Recently, a landmark study was conducted by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas. The study compared vaccinated children and unvaccinated children and was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on November 22, 2020 after being peer reviewed.
Dr. Weiler, a research scientist and co-author of the study, was recently interviewed by Activist Post Contributor Spiro Skouras. In the interview, Weiler breaks down the data from the study which indicates children who were vaccinated showed a higher rate of medical office visits and experienced an elevated rate of medical symptoms ranging from Asthma and behavioral issues, to ADHD and Anemia.
In this report, Spiro interviews Dr. Paul Thomas, a prominent pediatrician in Portland, Oregon who also co-authored the study and used 10+ years of data from his medical practice to conduct the study.
Shortly after the vaccinated versus unvaccinated study was published, five days in fact, the Oregon State Medical Board held an emergency meeting declaring that Dr. Paul was an immediate threat to his patients and the public and suspended his medical license.
In this must-see interview, Dr. Paul addresses the accusations leveled against himself and his practice, in addition to breaking down in detail the study’s findings. Dr. Paul also weighs in on the CDC recommended vaccine schedule and the experimental Covid vaccine.
In this three-part series we will exam the transformation from COVID lockdowns to climate lockdowns. In Part I we will establish a timeline of the dark side of the environmental movement. In Part II we’ll be looking into the specifics of what a climate lockdown really means and what impact current lockdown measures have had on the environment. In Part III we will see how it fits into the bigger picture of sustainable development as described by international organizations such as the United Nations and what can be done to derail this agenda.
While much of the world remains held hostage by their governments there are impending signs of both hope and doom for the future. Across the United States the courts are overturning emergency orders enacted by governors, in Europe crowds continue to gather in huge numbers in protest of lockdown measures, while others reopen with “pre-covid” standards. Simultaneously, shocking levels of cruelty on behalf of the government continue to pour out of Melbourne and in parts of Quebec all forms of private social gatherings are now forbidden.
These terrifying trends are now being coupled with calls for what are being dubbed “climate lockdowns” to avert further destruction. In her article, professor Mariana Mazzucato calls for a total and radical overhaul of society molded by the hands of the government because of climate change. We’ll address the science she uses to justify these measures later. Nowhere does the article mention that the professor receives funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and the Open Society Institutes or explain how that may have swayed her conclusions.
This comes as more and more data disrupts the narrative that COVID-19 requires pandemic status. Since March we’ve learned that PCR tests are unreliable, that the science behind masks is doubtful at best, that the virus still hasn’t been isolated, and that places that didn’t lockdown (Sweden, South Dakota, Nicaragua, etc) are faring just fine. The rise in protests and condemnations of lockdown policies makes complete sense in this context but a more alarming question still remains: why are so many governments stubbornly refusing to end lockdowns or even doubling down on these policies?
Perhaps it is because these measure were never about protecting the public’s health. The narrative of COVID-19 as a tool of control is very well-documented at this point but with climate lockdowns emerging as part of the story it’s worth focusing in on the environmental movement and seeing what tools of control have been deployed here as well. The idea that humans should be good stewards of the planet is not being questioned but the origins and evolution of environmentalism, and some of the key players involved, require close scrutiny as there is a dark side of this movement that can’t be ignored.
The Apocalyptic Origins of Environmentalism
Modern environmentalism can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s as scientific communities, grassroots organizations, NGOs, think tanks, and eventually governments became more engrossed in man’s relationship with the planet. On the plus side there was more attention placed on cherishing the natural world, respecting animal life, and reversing environmental degradation but there also emerged an apocalyptical view of the future where mankind would destroy the planet.
In 1968 Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb was released and warned of the impending death of hundred of millions in the coming decades due to resource depletion and food shortages brought on by overpopulation. This was his take on mankind’s growth:
A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people….We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.
Some of these decisions included eugenics-based solutions like forced sterilization and gene-editing. Though the theories in this book are now largely discredited it went on to become a best-seller and planted eugenics-based solutions in the public consciousness.
That same year the Club of Rome was founded. A group of industrialists, politicians, scientists, and academics met in Italy with dreams of ushering in a new global order. In 1972 they further popularized theories of a human-driven ecological collapse in The Limits of Growth which has been translated into dozens of languages and sold tens of millions of copies worldwide. The book echoed Ehrlich’s vision of a world of depleted resources, environmental destruction, and rampant food shortages in and around 2020 due to overpopulation. Their proposed solution was to have an elite group direct society through a “controlled, orderly transition” into a new vision of the world by means of population control.
Subsequent publications would expand on the organization’s dismal view of humanity’s potential and echo Ehrlich’s mankind-as-cancer metaphor. In 1975’s Mankind at the Turning Point they open their work with a lovely epigraph from a Rockefeller-funded scientist named Alan Gregg who believes, “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
Almost two decades later in 1991 The Club of Rome published another report, The First Global Revolution which proposed a plan for navigating the 21st century. The authors believed that humanity was on the verge of global societal change largely brought on by anthropogenic climate change and that current forms of government were not suited to find resolutions. Instead they proposed that a global system of interlocking non-governmental institutions above the nation state level be created. In order to convince the public that surrendering much of their sovereignty was worth it they needed to create a common enemy to work in unison against. This is what they came up:
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
It’s easy to dismiss these passages as the reflections from a small group of people from a different time. However, this isn’t just a fringe activist group; the men and women of The Club of Rome have shaped the 20th and 21st centuries. Members have included David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Maurice Strong, Kofi Annan, Anne Ehrlich, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and Mikhail Gorbachev among others. The influence these members carry extends into the United Nations, halls of government around the world, major philanthropic organizations and environmentalist NGOs, prestigious universities, and other prominent think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.
There is truth in this line of thinking. Time and time again governments have failed to do what is right in the name of the environment but this is the result of corruption, collusion, and incompetence which does not necessitate even more centralization and unaccountability from a supranational bureaucracy. The names and institutions mentioned above are the same ones supporting the tyrannical handling the current so-called pandemic, when they begin issuing demands for climate lockdowns will we really believe it’s because they have a strong desire to save the planet?
Environmentalism As Religion
In the last 40 years environmentalism has taken on many elements of a religion. Fewer and fewer people identify as traditionally religious in the western world but there is speculation that the human brain is hardwired for faith so it follows that in the absence of conventional religious devotion the mind would grasp for something else to believe in. This is of course not true of everyone who wants the earth to be habitable for future generations but for many devotees the parallels are uncanny.
An environmental priest class has emerged whereby climate edicts from Greta Thunberg, Bill Nye, and Prince Charles mean as much to the environmentalist as religious edicts from imams do to Muslims. Religious imagery from the Book of Genesis like the Garden of Eden are evoked by climate activists when they envision a paradisiacal future where humanity acts in harmony with the planet once again. Should we fail to live up to this destiny divine retribution will come for modern man like it came for the sinners in Sodom and Gomorrah. The findings in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are used in green sermons, much like passages in the Bible, Koran, or Torah are in houses of worship. Holy sites like Jerusalem and Mecca are for religious pilgrims what Antarctica and Glacier National Park are for the environmentalists claiming they wish to see climate change in action.
When it comes to religion we already know what happens when dogmatic thinking goes too far. The religious wars and inquisitions of history are looked back upon as blights on the story of humanity’s progress through the ages. The environmental movement is relatively new but, as has already been seen in extreme cases, it can be hijacked by orthodoxy and blinded by apocalyptic visions. It is this sort of emotional thinking that allows for proponents of climate lockdowns to propose an inhumane agenda of extreme isolation, economic destruction, and centralization of power.
We’ve Reached The Tipping Point
Climate change goes by many names. In the past it was global cooling and then global warming before it became climate change. Ad executives are working on rebranding the phenomenon and it may soon be known as The Great Collapse or Climate Collapse. It turns out almost all observable natural phenomenon can be attributed to climate change as well. Droughts, floods, hotter temperatures, cooler temperatures, the extinction of one species, the abundance of another, hurricanes, earthquakes, and fires have all been cited as the result of climate change. Weirdly the sun’s impact on the climate is often left out in favor of blaming man.
The convenience of all of this does much to remove the veneer of global warming climate change being an infallible scientific doctrine, free from the subjectivity of man’s own desires. It’s what makes it possible for Mariana Mazzucato to casually drop “Shifting Arctic ice, raging wildfires in western US states and elsewhere, and methane leaks in the North Sea” as proof we have arrived at the “tipping point” on climate change without any citation or context. Depending on who you ask we have seen many so-called tipping points come and go for decades now so they need to be taken with a grain of salt, as do the uncited claims she makes.
First let’s head north into the Arctic. When she says that the ice is shifting she presumably means that the climate itself is shifting which is resulting in less ice. Yes, ice in parts of the Arctic have been on a downward trend (noted in the link above) over the past couple of decades but this trend is only correct if you stop looking at data from before 1979. There is no context given by Mazzucato here and when we find for example that the Greenland Ice Sheet is between 5,000 and 10,000 feet thick and the melt has only been 10 feet in the past 30 years we have to be careful of jumping to conclusions that this constitutes whatever a tipping point is.
The wildfires in the western U.S. and Australia are unpleasant to watch and tragic for those who live in those parts of the world. But, it’s worth stressing wildfires in these areas are absolutely natural phenomenon that have been going on long before the advent of climate change. It’s true that man has played a role in these situations but this has more to do with mismanagement than anthropogenic climate change. In Australia government policies have done much to prevent prescribed burns and other wildfire management techniques from happening which bona fied scientific researcher Jo Nova sees as the catalyst for the disaster of 2020. In the United States, California’s mismanagement of their forests is equally at fault while in Oregon arson is suspected as the cause of several fires.
In August, Greenpeace released a report on two methane leaks found off the coast of England, the result of Exxon Mobil and Sweden’s Stena Drilling Company drilling for oil in 1990. While this isn’t good news Greenpeace’s own report explains that, “The leaking borehole has been returned by Exxon Mobil to the British state who in 2000 determined that further monitoring was not required, believing that the reservoir would soon be depleted. But 30 years later the greenhouse gas keeps escaping into the atmosphere.” Their own findings show that government incompetence, and potentially collusion with Exxon, allowed this problem to continue on unabated for three decades and yet, Mazzucato believes this justifies climate lockdowns for all of humanity as retribution.
Once again, the attempt here is not to throw the baby out with the bath water and denounce the environmentalist movement outright. Absolutely nobody denies that the climate changes and yes, the world is absolutely impacted by human presence and sometimes quite negatively. The way forward should be with open science, transparent dialogue, and accountability at all levels of society because otherwise it will be left to the elite to call the shots for the rest of mankind and we know that doesn’t usually go in mankind’s favor. Do we really trust that people like Mariana Mazzucato and her ilk at places like the Rockefeller Foundation, the same people calling mankind the enemy of the planet, have what’s best for humankind in mind when they call for climate lockdowns?
Climate Lockdowns and A Brave New World
In Part II we will take a closer look at Mazzucato’s proposals for climate lockdowns and see what impact the current lockdowns have had on the environment. Is locking down society as simple as confining people to their homes while the planet takes a break or is there something more to this call for tyranny?
The United States has passed a $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill to support industries and workers affected by the ongoing pandemic, of which hundreds of millions of dollars have been granted to Israel and its defence.
In the bill passed by US Congress yesterday – part of an overall $2.3 trillion package – the act under the heading of “Procurement, Defense-Wide” detailed a total of $500 million for the “Israeli Cooperative Programs”.
Of that amount, “$73,000,000 shall be for the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Government of Israel for the procurement of the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-range rocket threats.”
In addition to that, a further “$177,000,000 shall be for the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) program, including cruise missile defense research and development under the SRBMD program, of which $50,000,000 shall be for co-production activities of SRBMD systems in the United States and in Israel to meet Israel’s defense requirements consistent with each nation’s laws, regulations, and procedures.”
Meanwhile, the rest of the relief package deals with matters such as tax breaks, the selection of the next Dalai Lama, and providing businesses and the unemployed with benefits to ease their ordeal during the coronavirus pandemic.
In the announcement of the agreement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that the bill is “another major rescue package for the American people,” referring to the first relief package made in March this year. He promised that the 5,593-page-long bill “is packed with targeted policies to help struggling Americans who have already waited too long.”
Even those policies which help the citizens and unemployed are severely limited, however, with the agreed $300 per week bonus jobless benefit reportedly being half of the federal unemployment benefit given in the previous package. That payment runs for 11 weeks in comparison to the 16 in the last package. To add to that, the direct stimulus payment of $600 to many people is also half of that given in March.
The disparity in relief payments leads to questions relating to the prioritisation of the US defence industry, its affiliated companies, and the Pentagon – which reportedly received $696 billion in the package – as well as the defence industry of a foreign nation such as Israel.
Congress’ justification for the limit in spending on the unemployed and businesses is that billions were allegedly also needed for other essential resources and unfinished business such as water provision and flood control in the country. The defence companies and military sectors which are provided money in the bill were also said to be heavily hit by the pandemic.
The US congress just passed their Covid stimulus bill, or the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021” to give its official title. So what’s actually inside it? What has just been passed into law?
The answers to that is “nobody really knows”, least of all the members of congress, who passed the law without reading it, as they so often do. It’s the longest bill in US history, at over 5500 pages and it sailed through the voting mostly sight unseen.
We’ve downloaded a copy of the full document and will embed it for those of you patient or masochistic enough to tackle the whole thing. We’ve read some already, and will point out the highlights:
“Foreign aid” is a big winner. Egypt is getting $1.3 billion, Sudan, Israel and Ukraine get over 500 million each, and many other countries around the world sizeable contributions, much of which will be spent on “defense”. Which is to say sent straight back to America via massive arms purchases.
Not all the money being sent overseas is for buying weapons, some is for backing coups. Venezuela and Belarus get special mention here, each getting their own section of the bill detailing how terrible their “illegal regimes” are. There’s also a large section on “combating Chinese influence”.
For some reason there’s another section on copyright law, which makes illegal streaming copyrighted content a federal crime, punishable by up to three years in prison.
Nearly 300 million is put aside to develop influenza vaccines and prevent a future influenza pandemic.
4 BILLION dollars for the Gates-funded GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.
Vaccine “misinformation” is also a concern, and the bill provides for a pro-vaccine propaganda campaign – or rather a “PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN ON THE IMPORTANCE OF VACCINATIONS”
So – huge amounts of foreign aid, support for various coups, totally irrelevant copyright laws, provisions for pro-vaccine propaganda campaigns… it’s not your typical “stimulus bill” so far, is it?
Vanadium is expensive, though the price fluctuates wildly – currently $11K to $15K / tonne of Vanadium Pentoxide. But advocates claim Vanadium flow batteries have the potential to solve the intermittency of renewable energy.
StorEn Tech Provides First Of Its Kind Vanadium Flow Battery To Australia
December 19th, 2020
Australia has taken another step toward greater use of battery energy storage thanks to a new 30 kWh StorEn vanadium flow battery that was installed for use in a renewable hydrogen plant at Queensland University of Technology (QUT).
The battery, which was provided through a partnership between StorEn Technologies Inc.* and Multicom Resources Limited, will allow researchers in Australia to develop safety standards for the future use of vanadium flow batteries as well as helping to bring the technology to Australia.
The many features of vanadium flow batteries could make them ideal for grid-scale energy storage, which is something that Australia is looking to expand in the coming years. […]
Peter Talbot, a professor at QUT, said about the new battery — “vanadium flow battery technology promises safe, affordable and long-lasting energy storage for both households and industry.” […]
Vanadium has an energy density of 15-25Wh / L, so to provide backup for a 1GW renewable plant for a day, you would need:
24 x 1GW = 24GWh of storage, or 24,000,000,000 Wh / 25 Wh / L = 960 million litres of Vanadium electrolyte – say a couple of billion dollars worth.
An expensive battery, but not an unimaginable expense.
Of course a single day of backup capacity is not nearly enough. Wind droughts can last weeks or even months. So if your goal is to match the reliability of fossil fuel generators, you are going to need a lot more than a couple of billion dollars worth of electrolyte.
You might find that the electrolyte gets a lot more expensive over the course of negotiating your battery purchase agreement. The global Vanadium market is small, around 80,000 tons per year. So an attempt to purchase several hundred thousand tons of Vanadium to build a 1GW battery would have a substantial impact on global prices.
Assuming you somehow obtain enough Vanadium for your battery, your Vanadium Flow battery electrolyte cannot be allowed to overheat or freeze. So your new battery complex will need substantial air-conditioning, which will eat into its storage efficiency.
Vanadium has other important industrial uses. Vanadium is used as a steel additive to produce high strength structural steel, and is also an important component of military grade steel alloys, and critical steel components subject to high stress, such as automobile crank shafts. China is a substantial buyer in the global Vanadium market.
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been an FDA approved drug for over 65 years. It has been on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines since the list began in 1977. People have been safely treated with HCQ billions of times for malaria, lupus, HIV and rheumatoid arthritis. HCQ exerts both anti-inflammatory and antiviral effects.
Nevertheless, the FDA has caused many states to ban the use of HCQ to treat COVID-19 and made it very difficult to obtain a prescription elsewhere in the U.S. by foisting studies that greatly exaggerate a potential heart rhythm problem. In contrast, the CDC website says this about HCQ:
“With frequent dosing, rarely reported adverse events include cardiac arrhythmias in those with liver or kidney dysfunction … CDC has no limits on the use of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of malaria … It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers … and children of all ages.”
On Nov. 19, Dr. George Fareed from California testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee about successfully treating over 1000 COVID patients with HCQ. On Dec. 10, Fareed responded as follows to follow-up questions from Senator Josh Hawley:
“The earlier the treatment can be started after the start of the infection, the better … Sadly, many infected people and primary care doctors and doctors in ERs follow the NIH and Dr. Fauci stipulations with no effective treatments offered. We need to have the NIH/FDA/CDC formally acknowledge the importance of early treatment with moderately acting, safe anti-virals [like HCQ] so readily available. When (if ever) that happens, everything would improve dramatically.”
At c19study.com is an up-to-date list of the countries successfully treating COVID with HCQ, mostly in combination with zinc and an anti-biotic (azithromycin or doxycycline): India, South Korea, Indonesia, China, Greece, Russia, U.A.E., Turkey and countries throughout Africa, South America and Central America.
Suppression of HCQ is a central factor in why the U.S. has among the very worst rates of illness and death from COVID-19.
For example, BBC News published an article titled “How Turkey took control of Covid-19 emergency”: “Chief doctor Nurettin Yiyit says it’s key to use hydroxychloroquine early. ‘We have no hesitation about this drug. We believe it’s effective because we get the results.’”
A study in India, where HCQ is being widely used as a prophylaxis (preventative medication), concluded that:
“The pivotal finding of our study was the noteworthy benefits of HCQ prophylaxis … [T]he National Task Force for COVID-19 in India recommended once a week maintenance dose for seven weeks …”
Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., is a renowned Professor of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, author of over 300 peer-reviewed publications. This is how he describes the situation:
“There’s been a massive disinformation campaign that stretches from government to the media … The evidence in favor of hydroxychloroquine benefit in high-risk patients treated early as outpatients is stronger than anything else I’ve ever studied … The F.D.A. has relied on Dr. Fauci and his N.I.H. advisory groups to make a statement saying that there is no benefit of using hydroxychloroquine in outpatients … That’s led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans who could have been saved by usage of this drug … People need to be writing or calling their congressmen and senators … [The] bureaucracy is in bed with other forces causing [it] to make decisions not based on the science …” (emphasis added)
HCQ is generic and costs a few dollars for an entire course.
As of the end May, there were over 150 million doses of HCQ in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). This stockpile is currently wasting away in government warehouses. On June 22, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) filed suit for an injunction against the March 28 order of the FDA that prohibits the use of this stockpile except for already-hospitalized COVID patients for whom it is too late. See aapsonline.org/hcqsuit
The only drug approved by the FDA for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19 is Remdesivir, a largely ineffective medicine manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Gilead, that costs over $3000 for a course.
The immensely wealthy pharmaceutical industry which cannot profit from a cheap and available remedy like HCQ is largely responsible for its suppression through its influence upon government agencies and the media.
An illustration of how the system works is described by the editors-in-chief of the two most prestigious medical journals in the world, namely The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, who cite the “criminal” pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies, thus explaining how a series of negative HCQ studies got published. In the words of the editor of The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton:
“If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful … Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”
“Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies,” wrote Richard Smith, former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal (BMJ).
I’ve covered the dangers of the vaccine. Now I want to show why it’s ineffective, even assuming the basic theory of vaccination is valid.
Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, wrote a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the COVID vaccine clinical trials.
They exposed the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.
“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”
“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”
“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”
“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”
This means these clinical trials were dead in the water.
The trials were designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID—a cough, or chills and fever—which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.
Now I’ll explain WHY the clinical trials were only designed to show the vaccine could prevent mild cases.
The vaccine makers assume the SARS-CoV-2 virus is everywhere. Therefore, during the course of a clinical trial, the virus will descend from the clouds and infect a certain number of volunteers in the trial.
All those volunteers are healthy. They’re not old and frail. They’ve already been screened and eliminated, if they have a history of serious allergies.
So, when the SARS-CoV-2 virus attacks a few of these healthy volunteers, what are the odds it will cause serious cases of pneumonia, requiring hospitalization?
The odds are VERY long against.
How long do you think the vaccine makers would have to wait before, say, 150 of the healthy volunteers came down with serious pneumonia?
Five years? Ten? Forever?
Pfizer isn’t going to stand around and wait and wait and wait. Are you kidding?
No, they’re only going to wait until 150 volunteers (the preordained magic number) come down with a cough, or simple chills and fever—a mild COVID case.
Then they’re going to stop the clinical trial.
Then they’re going see how many of those 150 mild cases occurred in the people who got the vaccine, and how many cases occurred in the people who got the saltwater placebo shot.
This is how they find out how effective the vaccine is.
And indeed—according to Pfizer—most of the cases occurred in volunteers who got the saltwater placebo shot.
Therefore, Pfizer could claim the vaccine was effective in protecting against cough, or chills and fever. Mild cases of COVID.
That’s ALL Pfizer could say.
And THAT’S why the clinical trials were a failure. Because the trials were only set up to show prevention of mild cases—which nobody should care about.
I could go on and explain how the vaccine makers could fake even that useless claim, but I’ll leave it there.
The COVID vaccine is designed to prevent nothing important or significant.
All the rave reviews of the vaccine, the babbling about a historic breakthrough, the celebrations—complete and utter nonsense.
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Sri Lanka has become the scene of a new battle in the trade war between China and the US. The growth of the Chinese presence in the country has led Washington to a strong concern, materialized in Mike Pompeo’s visit to Colombo in October. But even the strong American pressure was not enough to prevent the advance of Chinese investments and this is taking the American government to a drastic measure: to cancel the development aid that it had promised to Sri Lanka.
The official statement about the end of the aid program came through the US Embassy in Colombo on Thursday, December 17. The Embassy confirmed that the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) fund that had been approved for aid to Sri Lanka will now be redirected to other strategic partners. According to Washington, Sri Lanka showed a lack of involvement and interest in the alliance – which is due to the fact that it continued to cooperate economically with China, in parallel with the US.
This agreement was part of a cooperation program between the US and Sri Lanka established during the previous government of Ranil Wickremesinghe in the last year of his term. At the time, Wickremesinghe faced strong resistance at the congress due to the lack of transparency about the nature of the agreement. Its critics say the terms are unclear and claim that the program could simply be an excuse to guarantee American military advance in the region. The MCC, however, says it is a cooperation program whose sole purpose is to help reduce poverty in the Asian country, without any political or military interest related to it. Currently, MCC has partnerships of this type with approximately 30 countries in different regions of the planet, totaling more than 13 billion dollars invested in these programs. In the case of Sri Lanka, the agreement provided for an investment of 480 million dollars.
Although Washington denies the political nature of the agreement, it is clear that it is a financial aid in exchange for political support and international alignment. The very end of the agreement proves this: simply because Sri Lanka has ties with China, Washington canceled the agreement. As we can see, the interest in “alleviating poverty” seems quite secondary to the interest in isolating China economically in the global trade war.
Relations between the US and Sri Lanka have deteriorated greatly over the past few months. Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government has been characterized by a moderately pro-Chinese stance, which was enough to irritate Americans. The Trump Administration went to the extreme of banning the entry of Sri Lankan Army Chief, General Shavendra Silva, into American territory. Shavendra Silva is considered a national hero in his country but has entered the Washington blacklist due to alleged human rights violations that would have been committed on the battlefield during the civil war. Obviously, it is fair to punish someone for violating human rights, but strangely this denunciation by Washington only appeared after the beginning of the deterioration of relations between the two countries.
The definitive point of tensions occurred in October, when Washington tried to “recover” Sri Lanka by sending Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Colombo. During a 12-hour visit, Pompeo met with local authorities and made several public statements attacking China, saying that the only way for Sri Lanka to become a strong and sovereign country is through strategic cooperation with the US. On the same occasion, Pompeo said that Chinese behavior is “predatory”.
Also in October, US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Dean Thompson said that Sri Lanka needs to make some choices that would be necessary, albeit difficult – and said that such choices would be the only way to guarantee the country’s economic development. In other words, Thompson said that Sri Lanka needs to abdicate from relations with China in order to develop, which is absolutely unrelated to reality. China has already invested nearly 8 billion dollars in infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka. Colombo Port City and Hambantota Port are Chinese developments. Still, Beijing has been providing billionaire loans to Sri Lanka since 2005, with long repayment terms and even forgiving some debts. This is not the typical “predatory” behavior, much less seems that Sri Lanka’s abdication from ties with Beijing is a condition for development.
What happens, however, is that Washington continues to act with a war mentality. Sri Lanka accepts cooperation agreements with Washington and Beijing simply because it is a sovereign country with its own interests and does not want to take part in a trade conflict that does not concern it. Sri Lanka’s stance is sovereign and not aligned and the country will continue to make deals with any power that helps to deal with its main social problems. Washington will certainly put Sri Lanka on its blacklist from now on and impose sanctions and blockades, but it is the Americans who have the most to lose from it. Without American help, Colombo will seek even more Chinese support and Beijing will have a geographically strategic ally on its side, further reducing the American presence in Asia.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Civil forfeiture is a massive unjustified threat to property and due process rights. As the third edition of Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture shows, most state laws still stack the deck against property owners and give law enforcement perverse financial incentives to pursue property over justice.
Proponents claim forfeiture is an important crime-fighting tool, but new research finds otherwise: There was no increase in crime after New Mexico abolished civil forfeiture and the profit incentive in 2015. Strong forfeiture reform does not sacrifice public safety.
As states and Congress look for ways to create a fairer criminal justice system, one reform everyone should be able to agree on is ending civil forfeiture and the perverse profit incentive that fuels it.
By Jacob Sullum | From the January 2021 issue of reason
When cops invaded Ginnifer Hency’s home in Smiths Creek, Michigan, they seized TV sets, ladders, her children’s cellphones and iPads, even her vibrator. “They took everything,” she told state legislators a year later. The July 2014 raid turned up six ounces of marijuana.
Hency, a mother of four with multiple sclerosis, was using marijuana for pain relief based on her neurologist’s recommendation, as allowed by Michigan law at the time. … continue
By Serena Wylde | TCW Defending Freedom | October 18, 2023
James A Shannon, director of the US National Institutes of Health 1955-68, said: ‘No vaccination can be proven safe before it is given to children.’
When he made that statement, it was still possible in the US to sue vaccine manufacturers under tort law for vaccine-induced deaths and injuries, which is no longer the case.
Today the US has the world’s most aggressive vaccine schedule and ranks as the sickest country, with the highest infant mortality, in the developed world. The UK does not lag far behind.
Vaccines carry three separate areas of potential risk. Firstly, they artificially stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies, which temporarily inhibits another part of the body’s defence mechanism. In an infant, whose immune system is just developing, this high demand of energy can in some cases overwhelm its metabolic reserves, and cause brain inflammation. The brain is the highest energy-consuming tissue in the body, followed by the gastro-intestinal tract and the immune system.
Secondly, vaccines contain chemicals, metals and drugs. Thirdly, according to the former pharmaceutical R&D executive Sasha Latypova, traditional vaccines are consistently contaminated with plant and animal proteins which hyper-sensitise the body, especially in children, giving rise to allergies.
In the US in the 1970s there were three inoculations recommended for children… continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 