchase agreements with Third World governments.”
The foundation has since moved on to even more lucrative pastures. The Covid-19 pandemic has really pushed BMGF to centre stage. Gates himself has seen his public profile and political influence grow to an extent that would have been unimaginable even in 2019. Despite his lack of either scientific qualifications or an electoral mandate, he regularly presses the need for mass global vaccination with products made by the companies he owns, using platforms given to him by the media outletshe funds.
And the girls of Khammam? Well, those poor children and their plight wasn’t even widely known outside of India back in 2010. To say they had been forgotten would be to imply that anybody knew about them or cared about them in the first place.
Meme sourced from David Icke (Memes and Headline Comments category)
May 25, 2021
You are being HAD people – and Carlson has fallen for it, too. Suddenly the system and its lapdog media are pushing the ‘virus escaped from the lab’ story as the song sheets are handed out and (among other things) it’s to divert you from the truth they don’t want you to know – THERE IS NO ‘VIRUS’
You’ve just watched a video of a high-profile, Covid-sceptic speaker saying that shedding of the spike protein from vaccinated people endangers those they come in close contact with. You want to find out more, so you look at one or two of the links under the video that provide source material for what the speaker said. (Great those links are there; most videos don’t have them.)
Or a friend who is a believer in the official narrative about Covid has sent you a news item with a scary headline about the Indian ‘triple-mutation new variant.’ You’re pretty sure the article is very misleading, so you want to check out the study it’s based on.
How can you find source material and — if and when you find it – try to quickly figure out whether it’s legit?
Because there’s a huge, hot complicated mess of claims and counter-claims out there. And unfortunately there’s misleading information coming from ‘experts’ on both sides of the Covid divide.
And this isn’t unique to Covid. As Scott Adams — who created the Dilbert cartoon strip and now is a pundit — points out in page 14 of his book Loserthink:
“One thing I can say with complete certainty is that it is a bad idea to trust the majority of experts in any domain in which both complexity and large amounts of money are involved.”
So I’ve put together three tips to help you quickly discern whether a medical paper is meaningful or meaningless. I’ve distilled the tips from my decades of reading, writing and editing scientific and medical papers.
Tip One: Is key information left out or hidden?
Tip Two: If the source material is a study about the effect of an intervention, does the study measure serious illness or death in humans, or is it on animals or theoretical, test-tube models?
Tip Three: Does the study contain the information that the article or video referring to it says it contains?
Tip One: Is key information left out or hidden?
You’ve very likely seen the April 30, 2021, news article from the Salk Institute. It’s titled, ‘The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness.’ Its subtitle is, ‘Salk researchers and collaborators show how the protein damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease.’
The article has been weaponized to bolster virtually every Covid-related viewpoint. For example, many news reports about it — such as this one – claim that the Salk paper provides yet more proof that Covid is deadly, and also shows that Covid exerts its action via the spike protein attacking blood vessels.
And many other pieces — such as this video – say that it demonstrates yet another way mRNA vaccines are injuring and killing millions of people.
Here’s how you can easily and quickly check whether this paper is solid.
It’s easy to find the study: here’s a hyperlink to the studyin the second paragraph of the Salk article. Click the hyperlink, and you’ll see the study, which is on the Circulation Research journal’s website.
But – ugh – it looks complicated: the title is ‘SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2.’
Don’t despair. It turns out it’s easy to figure out whether the paper is full of holes or not.
Scroll down through the study.
First, you’ll see that in the study the researchers created an artificial, spike-protein-coated, viral shell (and didn’t put any RNA into the shell). Then they place a number of these viral shells into each hamster’s trachea, which is the top of the windpipe leading to the lungs.
So this is very far removed from meaningful studies involving humans. See Tip Two for more on this topic. (Note also that the study wasn’t at all related to injection of mRNA or to vaccines — so it’s a real stretch to extrapolate from it to what could happen in people who have receive an mRNA jab.)
Then scroll down more, and you’ll see this bombshell:
“Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study, including statistical analyses and reagents used, are available from the corresponding author upon request.“
(‘Corresponding author’ refers to the person who’s the contact for responding to queries about the study.)
Whoa! You have to write to one of the study’s authors to get key information about the study?! That’s a whopper of a red flag.
I wouldn’t send this Salk news article and accompanying study – or videos or articles making assertions about them – to others.
Not unless you want to: email the study’s corresponding author asking for the missing data/material, receive the material, analyze it and determine whether it holds water. And the very fact that one has to do all that is enough to conclude there’s something very suspicious going on.
(And by the way, there are many other ways of hiding critical information. A very common one is burying the key results in supplemental tables or charts. [‘Supplemental’ is a term for information that’s not included in the main paper but instead is in a separate document or documents.] To find a current example of this, because I know it’s extremely common, yesterday I went to the medRχiv website, scrolled down a bit and clicked on ‘View by Month.’ Then I clicked on the title of the paper at the top of the list that came up. That paper was published May 20. It’s on how airway antibodies reappear after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. I scrolled down and saw it only shows the abstract – that is, a summary of the study. [There’s also other info under the abstract, including a ‘Funding Statement’ that says the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was among the funders of the study. That’s a big red flag.] To look at the full paper, I scrolled back up to the top of the page and clicked ‘Download PDF’ on the right-hand side. Then I looked at the ‘Results’ section of the PDF of the paper. Sure enough [after skipping the first section of the ‘Results,’ on ‘Patient enrollment, assessment of disease severity and timeline,’ which in fact is part of the methods rather than results (sigh)], I saw that the reporting of key results is largely in figures and tables in the supplemental material. So a person would have to click on the supplementary-material hyperlink, download the material, and then search for and examine the figures and tables with the key results. How many people have time or inclination to do that?)
Tip Two: If the source material is a study about the effect of an intervention, does the study measure serious illness or death in humans, or is it on animals or theoretical, test-tube models?
We’re constantly being told that a particular ‘treatment,’ ‘vaccine’ or ‘public-health measure’ is saving lives. And that a ‘new variant’ or ‘viral-escape mutation’ is very deadly.
But such claims are meaningless unless they are objectively, verifiably, shown to be true.
So for starters, they’ve got to be studied in people. Not in mice or monkeys, nor in test tubes or petri dishes (AKA ‘in vitro’).
And those human studies have to focus on whether the interventions reduce serious illness and death, or whether things like the ‘new variants’ increase serious illness and death. (Serious illness and death are ‘hard outcomes’ – where the tire hits the road. These are definable, measurable/quantifiable and clinically meaningful. ‘Soft outcomes’ are things like antibody levels in the blood, and relatively minor complaints like coughing, fever, fatigue or a headache.)
(One additional caveat: even if papers are on humans and study serious illness or death, they probably are skewed in some very significant ways. Virtually all medical studies conducted in at least the past three decades have been funded by an organization or company with financial and/or political interests. So studies are set up to produce results that further those interests.)
By way of examples, here are two papers that supposedly provide ‘proof’ that the Indian ‘triple-mutation’ new variant dubbed B.1.617 is highly ‘transmissible’/infectious and, by extrapolation, very dangerous and deadly. [Note added May 25: These papers aren’t easy to find: the vast majority of pieces on the Indian ‘new variant’ don’t provide primary-source material.]
1) The first paper was posted on the website of the online journal bioRχiv onMay 3, 2021, titled,’Convergent evolution of SARS-CoV-2 spike mutations, L452R, E484Q and P681R, in the second wave of COVID-19 in Maharashtra, India.’
Here’s what the paper’s authors wrote about the approach they used to figure out whether the new variant is more ‘transmissible’:
“For assessment of the noted mutations on binding to neutralizing antibodies, the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD domain complexed with two selected mAbs REGN10933/ P2B-2F6 were retrieved (PDB ID: 6XDG; resolution 3.90Å and 7BWJ; resolution 2.65 Å respectively)15,16. Point mutations were carried out using Biovia Discovery studio visualizer 2020 and the structures of the complexes were subjected to energy minimization using macro model tool in Schrodinger 2020 using default parameters. The molecular interactions between the RBD-ACE2 interface, within the RBD and between the neutralizing mAbs-RBD[,] were analyzed using non-bonded interactions tool in Biovia Discovery studio visualizer 2020.”
Translation: the study was done in artificial conditions in vitro using highly complex methods, equipment and computations.
You can’t get more removed from real life than that!
2) The second paper was posted on bioRχiv on May 5, 2021, titled, ‘SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.167.1 is highly pathogenic in hamsters than B.1 variant.’
The study was done with 18 hamsters.
(And the scientists didn’t even attempt to see whether this ‘new variant’ actually moves between hamsters faster than other forms of the novel coronavirus or any other virus, and/or sickens and kills more of them.)
So these two studies tell us virtually nothing about whether the Indian ‘new variant’ is more dangerous in humans than other forms of the novel coronavirus.
Tip Three: Does the study contain the information that the article or video referring to it says it contains?
For illustrative purposes, I’ll use this tip to tackle the topic of ‘spike-protein shedding.’
This is the theoretical scenario in which a person receives an mRNA shot, makes copies of the spike protein in their cells, releases a sizable number of these copies into the environment, and then large quantities of the spike-protein copies enter body of someone nearby.
One group that’s fanning flames of fear surrounding shedding is America’s Frontline Doctors. On April 26, 2021, the group released an ‘issue brief for citizens, policymakers and physicians’ on complications after Covid vaccination.
The third section of that issue brief is titled, ‘Can the unvaccinated get sick from contact with the vaccinated?’ The section is crammed with claims about damage that occurs in people after they receive the mRNA vaccines. But it has only one hyperlink to source material. That hyperlink is in the second sentence.
Here’s that whole section (I’ve added bolding for emphasis):
“The vaccine produces many trillions of particles of spike proteins in the recipients. Patients who are vaccinated can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts. The particles have the ability to create inflammation and disease in these contacts. In other words, the spike proteins are pathogenic (“disease causing”) just like the full virus. What is most worrisome is that a person’s body is being suddenly flooded with 13 trillion of these particles and the spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus. Because of the biomimicry (similarity) on the spike, shedding appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease[s] (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons. Worldwide cases of pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated. In addition, we know the spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.”
But note again that there’s just one primary-source paper for that paragraph/section; it’s hyperlinked to the word ‘shed.’ The primary-source material is a study published online on September 1, 2020 in a journal called SN Compr Clin Med (the short form for SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine [I don’t know what ‘SN’ stands for][Note added March 25: SN is ‘Springer Nature]). Its title is, ‘COVID-19 and its Modes of Transmission.’
The paper is about indirect and direct modes of transmission of Covid. But it does not mention vaccines, vaccination or injection of mRNA at all.
Therefore it doesn’t back up the claim by America’s Frontline Doctors that people who receive Covid mRNA vaccines shed the spike protein.
While we’re at it, let’s look at whether there’s any primary-source material that does support the ‘spike-protein shedding’ claim.
One document that’s being used by a lot of people to try to support the claim that shedding occurs after Covid vaccination is a November 2020 Pfizer document that details the protocol for Pfizer’s Covid-vaccine study.
The focus of all that attention is the first part of subsection ‘8.3.5.1. Exposure During Pregnancy,’ on pages 67 and 68 of the document. Subsection 8.3.5.1 reads as follows (bolding added by me for emphasis):
‘An EDP [exposure during pregnancy] occurs if:
A female participant [in the study] is found to be pregnant while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention.
A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.
A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure.Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:
A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.
A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.’
The term ‘study intervention’ in this document refers to the Pfizer Covid vaccine.
The section is saying that someone can be ‘exposed to the study intervention during environmental exposure,’ and that that ‘environmental exposure’ is via ‘inhalation or skin contact.’
But how can people make the leap from there to saying that the Pfizer-protocol document is referring to the following theoretical sequence: people receiving the mRNA jab, spike protein being made in their bodies, the spike protein spreading into the environment and then the protein entering the bodies of people nearby (and then making them ill)? There’s no basis for that in the document.
Unfortunately some prominent people are making that leap a lot, and misquote the Pfizer document to make it match what they’re claiming.
For example, Dr. Christiane Northrup says in a May 21, 2021, video, “If you look at the Pfizer document from the very beginning, on page 67 it actually says that ‘no male should be impregnating a woman for seven weeks, and no female should get pregnant for seven weeks,’ and they say right on there because of ‘skin contact’ or ‘sexual contact.’ So you have to ask yourself, what did they know, or do they know, that they’re not telling us?” (She must be referring to page 67 of the Pfizer protocol document, because as far as I know there’s no other document about Pfizer’s Covid vaccine that discusses pregnancy and exposure/transmission, at least not one that discusses them on page 67.) Another example of Northrup misquoting the protocol document is this May 20, 2021 interview of her, starting at 3:30.
I found the first clue to what this section of the protocol is much more likely to mean by simply looking at other parts of the Pfizer document. For example one page later, in the last paragraph of subsection ‘8.3.5.2, Exposure During Breastfeeding,’ it says (bolding added by me for emphasis): ‘Anexposureduring breastfeeding is not created when a Pfizer drug specifically approved for breastfeeding women (eg, vitamins) is administered in accord with authorized use. However, if the infant experiences an SAE [serious adverse event] associated with such a drug, the SAE is reported together with the exposure during breastfeeding.’
That mention of ‘exposure’ in this paragraph seems to refer to ‘a Pfizer drug’ … ‘(eg, vitamins).’
So could all the sections in the Pfizer protocol relating to ‘exposure’ from the ‘study intervention’ in fact be using boiler-plate language be referring not to shedding, but instead to people coming into physical contact through the air or another mechanism with the study drug?
That seems the most likely explanation to me.
I searched online and, indeed, this does seem to be Pfizer’s boilerplate-like language.
For example, if you look at section ‘8.10. Exposure During Pregnancy’ in the 2015 Pfizer protocol for its study of dacomitinib (a drug for non-small-cell lung cancer), that section reads (bolding added by me):
“For investigational products and for marketed products, an exposure during pregnancy occurs if:
1. A female becomes, or is found to be, pregnant while receiving or having been exposed (eg, because of treatment or environmental exposure) to the investigational product, or the female becomes, or is found to be pregnant after discontinuing and/or being exposed to the investigational product;
An example of environmental exposure would be a case involving direct contact with a Pfizer product in a pregnant woman (eg, a nurse reports that she is pregnant and has been exposed to chemotherapeutic products).
2. A male patient has been exposed (eg, because of treatment or environmental exposure) to the investigational product prior to or around the time of conception and/or is exposed during his partner’s pregnancy.
It has a reasonably strong resemblance to the section on exposure during pregnancy in the Pfizer vaccine protocol document. (And it’s not at all likely that a cancer drug sheds.)
So the only conclusion I can draw is the Pfizer-vaccine protocol document doesn’t provide any sort of support for the concept that people who have received Covid mRNA shots are shedding the spike protein and spreading it to others.
And the fact that America’s Frontline Doctors attempts to support its assertion that Covid mRNA vaccines cause shedding with a paper that has nothing to do with vaccination indicates that there is not any evidence this can take place.
Using very shaky ‘evidence’ to try to ‘prove’ something suggests that in fact there’sprobably no proof of it at all.
I do think the vaccines are dangerous and are negatively affecting people who’ve received them; I also believe that people who’ve been in close contact with vaccine recipients can be negatively affected.* There are plenty of plausible reports of, for example, altered periods in women who have been in the vicinity of people who’ve been vaccinated. So altered periods are quite possibly related to being in close proximity with vaccinated people. But there’s zero proof, as far as I’ve seen, that the spike proteins produced by the mRNA jabs cause those altered periods.
Maybe it’s something else in the shots that’s resulting in all the negative effects in people who’ve been in proximity to individuals who’ve had the jabs. Or maybe perhaps it’s not something in the shots, but somehow another phenomenon associated with receiving the shots.
At the moment it’s very hard to know. Chasing misinformation just makes us go down blind alleys and delays or even permanently stops us from finding the truth.
Spreading information that has extremely flimsy grounds also givessignificant fodder to our opponentsto paint us all as spreaders of lies. That turns many people away from listening to what any of us are saying.
It alsomakes people on our side support the physical and emotional separation of Covid believers/pro-vaccinators and us (which is exactly what the architects of the Covid coup want). For example, Dr. Larry Palevsky at 41:00 in this April 27, 2021, video says people who’ve received these vaccines “should be quarantined and have a badge on their arms that say[s], ‘I’ve been vaccinated’ [i.e., like Jews were marked by yellow-star badges in WWII]) … so that we know to avoid them on the street … and not go near them anywhere in society.”
The bottom line? Try to resist the pull to believe an article or video just because it fits with your Covid-sceptic view and is from someone you reflexively trust.
You can use thethree tips in this article to work towardstaying objective and figuring outfor yourself whether there’s solid evidence behind claims made by ‘experts.’
*.Sentence was edited in Rosemary Frei’s original article on March 28 for clarity.]
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
The Israeli People’s Committee — Report of Adverse Effects Related to Corona Vaccine — May 2021
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Dr. Pinky Feinstein, the chairman of the Israeli People’s Committee, with a crucial message to the world – NEVER HAS A VACCINE INJURED SO MANY!
The American VAERS system reveals 3,409 reports of mortality amongst vaccinated people in the United States in the first 4 months of 2021.According to US VAERS system 7 deaths in ages 0-17 were reported in relation to Covid 19 vaccination during 2021, 6 of them of Pfizer-Biontec.
We received 330 reports of deaths occurring in proximity after the vaccination (90% up to 10 days after the vaccination). 64% are men.
According to the ministry of health’s statement: only 45 deaths occurred in proximity after the vaccination.
According to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), during January-March 2021, in the midst of the vaccination operation, there was a 18% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared to the tri-monthly average mortality in the previous year. In fact, the period of January-March 2021 is the deadliest one in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates, when compared to the corresponding months over the last 10 years.
According to this assessment, it is possible to estimate that the number of deaths in Israel, which have occurred in proximity after the vaccination, currently stands at about 1600-1700 people. There is a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day, in the range of up to 10 days post vaccination, in all age groups.
The risk of death after the second vaccination is higher than the risk of death after the first vaccination.
Up until the publication date of this report, a total of 2,646 reports of adverse events have been recorded by The Israeli People`s Committee, and the reports continue to flow in.
These reports indicate damage to almost every system in the human body. They also highlight the incomprehensible gap between official Israeli media reports and what is really happening, enabling a “two worlds” situation due to journalistic failure to sense, identify and report on what is actually happening in citizens’ real-life.
This assessment is added to the fact that around 250,000 people did not show up to get the second dose of vaccine, despite all massive social and occupational pressure of the green passport. We believe that the majority of them decided to do so due to experiencing adverse effects following the first vaccine dose.
In our analysis, we have found a relatively high rate of cardiac-related injuries. 25% of all cardiac events occurred in young people below the age of 40, the most common diagnosis in these cases being myocarditis or pericarditis.
Additionally, a high prevalence of massive vaginal bleeding, neurological, skeletal and skin damages have been observed.
It should be noted that a significant number of adverse events reported are related, directly or indirectly, to coagulopathy (myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, disruption of blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism). There are probably many thousands of unreported cases.
We get growing numbers of reports about this phenomenon from medical staff within hospitals and clinics. The general impression is that hospitals seem to be dealing with a chaos and confusion regarding the way to handle growing numbers of vaccine injured patients while at the same time to keep them out of records.
Many doctors in emergency rooms nowadays begin their anamnestic inquiry by the question: “When were you vaccinated?” yet write nothing about it in discharge letters. In light of all the above and the detailed information ahead and for the sake of the good, reliable and advanced medicine, for all people and from the pure intention, we would like to hereby declare the statement that all branches of medicine should agree about:
“Once you apply new medication of all sorts to mass people and have insufficient knowledge about its true safety, all adverse effects that follow must be regarded as related to this medication until proven otherwise. This is the only way to obtain the true information, to ensure maximal safety surveillance and to make sure that non-medical motives will have no influence on the process of evaluating and learning the true nature of this medication and its influence on people.”
As I Warned: RNA Gold Rush; New Genetic Products in the Pipeline
Before I get to the financial bonanza, I have to make a few comments about the COVID RNA vaccine itself.
This shot-in-the-arm gene treatment should be seen AS AN EXTENSION of genetic research into altering humans.
Because that’s what it is.
The field of gene research includes “creating better humans” and eugenics.
Eugenics involves what American Rockefeller and Nazi researchers were setting up: depopulation; population control; selecting out “superior genetic strains” for survival.
William Engdahl and Dr. Peter Breggin have done excellent historical analysis of the eugenics movement. [1] [1a] [1b] [2] [2a]
Another point: In recent articles, I’ve pointed out that ALL genetic research—beyond its motives—is also fraught with unintended ripple-effect consequences. Never believe that the targets and the consequences can be contained. [3] [4]
For example, the notion that the COVID shot will do nothing more than force cells of the body to produce one protein is absurd. It’s on the level of saying, “During rush hour, on the most crowded high-speed highway in the world, we can engineer a two-car crash that will only result in two minor fender-benders…” [4]
Both short and long-term effects of the COVID shot are unknown and unpredictable.
The perpetrators of the COVID RNA shot are criminally insane.
And with that…on to the MONEY.
Bring on the angels and trumpets. Bring on the cash.
A year ago I told you COVID vaccine-testing was rocketing ahead, because Bill Gates, the Rockefeller institute, NIH, the manufacturers, and Fauci saw the light at the end of the tunnel— [5]
The fake pandemic was their golden opportunity to win approval for the first RNA pharma product in history, and once that victory was achieved—
They would beat the drum for new RNA vaccines, WHICH ARE CHEAPER, EASIER, AND FASTER TO MANUFACTURE, AND FAR MORE PROFITABLE. [6]
They would hype new genetic treatments across the board—on the back of the fact that there is not a single genetic cure for any disease. But who cares about facts?
Now, as massive numbers of injuries and deaths from the COVID RNA vaccine pile up, Stephen Ubl, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), gushes: “…We’re really entering the golden era of medicine.” He goes on to sell blue-sky “RNA platforms” for reversing child blindness and MS. [7] [7a]
Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, bloviates about coming genetic cures for flu and cancer. [7b]
Biospace.com: “mRNA tech used in COVID vaccines could be used to cure HIV, cancer, and other diseases.” [8]
Nature/Biotechnology (“Messengers of hope,” 29 December 2020; 39, page 1 (2021)): “Emergency Use Authorizations for two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines represent a turning point in the pandemic. They also herald a new era for vaccinology.” [9]
Think of these hustlers as cartoon characters dancing on a sea of real blood and death created by the RNA COVID vaccines.
In case you’ve forgotten, Moderna, whose COVID shot is now firmly entrenched, had never brought a single product to market in its brief history, but with Fauci’s guidance, managed to snatch $500 million in US government funding to develop the vaccine. Moderna was committed to RNA technology; that was its ticket to fame and fortune. [10]
The landscape of fake promotion about genetic cures is basically a cover for extreme damage created by corporations and governments.
“Confidentially, the truth is, what we’re calling autism isn’t a disorder or a disease. It’s neurological INJURY caused by vaccines and other environmental toxins. But we SAY autism is genetic. We can keep raising money for research—if you want to call it that—and hide what’s really going on.”
Some of these researchers are true believers in the Gene Cult. They actually think the day will come when a person can strip naked and bathe in a pool of poisonous effluent pouring out of a factory pipe—and because that person has received a genetic treatment (like the RNA COVID vaxx), no harm will come to him.
Look for this to happen soon: it’ll be a child, a child with “a rare disorder.” Perhaps blindness. And now: the child can see. Breakthrough. Genetic treatment. Of course, the details of the published study will be somewhat murky. You know, “proprietary technology.”
And quite possibly, only four children in the world have this rare disorder. That means the genetic treatment is 25% effective—an unbelievable marvel.
“Was it RNA, Doctor? Is that what you injected?”
“Well, Lesley, I can’t take you and the 60 Minutes crew into the lab. It’s a high security facility. But yes, for your audience, I can reveal that we deployed the most up to date CRISPR gene-editing technology, and it worked exactly as we hoped it would…”
“Is the cure permanent?”
“Lesley, I remember something my mentor at NIH, Doctor Goldbrick Hogcrusher, told me a long time ago. In this world, we live one day at a time. Who can say what tomorrow brings? We count our blessings, and we move on…”
Behind the propaganda: money and population control.
Sisauda is a village with a population of 1500 people located in the Terai, 70 km from the district headquarters of Barabanki.
There is so much awareness about the adverse events from vaccine and post-vaccination deaths in this village that when the Health Department team arrived here for vaccination, about 200 villagers ran away and reached the shore of river Saryu.
When the Health Department team got information that the villagers were out of the village towards the river, they went to convince them.
Seeing the team coming towards them, the villagers could not find a way to escape and jumped into the Saryu river to avoid getting vaccinated forcefully.
Sisauda is a village with a population of 1500 people located in the Terai, 70 km from the district headquarters of Barabanki.
There is so much awareness about the adverse events from vaccine and post-vaccination deaths in this village that when the Health Department team arrived here for vaccination, about 200 villagers ran away and reached the shore of river Saryu.
When the Health Department team got information that the villagers were out of the village towards the river, they went to convince them.
Seeing the team coming towards them, the villagers could not find a way to escape and jumped into the Saryu river to avoid getting vaccinated forcefully.
Seeing the villagers leap into the river, the Health Department team requested the villagers to come out but the villagers were not ready to move out.
Later, Ramnagar SDM Rajiv Shukla and Nodal Officer Rahul Tripathi reached the spot and told the villagers that would not be vaccinated, only after which they came out of the river.
Regional Indian media is full of such incidents. There is a very high level of vaccine hesitancy mostly in rural India.
There are also cases where the Vaccination Team is not even allowed to enter the village. On the other hand in many villages the Health Team members were beaten up with sticks and stones.
In a village in Gujarat, the entire vaccination drive had to be stopped after the villagers demanded that the government take responsibility if anything happens to them after being vaccinated.
The Indian government advertises its policy to contain COVID-19 as the world’s largest vaccination drive. However, it keeps the data on adverse events and deaths after vaccination a top secret. Moreover, there is no online registry to report post-vaccination deaths or adverse effects in India.
Ogilvy was also hired by the current government for an image makeover to win 2014 election. Our long time readers would remember the origins of Ogilvy come from British Intelligence and specifically the psychological warfare techniques they employed during World War 2.
Kary Mullis invented the Polymer Chain Reaction (PCR), and won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his efforts. He attempted to expose Fauci for what he really is, which is not what is presented to the public. The public interest was not widespread, nor were Mullis’s revelations accepted at the time, and just three months before the Covid scam was purposely manufactured and perpetrated against humanity, Kary Mullis mysteriously died of what was said to be pneumonia. This was very convenient for the inventors of this evil and deadly fraud, and Mullis’s invention was intentionally misused for very nefarious reasons that allowed the people to be fooled into believing that a dangerous virus and pandemic would be the death of tens millions. It was all a lie!
This four minute video tells a tale that should be viewed by everyone, and touches on Fauci’s thirty year reign of terror against the innocent. Fauci belongs in prison for life, and so do all those involved in this scam.
Let The Kids Breathe and the smile project is a national initiative supported by Cape Cod Against Medical Mandates
Protest Calls:
When: Monday May 24, 2021 7:45 AM – 9:45 AM
Where: Nauset School Administration, 78 Eldridge Park Way, Orleans, MA
Stand with Nauset parents in support of bodily autonomy, parental choice, and medical freedom in our schools.
When: Tuesday May 25, 2021 at 8 AM (not 10 AM as previously posted)
Where: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 75 Pleasant St, Malden, MA
Stand with all Massachusetts students. The ‘Let The Kids Breathe’ main demonstration will take place at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in Malden because this is where the statewide “orders” for schools are handed down. Organizers are calling for a boycott of schools until all restrictions are lifted. They are suggesting people bring noisemakers (buckets and sticks).
Making kids wear masks is a form of child abuse. Masks inhibit the intake of oxygen which children need for their developing brains. They force people to re-breathe the carbon dioxide that they exhale. There is little evidence that masks help to prevent the spread of viruses, and plenty of evidence that wearing them is physically and mentally harmful.
Further, children have now come to think it is normal for everyone to wear a mask, and they are being deprived of the ability to understand other people by reading the expressions on their faces. Parents have been so intimidated by “pandemic” fear that they have essentially allowed the state to abuse their children.
Children are not able to understand what is being done to them, and parents, who are in a position to understand, have failed to protest health mandates being blatantly used for political, not health, reasons.
On May 13, 2021 medical tyrant Anthony Fauci said that “children too young to be vaccinated will still have to wear masks when they are indoors and around others, even if older kids and adults are free to take off face protection once they are fully vaccinated. “
Adults have been held hostage with mask and social distancing rules in order to force them to to get the covid injection. Now our children are being held hostage for the same reason. Children are at very low risk of harm from whatever the illness is that has been called covid 19. Adverse effects so far reported among those age 16 and up who have gotten the jab make it a certainty that if the injections are forced on children, they will cause more and much worse harm than the illness.
According to neurologist Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson, “For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain is thirsting for oxygen. The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires. In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active. To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed. The child needs the brain to learn, and the brain needs oxygen to function. We don’t need a clinical study for that. This is simple, indisputable physiology. Conscious and purposely induced oxygen deficiency is an absolutely deliberate health hazard, and an absolute medical contraindication. “
According to psychologist Jack Dresser, “Children are closely attentive to both the facial expressions and voice intonations of their caretakers and surrounding adults. Deprivation or attenuation of these psychologically essential cues constitutes child neglect, which can affect brain development and be more psychologically damaging than overt abuse.”
Emily Burns, founder of the smile project (banner above), had this to say about our taking any further orders from a tyrranical public health establishment:
“As John Ioannidis has said, ‘medicine has now become the enemy of health.’ In order to remedy this, public health officials must resume their rightful position as public servants who provide information and guidance, rather than dictates and punishments. Restoring this balance will restore trust in public health, and improve health outcomes. In the current modality, where un-elected public health officials have been given god-like power and prestige, there is no incentive for them to provide accurate information. They do not guide, they rule. Rulers don’t give information, they give commands. To the extent they give information, it is to justify their commands. This is exactly how the CDC has behaved since March. In the absence of the ability to compel, you must inform. Thus, in order to get the CDC and other public health organizations to begin accurately informing us, we must strip them of their power to command us. The moment this is done, we will all have better information, and a public health apparatus that serves us–not the other way around.”
Attachedis a [downloadable word file] plea for sanity on masks in schools written by a mother of three school-age children in Tempe, Arizona, addressed to the school administrators enforcing the abusive masking policy common to most public schools across America. The arguments in this letter apply equally to all students forced to wear masks in schools on Cape Cod. The argument is simple: parents need to stand up to protect their children.
###
Update: Mask rules are due to be lifted in Massachusetts on May 29, 2021, but not in schools. The updated order of May 17, 2021 is that public school students and adults must continue to wear masks indoors.
A legal memo from Liberty Counsel Action is suitable for print and distribution to employers of all sizes, in order to protect employee rights under American law. Forced mandates are illegal. Discrimination against the non-vaccinated is also illegal. ⁃ TN Editor
Each year, more than 165 million Americans get the flu shot. There were 85 reported deaths following influenza vaccination in 2017; 119 deaths in 2018; and 203 deaths in 2019
Between mid-December 2020 and April 23, 2021, at which point between 95 million and 100 million Americans had received their COVID-19 shots, there were 3,544 reported deaths following COVID vaccination, or about 30 per day
In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years
As of April 23, 2021, VAERS had also received 12,618 reports of serious adverse events. In total, 118,902 adverse event reports had been filed
In the European Union, the EudraVigilance system had as of April 17, 2021, received 330,218 injury reports after vaccination with one of the four available COVID vaccines, including 7,766 deaths
In a May 5, 2021, Fox News report, Tucker Carlson asked the question no one is really allowed to ask: “How many Americans have died after taking the COVID vaccine?”1
If you haven’t paid attention, the answer to this verboten (forbidden) question may shock you. Carlson points out (inaccurately, if you ask me) that vaccines have been shown to be generally safe, citing statistics on how many Americans have died after the seasonal influenza vaccine in recent years.
Each year, more than 165 million Americans get the flu shot, and according to the U.S. vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS), there were 85 reported deaths following influenza vaccination in 2017; 119 deaths in 2018; and 203 deaths in 2019. “How do those rates compare to the death rates from the coronavirus vaccine?” Carlson asks. The answer is, there’s really no comparison.
How Many Have Died From COVID Vaccines?
Between mid-December 2020, when the first COVID-19 shots were rolled out, and April 23, 2021, at which point between 95 million and 100 million Americans had received their COVID-19 shots, there were 3,544 reported deaths following COVID vaccination.2
That’s 182 more deaths than cited by Carlson. As of April 23, 2021, VAERS had also received 12,618 reports of serious adverse events. In total, 118,902 adverse event reports had been filed. If, like Carlson estimates, about 30 people per day are dying from the shots, these numbers will grow by the hundreds each week.
Carlson also cites data from an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which found that VAERS catches a mere 1% of vaccine injuries,3,4 primarily because it’s a passive system and reports are filed voluntarily.
Many Americans don’t even know that the system exists, or that they can file a report, and most doctors won’t file reports when injuries are brought to their attention because the medical system doesn’t reward such fastidiousness. At most, 10% of vaccine side effects are ever reported to VAERS, according to a 2005 study in the BMJ.5
What this means is that side effects may actually be 10 times or even 100 times higher than reported. We could, in reality, be looking at anywhere from 126,000 to 1.2 million serious side effects, and anywhere from 35,440 to 354,400 vaccine-related deaths.
While Carlson refuses to speculate about what the actual death toll might be, he does stress that what we’re seeing is clearly out of the norm, and by a tremendous margin. In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years.
Gamble Your Life or Lose Your Freedom?
While the data show there are clear risks, Americans are urged, cajoled, shamed and threatened into getting the shot in any number of ways. President Biden recently warned that people who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 “can still die every day” from the infection, adding “This is your choice: It’s life and death.”
Carlson accurately points out that while unvaccinated people can indeed die of COVID-19, not everyone is at equal risk of complications and death. Old and chronically ill individuals are at greatest risk, while young and/or healthy individuals have a very low risk, and those who have had COVID-19 and recovered are immune.
For those who are young and/or healthy and/or immune, risking death or injury from the “vaccine” doesn’t make much sense. I would argue it makes no sense whatsoever, as there are also several proven-effective treatments, both early at-home treatments and in-hospital treatments. So, there’s no need to risk your health and life by taking COVID gene therapy.
As noted by Carlson, the young, healthy and already immune can add up to hundreds of millions of people in the U.S., yet policy makers are “not even acknowledging that these categories of people exist,” he says.
They’re pretending that everyone’s risk is the same and, therefore, everyone must get vaccinated, or at bare minimum, they want 70% of the American adult population vaccinated by July 4, 2021.
Carlson points out that this policy might be deemed acceptable if it could be conclusively shown that the “vaccines” are safe, and if we had a thorough understanding of the long-term effects of these mRNA and viral vector DNA shots. However, we can’t and we don’t.
Thousands have died, and many of the side effects reported defy easy explanation. For example, COVID shots now account for one-third of all tinnitus side effects in VAERS. Oxford and UCLA researchers, who are now tracking side effects across eight different countries, report finding that “women aged 18 to 34 years had a higher rate of deep vein thrombosis than men of the same age,” Carlson says. Why? No one knows.
Stunning Lack of Reaction to Mounting Death Toll
Perhaps most stunning of all is that these thousands of deaths and serious reactions are receiving no attention whatsoever. In 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated an estimated 45 million people against pandemic swine flu.
The program was canceled, Carlson reports, after only 53 people died. Authorities decided the vaccine was too risky to continue the campaign. Now, health authorities are shrugging off more than 3,500 deaths after COVID-19 vaccination as either coincidental or inconsequential.
Folks, this is 70 times more deaths than the swine flu vaccine, which was halted. If this isn’t insanity on steroids, please tell me what is. Maybe murder? This doesn’t even include the deaths of thousands, and potentially tens of thousands of miscarriages, which is now becoming rapidly recognized as a possible complication of COVID-19 “vaccines.”
In fact, an April 2021 report in The New England Journal of Medicine6 said that miscarriage was the most common condition reported after a COVID vaccine, and that “there is probably substantial underreporting of pregnancy- and neonatal-specific adverse events” connected with the vaccine. But rather than posting a warning that the vaccine may be causing miscarriages, health officials simply urged “continued monitoring” of the issue.
EU Reports Hundreds of Thousands of Side Effects
In the European Union, we find more of the same. Its EudraVigilance system, to which suspected drug reactions are reported, had as of April 17, 2021, received 330,218 injury reports after vaccination with one of the four available COVID vaccines (Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson), including 7,766 deaths.7
Of these, Pfizer’s mRNA injection accounted for the largest number of deaths at 4,293, followed by Moderna with 2,094 deaths, AstraZeneca with 1,360 deaths and Johnson & Johnson with 19 deaths. The most commonly reported injuries were cardiac-related problems and blood/lymphatic disorders.
In related news, the Israeli People Committee (IPC), a civilian body of health experts, has published a report detailing side effects from the Pfizer vaccine, concluding “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.” The Committee received 288 reports of death, 90% of which occurred within 10 days after the vaccination; 64% of them were men.
This contradicts data from the Israeli Ministry of Health, which claims only 45 deaths were vaccine related. According to this report (translated from Hebrew):8
“According to Central Bureau of Statistics data during January-February 2021, at the peak of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared with the previous year.
In fact, January-February 2021 have been the deadliest months in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates compared to corresponding months in the last 10 years.
Amongst the 20-29 age group the increase in overall mortality has been most dramatic. In this age group, we detect an increase of 32% in overall mortality in comparison with previous year.
Statistical analysis of information from the Central Bureau of Statistics, combined with information from the Ministry of Health, leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+).
According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in proximity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.”
Reproductive Effects
In the U.S., we’re now starting to see thousands of reports of menstrual problems among women who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. As reported by The Defender:9
“Women have reported hemorrhagic bleeding with clots, delayed or absent periods, sudden pre-menopausal symptoms, month-long periods and heavy irregular bleeding after being vaccinated with one or both doses of a COVID vaccine.
There’s no data linking COVID vaccines to changes in menstruation because clinical trials omit tracking menstrual cycles. But two Yale University experts wrote in The New York Times … there could be a connection.
‘There are many reasons vaccination could alter menstruation,’ wrote Alice Lu-Culligan, an M.D./Ph.D. student at Yale School of Medicine, and Dr. Randi Epstein, writer in residence at Yale School of Medicine.
‘Periods involve the immune system, as the thickening and thinning of the uterine lining are facilitated by different teams of immune cells and signals moving in and out of the reproductive tract,’ Lu-Culligan and Epstein explained.
‘Vaccines are designed to ignite an immune response, and the female cycle is supported by the immune system, so it’s possible vaccines could temporarily change the normal course of events.’”
Even more bizarre, there are hundreds of anecdotal reports of women who have not gotten the vaccine, but spent time in close proximity to someone who did, who are experiencing the same kind of abnormal menses and bleeding irregularities. Some doctors are hypothesizing that some sort of shedding may be taking place, although the mechanism is unknown. As yet, it’s too early to speculate further.
Interestingly, a Chinese study10 published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online, which looked at sex hormones and menstruation in unvaccinated women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with COVID-19, found 28% had a change in the length of their cycle, 19% had prolonged cycles and 25% had a change in menstrual blood volume.
The researchers hypothesize that “the menstruation changes of these patients might be the consequence of transient sex hormone changes” caused by a temporary suppression of ovarian function during infection.
Dr. Natalie Crawford, a fertility specialist, told The Defender11 that the menstrual irregularities seen in female COVID-19 patients may be linked to a cellular immunity response, and since the vaccine instructs your body to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which your immune system then responds to, the effects of the vaccine may be similar to the natural infection.
Death Tally May Spike During Fall and Winter
While the death toll from COVID-19 vaccines is already at a historical level, I fear it may shoot far higher as we move through fall and winter. The reason for this is because one of the greatest risk factors and wild cards of these vaccines is antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE) or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE).
The 2003 review paper “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease” explains it this way:13
“In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.
The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.
This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance … For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.”
Fall and winter are the seasons in which most coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV-2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold. If ADE does turn out to be a common problem with these injections, then vaccinated individuals may be at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming.
Another potential risk is that of Th2 immunopathology, especially among the elderly. As reported in a PNAS news feature:14
“Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon: Some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated.
The vaccine-primed immune system, in certain cases, seemed to launch a shoddy response to the natural infection …
This immune backfiring, or so-called immune enhancement, may manifest in different ways such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a process in which a virus leverages antibodies to aid infection; or cell-based enhancement, a category that includes allergic inflammation caused by Th2 immunopathology.
In some cases, the enhancement processes might overlap … Some researchers argue that although ADE has received the most attention to date, it is less likely than the other immune enhancement pathways to cause a dysregulated response to COVID-19, given what is known about the epidemiology of the virus and its behavior in the human body.
‘There is the potential for ADE, but the bigger problem is probably Th2 immunopathology,’ says Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist and expert in coronaviruses … at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In previous studies of SARS, aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology … in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes, activating the complement system and potentially damaging the airways.”
Recognize Cheap Brainwashing Propaganda for What It Is
Carlson ends his segment with a crude, cuss-filled ad “brought to you by people who are smarter than we are,” in which people who are supposedly doctors and nurses belittle those who read about side effects online or hear about risks from friends, and demand, while giving you the finger, that you just “grow up and get the vaccine.”
If you did not watch Carlson’s report, you need to STOP now and watch the video below to see this unbelievable ad. It is queued up to start at the ad. It is beyond shocking that they believe they can get away with this type of abuse.
“It doesn’t make you laugh,” Carlson says. “It makes you nervous. Why are they talking to you that way? Why are they giving you the finger on TV? No matter how many fingers they give you, it doesn’t change what remains true for the country.
If American citizens are going to be forced to take this vaccine, or any other medicine, they have the absolute right to know what it is and what its effects might be.
And they have an absolute right to ask that question, without being silenced or mocked or given the finger. And no amount of happy talk or coercion or appeals to false patriotism can change that. Period.”
In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.
Last but not least, if you or someone you love has already received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations:15
Pharma and government health officials are luring parents and teens into getting the vaccine by promising a return to social events and normal life — while ignoring potential harms and the “miniscule” risk COVID poses to children.
A decade ago, Ohio researchers bemoaned the difficulty of recruiting children for clinical trials. In the article, “Pediatric Drug-Trial Recruitment: Enticement Without Coercion,” published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers identified barriers such as “the challenge of determining appropriate payments for participation that are not coercive,” “the need to obtain consent from parents” and “ethical concerns.”
With COVID-19, it appears the government and pharma may have determined they can simply leapfrog over these pesky obstacles.
The FDA committee that steered the decision chose to ignore urgent warnings from around the world about the vaccine’s risks for children, including a letter by 93 Israeli doctors who wrote in April that “not even a handful of children should be endangered through mass vaccination against a disease that is not dangerous to them.”
According to a recent New York Times article, “For children, the evidence so far does not offer much reason for alarm about COVID-19’s long-term effects.” Conversely, the Israeli doctors and other experts have emphasized that “it cannot be ruled out that the vaccine will have long-term adverse effects that have not yet been discovered at this time, including on growth, reproductive system or fertility.”
Warnings ignored
Notwithstanding warnings about COVID vaccine risks for children, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) followed up with an immediate endorsement of FDA’s EUA expansion, and CDC director Rochelle Walensky called on healthcare providers to begin administering the still-investigational vaccine to younger adolescents “right away.”
Incredibly, a CDC committee* also gave providers permission to administer the COVID vaccines with other childhood and adolescent vaccines “without regard to timing” — including “simultaneous administration of COVID-19 and other vaccines on the same day, as well as co-administration within 14 days.”
The CDC is basing this incautious advice on the unproven assumption that “adverse event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” even though the agency also admits that it does not know “whether so-called ‘reactogenicity’ increases with [vaccine] co-administration.”
The shockingly cavalier promotion of a no-holds-barred approach to COVID vaccination for America’s children flies in the face of global vaccine experts’ collective opinion (expressed at a World Health Organization meeting in December 2019) that vaccine safety science and safety monitoring are flawed and utterly inadequate.
No less an entity than the Institute of Medicine has stated that systematic research on “key elements of the entire [childhood vaccine] schedule — the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines” — has never been done.
Bypassing payment
Returning to the recruitment obstacles outlined in the 2011 Pediatrics article, it appears that in lieu of “payment” for participation in Pfizer’s mass vaccine trial, the strategy deployed by Walensky and others is to entice adolescents with sunny assurances of a “faster return to social activities.”
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock have likewise promised youngsters that COVID vaccination equals a return to a “sense of normalcy.”
These pledges seem to be just the ticket for socially starved teens who profess to be “all ready to get [the vaccine]” and “excited to get things going again” after being “locked up for a year.”
Six hundred thousand 12- to 15-year-olds rushed to get COVID jabs within the first week of the EUA expansion. Counting the 16- and 17-year-olds who had previously received Pfizer’s vaccine, the total number of injected adolescents (ages 12-17) now numbers 4.1 million, Walensky announced.
These teens and families were likely unaware of the serious adverse events — such as blood clots and Guillain-Barré syndrome — already being experienced by those 16 and older. After a 17-year-old Utah athlete developed blood clots in his brain one day after receiving his first Pfizer injection, the basketball player’s mother tearfully aired her buyer’s remorse, stating her son was “healthy and well before” and “the hardest thing was, I let him get that shot.”
Nor are most parents and teens focusing on the fact that accepting one COVID injection will not be the end of the story. COVID booster shots are already in the offing — introducing the prospect of recurrent and cumulative risks.
Bypassing parents
As the above-cited numbers suggest, a significant proportion of parents seem to be on board with their kids’ swift compliance. In April, just prior to the EUA expansion, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll tested the waters and found 30% of parents with children in the 12-15 age group were themselves chomping at the bit — ready to “get their child vaccinated as soon as a vaccine is available” — and another 18% were willing to do so if schools required it.
On the other hand, about half of Kaiser’s parent respondents stated that they either planned to wait or “definitely” would not be getting their child COVID-vaccinated. This is the group of parents that prompted the Ohio researchers in 2011 to scratch their heads and characterize “the need to obtain consent from parents” as a barrier to pediatric medical experimentation.
The “solution” seems to be to bypass troublesome parents altogether. Five states, heedless of the injections’ investigational status, are allowing healthcare providers and medical practices to dispense with parental consent requirements for COVID vaccines.
In North Carolina, adolescents who are 12 and up can provide their own consent if deemed able to understand and make decisions about their health. A representative of the state’s heavyweight health group UNC Health stated, “COVID vaccination is one of those medical treatments that North Carolina says that a child is able to consent for on their own.”
Three other states — Alabama, Oregon and Tennessee — are permitting adolescents 14 or 15 years of age and older to do the same, and Iowa is leaving consent requirements to the discretion of “each individual healthcare provider/health system.”
In March, in the face of heated public opposition, the District of Columbia enacted legislation enabling children as young as 11 to get CDC-recommended vaccines without parental consent or even knowledge.
Bypassing ethics
At the close of 2020, New York University (NYU) and Tulane researchers wrote in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about COVID vaccines and the “serious mechanistic concern” of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) — the phenomenon whereby vaccination worsens subsequent disease.
The conclusion reached by the researchers (not specific to, but certainly germane to adolescents) was that the risk of ADE “is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.”
Independent of the topic of ADE, the NYU/Tulane authors’ study demonstrated how difficult it is for the average adult — much less adolescent — to penetrate the risks “obscured” in consent forms and thus to achieve “truly informed consent.”
And if this is the case, how likely are teens (or their parents) to understand the distinction between relative and absolute risk when they consent to COVID vaccination? How many young persons can grasp that Pfizer’s relative-risk-based claim of a “100% effective” vaccine for 12-15 year-olds translates into an absolute risk reduction (“the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine”) that is “teensy-tiny”?
Using relative risk calculations, Pfizer declared its injection “100% effective” on the basis of trials with 2,260 younger adolescents. According to the company’s press release, 18 cases of COVID occurred in the placebo group versus zero in the vaccine group. Nowhere does Pfizer spell out that these numbers equate to a reduction in absolute risk of 1.59% (obtained by dividing 18 by the 1,129 teens allocated to the placebo group).
Moreover, in the analyses for its clinical trials with adults, Pfizer doctored its results by excluding thousands of participants who had symptoms identical to COVID but not confirmed by PCR testing. Did similar sleight of hand produce the magic “100%” result for adolescents? Access to “full datasets and independent scrutiny and analyses” are needed to answer that question.
Even assuming a straightforward analysis on Pfizer’s part, European scientists writing in The Lancet in April emphasized the importance of putting vaccine trial results “in context and not just looking at one summary measure.” When researchers omit information about absolute risk reduction and communicate only relative risk reduction numbers, “reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy” — raising questions about the investigators’ intent and integrity.
The lead author of the Lancet commentary admitted to Wired, “One of the main reasons why absolute risk reduction is not shown is because of the numbers. If you say, ‘It’s 95% effective’ — Wow! …But if your absolute risk reduction is like 0.8%…, so what?”
The Lancet authors also noted relative risks “should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time.”
This is a particularly crucial observation for children, whose “background risk” of developing serious COVID illness is minuscule, as evidenced by the fact that the CDC uses 5-17 year-olds as its “reference group” (the group with the lowest risk) when presenting risks of COVID infection, hospitalization and death for other age groups.
There are 74 million children in the U.S. So far, 282 have died from conditions “involving COVID,” producing a mortality rate of 0.00038%. At the May 12 meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), CDC estimated 22.2 million children aged 5-17 had had COVID, and 127 had died — or 0.00057%.
As a University of Pennsylvania infectious disease specialist told the New York Times, “For the average kid, Covid is a negligible risk.”
By way of comparison, in 2019 (the most recent year for which data are available), 847 children in the 5-14 age group died in car accidents and 233 perished by drowning. In 15-24 year-olds, 2019 witnessed another 6,031 car accident deaths, 415 fatal drownings and 4,346 poisoning deaths.
In 2017, drowning deaths claimed nearly 1000 young people under age 20. From February 2020 through mid-February of this year, 5,738 children aged 5-14 and 36,900 adolescents and young adults aged 15-24 died from causes other than COVID-19.
In 1- to 17-year-olds, COVID ranks behind nine other causes of death (injury, suicide, cancer, homicide, congenital anomalies, heart disease, influenza, chronic lower respiratory disease and cerebrovascular causes).
Outsized risks
When announcing the expansion of its Pfizer EUA for 12- to 15-year-olds, FDA head Janet Woodcock told parents they “can rest assured that the agency undertook a rigorous and thorough review of all available data.”
However, as of May 7 (that is, just prior to the EUA expansion to younger adolescents), the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was already showing 694 post-COVID-vaccine adverse events in the 12-17 age group, including 14 rated as “serious” and three deaths.
The VAERS data released one week later, on May 14 (just after the 12-15 go-ahead), showed a sharp bump up in COVID-vaccine-related adverse events in the 12-17 age group: 943 total adverse events, including 23 rated as serious and the three deaths.
Two of the deaths reported before May 10 were in 15-year-olds, one after receiving the Pfizer vaccine and the other after receiving the Moderna vaccine. These adolescents must have been enrolled in the clinical trials, as their ages would have precluded them getting the vaccines legally under the EUAs in effect at the time.
With about 1,000 children in Pfizer’s clinical trial vaccine group in the 12-15 age group — and probably about the same number in Moderna’s trial — the death rate following either vaccination in this age group (assuming the two teens were trial enrollees) is approximately two in 2,000, or 0.1%. Available evidence strongly suggests, therefore, that COVID vaccines are much more dangerous to children than the disease.
Across all age groups, VAERS had received reports of almost 228,000 total adverse events between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 14, including more than 4,200 deaths. That this unprecedented trail of destruction was not cause for concern among the FDA and CDC committee members who enthusiastically recommended Pfizer’s experimental vaccine for young people is baffling.
Tragically, it is a virtual certainty that VAERS reports for children will rise in the coming weeks — leaving many parents as regretful as the Utah mom who let her son “get that shot.”
*Footnote: The 14 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) who unanimously voted to recommend COVID vaccines for 12- to 15-year-olds and also endorsed simultaneous administration of COVID and other vaccines are: Jose Romero (Arkansas Secretary of Health); Kevin Ault (University of Kansas); Lynn Bahta (Minnesota Department of Health); Beth Bell (University of Washington School of Public Health); Henry Bernstein (Cohen Children’s Medical Center); Wilbur Chen (University of Maryland); Matthew Daley (Kaiser Permanente Colorado); Sharon Frey (St. Louis University); Camille Kotton (Massachusetts General Hospital); Grace Lee (Stanford University); Sarah Long (Drexel University); Veronica McNally (Franny Strong Foundation); Katherine Poehling (Wake Forest University); Pablo Sanchez (Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Ohio State University); and Helen Talbot (Vanderbilt University). Consider reaching out to these individuals to ask them how they reached their reckless decisions.
I still receive emails that announce: “So-and-so SAYS the virus has been isolated and does exist.”
On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 would indicate “so what?” and 10 would rate “well, that’s it, the virus is real,” someone SAYING the virus exists comes in at minus-12.
Then there is the ever-popular, “OF COURSE this virus exists,” which is meant to dispel all doubt.
Since I published that article, I haven’t received a single communication attempting to refute Dr. Kaufman’s analysis.
I have received one or two emails stating, “Dr. Kaufman made several mistakes.” No specifics were mentioned. In the world of traditional logical fallacies, that response comes under the heading of “Vague Generalization.” Ninth-grade students used to be able to recognize it.
I’ve seen many articles in which SARS-CoV-2 is claimed to exist and possess various properties—the articles rely on bald statements from doctors or other so-called medical experts. No proof is offered. That logical fallacy would be Appeal to Authority: Because an authority figure says something is true, it must be true.
On this basis, the network evening news tells you all you need to know about reality.
A third fallacy is worth mentioning. We have this implied statement: “Researchers at the Wuhan Institute were weaponizing the virus; therefore, it exists.” That fallacy is called Circular Reasoning: You assume what you’re trying to prove. Many people fall for it.
“NASA scientists are chaining people to Ford trucks, preparing to launch them at faster-than-light speed in outer space; therefore, faster-than-light speed exists.”
What researchers are claiming or trying to do in a lab is not proof that the “thing” they are working with exists. The researchers may BELIEVE it exists, but what they believe doesn’t matter.
You might believe a pink demon with gold teeth from Mars has spread a pandemic across Earth, but even if Fauci agrees with you and has shoveled three million dollars to your lab, you haven’t established the existence of the demon.
A variation on Appeal to Authority and Vague Generalization: For more than a century, researchers have been doing experiments with viruses; therefore, it’s ridiculous to say SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist.
Well, historically, religious groups have claimed their God is the only God. Therefore…nothing.
“Wait. All those virologists couldn’t be lying and collaborating in a vast conspiracy.”
But they could be true believers. They could be pushing distorted science without recognizing their own warped articles of faith.
And with that, here is my article featuring Dr. Kaufman’s analysis of virus-isolation:
Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists.
by Jon Rappoport
April 21, 2021
The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”
But what if the virus doesn’t exist?
People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.
“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. Therefore, it exists.”
I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.
I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [3].
First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.
The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.
They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. THAT’S THEIR KEY “EVIDENCE.” This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.
There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.
Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus” they never isolated. “We didn’t find it, we don’t know anything about it, but we sequenced it.”
Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:
STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”
KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”
STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”
KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”
STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”
KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”
STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”
KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”
KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [4]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”
STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”
STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”
KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”
STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”
—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—
My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word, is not occurring.
Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.
And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists?
Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [5]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?
For the past year, I’ve been offering compelling evidence that: no one has proven SARS-CoV-2 exists. [1]
I’ve explained that the virus was never isolated. In fact, researchers use the word “isolated” to mean its very opposite: “We ASSUME we have the virus surrounded by, and embedded in, a great deal of other material, and we never extract it or purify it.”
No isolation=no discovery of a virus.
I’ve explained that it’s impossible to put together the genetic sequence of a virus that has never been found. Unless, of course, you’re lying.
I’ve published an article in which Dr. Andrew Kaufman [2] took apart, step by step, a typical published study in which the authors described how they isolated SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Kaufman tore this description to pieces and revealed how absurd it is. [3]
When confronted with a mountain of so-called science plus sheer propaganda, most people find it impossible to accept the fact that, at the core of the mountain, there is…
NOTHING.
Absolutely nothing.
“Oh, that couldn’t be. There has to be SOMETHING, and the something must be a virus.”
This is on the order of a child saying, “There has to be a ghost in the closet every night when I go to sleep.”
All that fear, and there is nothing? No, no.
But in the medical universe, there are actually several huge institutions that are based on nothing.
Here is one: PSYCHIATRY.
The official bible of the psychiatric profession, the DSM, lists, describes, and labels some 300 separate and distinct mental disorders.
If you plow through the bible, you will notice that NONE of these mental disorders has a defining laboratory test. No saliva, blood, hair, urine test. No brain scan. No genetic assay. NOTHING.
Yes, people have problems, troubles. People experience suffering and pain. But that is quite, quite different from arbitrarily carving up all that suffering into 300 academic and clinical categories called “mental disorders.”
And on top of the astonishing scientific con, the patients who are diagnosed are given toxic drugs, some of which push them over the edge into committing suicide and murder.
All based on a scientific nothing.
(A warning: Suddenly withdrawing from psychiatric drugs can be very dangerous, even life-threatening. Withdrawal should be done gradually, supervised by a caring professional who knows what he’s doing. See breggin.com.) [4]
In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist? [5], Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.
PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.
BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid.
Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 300 mental disorders. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.
We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.
Here is one more newsflash: The so-called “chemical-imbalance” theory of mental illness is dead.
Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:
“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.” [6]
Boom.
Dead.
However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”
The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.
In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:
“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”
Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.
And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…
…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…
…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?
The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake.
The entire branch of medicine called psychiatry is based on NOTHING.
But again, people find that difficult, if not impossible, to accept. They prefer to believe there must be SOMETHING. That’s what they want to believe. That’s what they’ve been trained to believe.
“Well, you see, every effect has a cause, and that cause is actually the effect of an earlier cause, and you can go back farther and farther in the chain…”
And this idea is somehow the basis for assuming that, if a pandemic is announced, there must be a virus.
“I’ve got to have a virus. I NEED a virus.”
“I fear the virus. I want the virus. I love the virus.”
There are all sorts of variations on the theme.
“The pandemic? There must be something at the core of it. There must be.”
THERE IS NOTHING.
And if someone responds with the familiar battle cry, “Then why are all these people dying?”, I’ve covered that issue from stem to stern in a dozen articles or so. [7]
The entirety of illness and death attributed to the “pandemic” can be explained by multiple factors (not one), and none of those factors involves a virus.
“People dying equals a virus” is about as convincing as “all-cause mortality rising is the result of plane crashes.”
As sure as I’m writing this sentence, someone somewhere will think, “Hmm, plane crashes. I should look into that…”
And he will. He’ll look into planes flying through underground caves, carrying passengers intent on exploring the center of the Earth, where doctors are producing a longevity drug that extends life for 500 years. But the planes are having accidents.
That level of fantasy is on the same bookshelf as “the virus is causing the pandemic.”
The Federal Civil and Commercial court of the City of Buenos Aires rejected the lawsuit filed by the Monsanto/Bayer company in which it claims patent rights regarding seeds.
This is a legal claim filed in early 2016 by Monsanto (a firm absorbed by the Bayer corporation in 2017) against the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), in order to be granted a patent application for what it considers an invention that refers – according to the agribusiness corporation – to a novel artificial DNA sequence that encodes a protein tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate and its use to prevent gene silencing in plants.
The case is part of a triad of legal actions for patent rights over genetically modified seeds focused on the claim of property rights over genetic sequences, initiated and activated by the firms Monsanto and Bayer (now unified in Bayer) as of 2016, following the ruling of Chamber III of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the City of Buenos Aires, which in November 2015 rejected Monsanto’s main lawsuit in which it claimed the patent on a double-stranded recombinant DNA molecule that gives plants tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate and plant cells with the insertion of such molecule (the plant itself).
With the patent claim based on genetic sequences – no longer of a DNA molecule – Bayer/Monsanto consider that they can circumvent the Chamber’s decision under the argument that genetic sequences are artificial constructions made in the laboratory, and therefore, they would be patentable subject matter.
In that decision, the Chamber was forceful, stating that the recombinant DNA molecule, the plant cells transformed by it and the plants generated from the latter, are not included in the protection provided by the patent system, since they do not comply with the provisions of the law. The court considered that any technical contribution made in the field of biotechnology that has an industrial application is not necessarily patentable, since the mere innovation is not comparable to inventiveness, since it is only a modification of matter already existing in nature that does not constitute any human creation, an essential requirement for patenting under the law.
In 2019, the first of the three cases initiated after this adverse decision, the Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 7 dismissed the legal claim – filed on behalf of the Bayer company – which focused on a genetic sequence that provided soybean and corn plants with greater tolerance to the herbicide Glyphosate. The court held that there was no inventive step and rejected Bayer’s claim, who accepted the ruling, leaving it firm at first instance. https://www.facebook.com/naturalezadederechos/photos/a.819769728105416/2664533746962329/
The second case was favorably accepted by the Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 8 of the City of Buenos Aires, in November 2020, and granted Monsanto (now in the hands of Bayer) the patent right on the genetic sequence that gives tolerance to a greater amount of the herbicide glyphosate to soybean crops (“robust tolerance” says the company in the lawsuit), and would also give a higher yield (+7%). According to Monsanto, this is the result of an inventive task that deserves the granting of a patent right (sic). The case is now under review by the Federal Civil and Commercial Court and is being monitored by Naturaleza de Derechos. A ruling is expected during the course of the year. https://www.facebook.com/naturalezadederechos/photos/a.819769728105416/3702121933203500/
In this third case, whose court decision is dated May 13, 2021, Monsanto/Bayer alleged that the developed sequence meets a need in agribusiness, (sic) recognizing that the technology (transgenesis) developed so far to obtain plants with tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate “was exposed to problems” which it then describes as gene silencing and which the company itself has come to solve (sic) with a new procedure which it considers to be the result of an inventive activity that is related to an artificial DNA sequence that allows transgenic plants to obtain “greater tolerance” to the herbicide glyphosate.
The interesting thing about this judicial process is that the company judicially acknowledges that the transgenesis technique has shown unexpected effects such as gene silencing, which contradicts the historical arguments that agribusiness, led by Monsanto, presented regarding the insertion of transgenes as a safe methodology with predictable results.
The sentence considered that the grounds of the INPI that motivated the rejection of the patent application could not be reversed in the judicial process by Monsanto/Bayer. Specifically, the magistrate held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the objections made by the INPI Examiner when conducting the preliminary and substantive examinations during the procedure established in articles 24 and 28 of Law 24.481 had been corrected or that they were unfounded in the light of the national patent regime.
What is important about the court decision is that Judge Dr. Javier Pico Terrero went into depth in his rejection of Monsanto/Bayer’s request, thus closing the historical claim of agribusiness corporations on patent rights on seeds, following the line of argument of the decision of Chamber III of the Federal Civil and Commercial Court.
In this sense, he pointed out that the plaintiff’s claim is based on the idea that any technical contribution he makes in the field of biotechnology and which has an industrial application is patentable, but such an idea is not compatible with our Patent Law because it implies equating inventive activity to mere innovation (Mathély, Paul, Le droit europé en des brevets d’invention, Paris, 1978, Journal des Notaires, pp.120-122, especially p.121).
The magistrate then adds that, on the other hand, Monsanto/Bayer’s argument leads to disregarding the problem of assessing the inventiveness of this type of contribution, in which there is a modification of matter already existing in nature that does not constitute any human creation whatsoever.
Thirdly – he points out – it is important to overlook the fact that the development of biotechnological research tends to be favored by discoveries and improvements that do not reach the level of an invention. In this respect, there is a certain consensus in conceiving technology as a “non-rival public good” that offers innovations of two kinds: radical and incremental (Correa, Carlos, Propiedad intelectual e innovación. La excepción de experimentación, ED t.171-850). The former, also called “major”, are discontinuous events resulting from deliberate research and development efforts. On the other hand, the latter occur more or less continuously in any industrial activity and, more often than not, are the consequence of the gradual improvement of the original product suggested by engineers involved in the production process (Freeman, Christopher, El reto de la innovación, Caracas, 1987, Editorial Galac, pp.78-79, quoted by Correa, C. in the article referred to, p.851; conf. Chamber, III, “Monsanto Technology LLC c/ Instituto Nacional de la Propiedad Industrial s/ denegatoria de patente” Expte.Nº 8.044/07 del 26.11.2015). Incremental innovation is based on the stock of accumulated knowledge and on the routine exploration of existing technologies, which makes it difficult to appreciate the creative aspect that the interested party claims (conf. Cám. Nac. Civ. y Com. Fed. Sala, III, causa “Monsanto Technology LLC c/ Instituto Nacional de la Propiedad Industrial”, aforementioned), as it happens in the present case.
In this way, the magistrate sealed with legal forcefulness his judicial decision, as well as the fate of the company in the first instance. This case has been monitored by Naturaleza de Derechos since mid-2016. That task will continue if the company Bayer/Monsanto decides to appeal the ruling before the Chamber.
Finally, it is worth highlighting the work of the lawyers of INPI, María José Vásquez, Viviana Ines Anzil, Gonzalo Lavalle and Aldo Petrone, who have maintained an impeccable defense against the Bayer/Monsanto corporation’s attempt to insist on the patenting of nature.
During the nineteenth century, medical treatments, such as the smallpox vaccination, were made compulsory under state laws in the US., and in Europe. In the twentieth century, vaccines for diphtheria, measles, mumps, and rubella were managed by governmental entities and were eventually required for public school attendance. Later, school-located vaccination programs became a vehicle for increasing vaccination rates. Once the World Health Organization (WHO) was developed in 1948, compulsory vaccine campaigns went global.
What is never disclosed?
That nothing is compulsory. Nothing is forced. Everything is an offer for your consent, a contract. Do you consent or not? Do you concede or stand your ground? Do you give up your rights or do you reserve your rights?
If you do not reserve your rights, you become a statistic of history instead of forging new ground. History recycles itself with new terms replacing old ones. History lives in the past. History does not evolve.
The History Playbook
When you open the History Playbook, you see a pattern. When you see a pattern repeat, then it is time to begin to question the rhetoric and think for yourself. The Pandemic Playbook, or Plandemic, played the world population during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. The same mask mandates were offered. The same vaccine mandates were offered. How many consented? For the results, see Recycling the Spanish Flu Pandemic.
For two generations afterwards, things returned to “normal.” The flu resumed its rightful place in history as a mild infection that required rest and fluids. The flu was again recognized as a right of passage for the body to create longterm, natural immunity.
In 2013, the Playbook opened again, to morph the flu bug into a deadly boogeyman that required new responsibilities of every citizen. In England, published reports in the Independent declared that getting vaccinated was a civic duty. A campaign was launched to increase adult vaccination rates against seasonal influenza, pneumococcal diseases, whooping cough, shingles, diphtheria and tetanus. Since 2013, intimidation by world health officials has only grown bolder to offer mandates that are accepted by trusting people everywhere.
In March of 2020, a newly discovered flu, dubbed Coronavirus (one word), was the talk of the town. Soon reports of excess deaths, later retracted, from the rogue virus filled the news cycles. Mask mandates were offered. Vaccines were offered.
With little reflection of how history works, hospital workers in the U.S., who have accepted medical mandates over the last decade, have created a pattern that is fast becoming a prescription for all. Want to keep your job? Get the jab. Want to attend a sports event? A yoga class? You know the drill.
It is ironic that government agencies that promote medical treatments fail to acknowledge published medical journal studies showing that these treatments are not only ineffective, but harmful. Based on injury compensation data, the flu vaccine is dubbed as the most dangerous vaccine. In a world where science is king, those who claim to be in charge seem to ignore their own data.
Adjuvants in the flu vaccine have been associated with an increase in antibodies leading to antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), also known as Hughes Syndrome. The alum-antigen in many vaccines is identical to phospholipids, which form the cell membrane in every cell, it can attack any part of the body – the eye, cardiovascular system, brain, nerves, skin, reproductive system – but is becoming known for causing heart attacks and fetal death.(Journal Lupus. June 2012.)
Children who get flu vaccine are at three times the risk for hospitalization for flu! (American Thoracic Society).
The 2010 Cochrane Database Systems Review – a systems review of primary research in human health care and health policy – found “no evidence that flu vaccines affect complications, such as pneumonia, hospitalization transmission of flu between people or death.” Further, claims that the flu vaccine cuts elderly deaths in half were negated: “Due to poor quality data of the available evidence any conclusions regarding the effects of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older cannot be drawn.”
In the aftermath of the 2009/2010 swine flu scare, a 2010 study in the British Medical Journal showed that children in England and throughout the world given the Pandemrix flu vaccine had a 1,400 percent increased risk of developing narcolepsy compared to those not vaccinated.
A 2011 study in the Journal Vaccine, showed inflammatory adverse events, such as preeclampsia and preterm birth, among pregnant women taking the trivalent influenza vaccine.
A 2011 study in the Journal of Internal Medicine revealed flu shots result in inflammatory cardiovascular changes indicative of increased risk for serious heart-related events such as heart attack.
According to a 2012 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in Clin Infect Dis. March 15, 2012, (the first of its kind) conducted in healthy children 6 to 15 years of age, getting a flu shot was found to increase the risk of other respiratory viral infections over four-fold.
According to a 2005 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, “There are not enough influenza-related deaths to support the conclusion that vaccination can reduce total winter mortality among the U.S. elderly population by as much as half.”
In response to mandatory flu vaccines for medical staff, a group of medical professionals published an open 2013 letter in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, questioning whether such mandates are medically warranted and ethically correct. They cited that the flu vaccine: 1) is a “statistical gamble” in targeting actual circulating viruses; 2) shows seventy percent of people are already immune at the time of vaccination, according to FDA studies; and 3) shows no evidence that it affects complications of pneumonia or transmission from person to person, as advertised. No answer ever followed.
Do Not Volunteer for “Mandatory” Treatments
Today, an experimental mRNA COVID injectable treatment is lumped into the category of vaccines, but is not entirely a vaccine. The COVID injectable is not FDA-approved as a vaccine. Moderna refers to its injectable as “an operating system.” Unlike FDA-approved flu vaccine package inserts that disclose trial data and adverse reactions, the COVID injectable package insert is blank.
Today, official mandates do not require scientific scrutiny. Mandates only require people to give up their power.
When people give up their power of discernment to the authority of governments, they can expect tyranny in the form of unenforceable mandates. This is a perfect time to question authority and falsehoods when the risks are unknown and undisclosed.
There are no mandates in a free society, unless you ALLOW them. In other words, you do not have to volunteer for mandates.
When faced with Totalitarian tactics, do you “take your medicine” or walk the other way? Do you fall in line or undo the conditioning? When you see Panic Propaganda in the news cycle, do you turn off the news? Or do you listen to my podcast on The Playbook of Tyranny and How to Close It?
If you do not protect your rights, be prepared to lose them. If enough people say NO, the tide will shift. Remember, there is always a choice. So choose wisely.
When people realize they are born healers with defense systems called immune systems, there will be no reliance on chemical-laden injections that offer artificial immunity with no guarantees. Even though you will not be told you have a choice, you always retain your rights to choose. You can still choose to protect your innate immunity using organic, nutrient-rich foods, herbal medicines, naturopathy, homeopathy, and many natural modalities.
Remember, colds and flus are part of a natural immune response by your body to strengthen itself. Rest and a return to Nature are the best remedies. Dis-ease need not be feared when it offers the body a chance to remember how to realign itself back to a sense of Ease.
Returning to the time before the Playbook is as simple as remembering who you are and your power to choose. Why fear the body’s natural ability to heal itself when evidence shows there is more to fear from the injectable?
On the verge of more draconian government mandates, the question that you must ask yourself is, Do you want to be a statistic of history and remain stagnant, or do you want to evolve?
Legislators, students, community representatives and others will speak on the topic of informed consent at a health freedom rally at Rutgers University this Friday, May 21 at 11 a.m. ET, in protest of the university’s COVID vaccine mandate.
Kennedy informed Holloway that COVID vaccines, which are EUA products and therefore by definition experimental, cannot cannot be mandated. Under federal law, individuals have the right to accept or refuse EUA products. “Under the Nuremberg Code, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is absolutely essential,” Kennedy wrote
The college and university mandates have sparked a new wave of voices in the health freedom movement, as many college students are speaking out against mandating an experimental vaccine for a virus that has a 99.74% survival rate.
As reports to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of injuries and deaths following COVID vaccines continue to increase, many students say they are concerned about the long-term safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and want more time to see the long-term impacts of the vaccine before rushing to get it.
Yet the social pressure to get the vaccine, and the potential consequences for not getting it, are creating stress for many students.
Sara Razi, Rutgers student and New Jersey chair of the Rutgers chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, told me she was “extremely disappointed that the Rutgers bureaucracy mandated this vaccine despite previously announcing that they wouldn’t.” She is still undecided about getting the COVID vaccine and feels pressured to make a decision.
Razi, who described herself as “not anti-vax but definitely anti-mandate,” said she doesn’t want to be forced to waste another year of her life doing school via a laptop.
Frustrated and uncertain how a “public university can get away with this,” Razi said, “The Rutgers bureaucracy has taken away students’ ability to make the personal decision on whether or not they want to take this vaccine.”
Brandi Clark, student at Fairleigh Dickinson University, said she was “shocked” when she received the notification that her school will require the vaccine. After extensive research, Clark decided she won’t get the vaccine, so she submitted a religious exemption which is currently under review.
Through her research, Clark discovered there are two ingredients in the vaccines that were in a medication that previously caused her to experience an allergic reaction, which she has documented in her medical file. Knowing that anaphylaxis is a side effect of the COVID vaccine, Clark shared her concerns with her physician, who refused to provide a medical exemption because Clark’s previous reaction was not considered “life threatening enough.”
Clark, who is passionate about health freedom and stood with the freedom fighters in Connecticut as the bill to remove religious exemption passed, said she knows New Jersey is battling to retain its medical and religious freedom.
Clark is waiting to see if Fairleigh Dickinson University accepts her religious exemption.
“I didn’t come this far and accrue all this debt only to be told I either can’t continue or I can continue but I have to get this experimental drug,” Clark said. She said she is willing to sacrifice her education and “find a school that doesn’t require this.”
Both Razi and Clark, who represent the next generation of the growing health freedom movement, have been actively engaged in working with local New Jersey advocacy groups to organize at Rutgers University. They co-hosted a call with First Freedoms’ Kevin Barry and me to connect parents and students who are against COVID vaccine mandates.
Mary Holland, president and general counsel of CHD, said her advice to parents and students is to “organize, organize, organize.”
Holland said:
“If the majority of students will not return with a vaccine mandate or passport in place, the school will go under. The students and the parents have the power to turn this around.”
Holland said CHD’s view is that EUA vaccine mandates are clearly unlawful. She cited the legal precedent set by the courts when the U.S. Department of Defense tried to compel soldiers to take the EUA anthrax vaccine. A federal court decided federal law did not permit EUA vaccine mandates, and said soldiers could not be used as guinea pigs.
While the vaccines are EUA there is no legal question, Holland said, but once they have been approved, licensed and recommended by the CDC, the situation could change. “But we still believe COVID vaccines will not meet the threshold under U.S. Constitutional law for a vaccine mandate,” Holland said.
If you are a parent or a student against vaccine mandates here are some action steps:
Connect with local legislators. Ask them to sponsor and support bills that support freedom and prohibit vaccine mandates and discrimination. New Jersey residents can reach out to your local elected officials to request their support of A5610/S3674 and A9999/S5607. A5610/S3674 prohibits the state from requiring private businesses to confirm individuals received COVID-19 vaccine for entry. A9999/S5607 prohibits discrimination against individuals who have not received COVID vaccines.
Be the change. Show up to stand against mandates. Rally on Friday, May 21 at 11 a.m. ET at Rutgers New Brunswick Campus, Brower Plaza, 145 College Avenue. Details here.
Print out CHD’s legal notices. Inform your school that mandating EUA products violates federal law.
Vote with your wallet. Boycott the universities and businesses mandating the COVID vaccine. Support only those that support individual choice.
Verifying that it is in the Moderna COVID vaccine, I find a 12/30/20 CDC document titled: “COVID-19 Vaccines: Update on Allergic Reactions, Contraindications, and Precautions.” [1]
If you scroll down halfway through the document, you’ll see a chart titled, “Ingredients Included in mRNA COVID vaccines.” (pg 20)
The right-hand side of the chart shows ingredients in the Moderna vaccine. The fifth ingredient down is “SM-102: heptadecan-9-yl 8-((2-hydroxyethyl) (6-oxo-6-(undecyloxy) hexyl) amino) octanoate.”
Now we go to a document published by the Cayman Chemical Company of Ann Arbor, Michigan: “Safety Data Sheet acc. to OSHA HCS.” (04/11/2021) [2]
This data sheet lists the effects of SM-102. Here is the opening note: “For research use only, not for human or veterinary use.”
Far from comforting.
Then the safety data sheet lights up with adverse effects/warnings re SM-102. For example: “Suspected of causing cancer. Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. Causes damage to the central nervous system, the kidneys, the liver and the respiratory system through prolonged or repeated exposure. Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects.”
Several things to point out here. First, what dosage level of, and what duration of exposure to, SM-102 are we talking about? Details on these toxicity factors need to be known. HOWEVER, all that is overridden by the fact that SM-102 is being INJECTED into the body via the Moderna shot. We’re not just talking about inhalation or skin contact.
Obviously, the human body has layers of defense against attack. With injection, a number of those layers are bypassed.
And once deep within the body, where does SM-102 travel as it causes damage along the way?
I doubt that the Cayman safety data sheet even considered the possibility that SM-102 would be injected.
The experts and authorities will assure us SM-102 is safe. They’ll say only miniscule amounts are being injected. They’ll say the clinical trials of the vaccine revealed no problems. They’ll parrot, over and over again, as they always do: “safe and effective.”
You’re walking along a country path. You see a snake lying just ahead of you. He slowly raises his head and looks at you. On his hood, you read the words: “emergency use authorization granted.”
On May 18, 2021, with COVID-19 vaccines for children aged 12–15 expected to gain approval from the European Medical Regulator, notices of liability for vacccine-related harms and deaths to children were served on all Members of the European Parliament. The full list of recipients can be viewed here.
All Members of the European Parliament received the following notice:
NOTICE OF LIABILITY
<<Name>>
May 18, 2021
This Notice of Liability has been SERVED to you personally.
You may be held personally liable for harm and death caused by LEGISLATION, which is designed to coerce widespread acceptance of EXPERIMENTAL VACCINATION OF CHILDREN. If you take further action supporting such LEGISLATION, and if you take no steps to mitigate your past actions supporting such LEGISLATION, you may be held personally liable for resulting harm and death.
Severe illness and death in children and young adults caused by SARS-CoV-2 is extremely rare. It is absurd to claim that any measure can or will protect against a danger that does not exist. The claims that these experimental vaccinations induce production of protective antibodies are fundamentally flawed. Antibodies in the blood cannot prevent entry of air-borne viruses into cells of the lower respiratory tract. Secretory IgA antibodies are also known to be unable to efficiently prevent viral pneumonia. Severe adverse effects occur at high frequency following application of all gene-based agents. Children have already joined the tragic list of victims.
Attached as appendices and as integral parts of this Notice of Liability are the documents: Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency Regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns; Reply from the European Medicines Agency to Doctors for Covid Ethics; Doctors and Scientists Accuse Medical Regulator of Downplaying COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers; Rebuttal Letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics; Doctors for Covid Ethics Signatories; COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety.
Furthermore, you may be held personally responsible for supporting CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, defined as acts that are purposely committed as part of a widespread or systematic policy, directed against civilians, committed in furtherance of state policy.
Please respond to this NOTICE OF LIABILITY within 14 days from the DATE OF SERVICE to:
DOCTORS FOR COVID ETHICS Doctors4CovidEthics@protonmail.com
For much of the past month national media has been replete with headlines decrying “vaccine hesitancy” as coronavirus infection rates continue on the decline. Amid dire “warnings” this may “hinder” herd immunity goals, local and federal health agencies are busy pouring vast resources into vaccine-promoting ad campaigns. “The United States has a surplus of coronavirus vaccine doses on its hands, and long gone are the days when people waited hours to get jabbed. Dwindling demand has forced governors and mayors to get creative,” The Washington Post observed this week.
But one initiative in Dallas County in Texas is going far beyond anything we’ve seen thus far, and as many on social media have observed, it is downright creepy and bizarre in its brazenly coercive optics. Texas has long been fully opened and bars and restaurants are now packed, but vaccine sites are not, apparently. So naturally Dallas County Health and Human Services (DCHHS) thought it would be a good idea to go to the bars with the vaccines… along with uniformed US Army National Guard soldiers.
On a busy Friday night in a Dallas neighborhood widely dubbed the “live music capital of North Texas” US military personnel entered popular venues, including random convenience stores (as seen in the video), to coerce coax unvaccinated individuals to get the jab on the spot.
“So right now we are going to give a COVID vaccine to someone inside a 7-Eleven – this is what community service looks like and getting the community vaccinated,” a video narrator states.
The Dallas County HHS featured its efforts in a short social media clip showing a couple of US Army solders in full camouflage fatigues flanking a top Dallas health official.
“We’re going out tonight too administering the COVID-19 to bar goers in Deep Ellum,”the Twitter post said.
“By getting vaccinated you’ll be able to enjoy going out again knowing that you’re safe & protected” – except of course the people in the popular nightlife area this past weekend were already clearly quite comfortable “going out again” to have a good time. A local CBS-DFW news clip said of the new Dallas HHS-National Guard campaign that Dallas County is hoping to attract the “younger crowd”.
Not only were multiple uniformed federal troops manning a “pop-up” vaccine table on a Deep Ellum street, but they were filmed going into the venues to confront encounter people.
The local CBS affiliate emphasized the campaign “targets” young people (as the above local news coverage of the initiative spells out exactly).
“Specifically where the younger people are,” as “this week the FDA announced it’s expanding emergency use authorization for Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for those 12 and up,” CBS said. And one top Dallas health official told the broadcaster: “That’s why we are here” …as uniformed soldiers stood behind him.
One 7-11 clerk who agreed to receive the shot was asked by the troops: “How do you feel that you got the vaccine right here, at work, by US soldiers?”
They was walking around Deep Ellum last night randomly trying to vaccinate people and bar goers who haven’t been vaccinated yet in dallas pic.twitter.com/AQ3dH44Lbj
The man then extolls the benefits of being a US citizen – which given the weird optics of the whole encounter between the jab-proffering Army personnel and an apparently somewhat recent immigrant to the US, brings up some serious questions…
For starters, when a “vaccine crew” of literal uniformed soldiers randomly walks up to citizens saying they “need to get vaxxed”… do the individuals understand it’s entirely an option and not an authoritative mandate? And would (in the example of the video) a recent immigrant to the country or even new American citizen understand the nature of the encounter?
But of course this appears to be the entire point…
“Since Feb. 24, it [Dallas] has served as one of several federal vaccination sites run by the U.S. military and Federal Emergency Management Agency aimed at increasing immunity in underserved and highly vulnerable communities,” The Dallas Morning News wrote previously.
With vaccine hesitancy on the rise, and with President Biden’s new bizarre announcement that “Those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price” – is the new “creative” strategy all about putting “muscle” in terms of serious federal authority in the room (or on busy nightlife venue streets) for added pressure?
Under federal law, employers and universities cannot legally mandate COVID vaccines because they are unlicensed Emergency Use Authorization products which are, by definition, experimental.
With more than 100 U.S. colleges mandating COVID vaccines for in-person attendance and schools enforcing mask mandates, it’s critical people understand their rights.
All COVID vaccines, COVID PCR and antigen tests, and masks are merely EUA-authorized, not approved or licensed, by the federal government. Long-term safety and efficacy have not been proven.
EUA products are by definition experimental, which requires people be given the right to refuse them. Under the Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.”
Earlier this year, Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense president and general counsel, and attorney Greg Glaser stated that federal law prohibits employers from mandating EUA COVID vaccines (or EUA COVID-19 tests or masks).
Holland and Glaser wrote:
“If a vaccine has been issued EUA by the FDA, it is not fully licensed and must be voluntary. A private party, such as an employer, school or hospital cannot circumvent the EUA law, which prohibits mandates. Indeed, the EUA law preventing mandates is so explicit that there is only one precedent case regarding an attempt to mandate an EUA vaccine.”
What to do if your school or employer says you must get the COVID vaccine
The Children’s Health Defense legal team has written three legal notifications that anyone faced with a COVID vaccine, COVID test or mask mandate can use to inform employers and universities that they are violating federal law. You can download the three notifications here.
Individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
Any entity or organization that requires EUA COVID-19 vaccinations, COVID-19 tests or masks are in violation of federal law, and will likely face lawsuits if they don’t allow exemptions or alternatives.”
Submitting the notices prepared by Children’s Health Defense is the first step prior to seeking an exemption or taking legal action.
It’s critical to stand against mandates and preserve legally protected, fundamental human rights on issues related to health freedom. Don’t fall prey to coercion and pressure, use the resources available to protect your legal rights.
Dr. Tom Cowan & Dr. Andrew Kaufman: “Show Me the Virus” — Answering Questions About Variants, Wuhan Lab Creations, Vaccines, & What Really Makes Us Sick
Dr. Tom Cowan is an innovative Health Coach who gave up his California medical license after becoming disenchanted with his former profession’s small-mindedness and harmful disinformation. He has served as vice president of the Physicians Association for Anthroposophical Medicine and is a founding board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation. He is the author of “Human Heart, Cosmic Heart”, “Cancer and the New Biology of Water”, and co-author of “Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness”.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman is a New York psychiatrist and a prominent voice in exposing the Covid-19 hoax. He has received thousands of views on online video-sharing platforms for exposing the “global agenda” and the “manufactured crisis” of the Great Reset. The American public knew virtually nothing about “exosomes” and extracellular vesicles until Dr. Kaufman gained an ever-growing audience of truth-seekers.
Patrick interviews Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman, two medical doctors well-versed in terrain theory. Both have been interviewed on One Radio Network on separate occasions. (Use the “Search” function to listen to them.)
Has every policy enacted the past year been based on germ theory, i.e., germs invade us and spread from one person to another?
What part did Nobel laureate John Enders play in the dissemination of “modern germ theory?” How was his virology research flawed? What was the outcome of his controlled experiment “mixing snot with measles”?
Is there any evidence or research to support the theory that viruses cause illness?
What do poisoning, toxicity, EMF, malnutrition, trauma, and stress have to do with illness? Why invent virus theory to explain something easily explainable by these concrete and provable factors?
Dr. Ray Peat believes a virus doesn’t have to be isolated to prove it exists. Isn’t this just a judgement call? What’s the flaw in this reasoning?
What is Dr. Cowan’s “ping pong ball hitting the wall” analogy, and how does it pertain to viral theory over-simplification?
Why is it impossible to isolate a virus? Is it a thing, a feeling, or a thought?
How do they explain women menstruating when they’re all together at the same time? Is menstruation spread by a virus?
Is laughter “contagious” because of a virus? “Show me the virus!”
Exosomes can be isolated. Why not viruses?
How is it possible that people in the same household all get the flu? Patrick says he often gets e-mails with this question.
Are flu and cold symptoms just the body’s way of getting rid of toxins?
Rose asks about Antoine Béchamp’s theory of microzymas. Are they living organisms?
Can microzymas be observed with dark-field microscopes? What did Dr. Royal Rife observe with his time-lapse microscope? Was he observing dead or live tissue?
What helps the body heal from symptomatic forms of illnesses? Is clean water involved?
Patrick describes how his mother wrapped him up in blankets whenever he had a fever, and the next day he was off to school.
People used sweat lodges and saunas to get well until the radical theory of modern medicine took over with vaccines.
Michelle asks about measles. Is it a maturation process all children go through?
Do bacteria purify people? What is their role in health and disease?
Do people with cholera die of the bacterium or of dehydration?
Do we share bacteria? How do we explain diarrhea and food poisoning? How do we explain rabies virus?
“Show us the isolated rabies virus,” challenge both doctors. A primary isolate is required for proof of existence.
George asks about pneumonia treated with antibiotics.
Why is pneumonia a pathway to death? Does an antibiotic only suppress the symptoms but not the outcome?
What about leprosy? Can a “pure heart” keep you from getting sick?
Patrick asks a question about root canals. What is Dr. Stuart Nunnally finding in them?
Casey asks, “Is coronavirus being found in autopsies?
Can a virus be injected to make people sick?
Can robot mosquitoes spray a virus on people that can make them sick?
How does our stomach acid help us eliminate toxins?
Do vaccines contain aluminum? Can we excrete aluminum from our body?
Do vaccines cause dementia and autism?
Patrick and Drs. Cowan and Kaufman discuss Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, Are his statements valid or is he “a master at playing chess”?
Is there a California variant of COVID-19?
How many other virus deniers are there? Is the number growing? Are people “waking up?”
Patrick recommends sharing the video of this interview with friends and relatives who are afraid of COVID and so-called “infectious diseases.”
