Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

DR. RICHARD URSO: VACCINES & NATURAL VS VACCINE IMMUNITY

Bright Light News | March 26, 2021

Dr. Richard Urso (Part 5) discusses Covid-19 vaccine safety, efficacy and immunity:

(00:45) vaccine safety and efficacy

(01:18) [Animation]: “How do mRNA COVID 19 Vaccines work?” by Medical Sciences Animations

(02:59) ANTIBODY-DEPENDENT ENHANCEMENT (ADE)/pathogenic priming in single-stranded RNA virus vaccines – after vaccination, recipients infected worse when challenged with wild virus than non-vaccinated

(03:26) NEJM – Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056…

(03:47) PNAS – Avoiding pitfalls in the pursuit of a Covid-19 vaccine https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218

(04:23) ADE, pathogenic priming, molecular mimicry

(05:06) NATURE MICROBIOLOGY: Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies https://www.nature.com/articles/s4156…

(05:35) reports of death after vaccination

(06:03) Covid-19 vaccines are experimental and vaccine manufacturers have no liability for vaccine-related injuries or death

(07:39) analyzing 95% efficacy claims

(08:58) ADE in cats PNAS – Avoiding pitfalls in the pursuit of a Covid-19 vaccine https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218

(09:08) ADE in ferrets Journal of Virology – Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine agains SARS is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets https://jvi.asm.org/content/78/22/12672

Dr. Richard Urso has treated 300,000+ patients, performed 30,000+ surgeries and successfully treated 250+ patients with Covid-19. Join us for part 4, as he discusses also discusses conflicts of interest within the FDA, CDC and NIH in our exclusive Jan. 22, 2021 interview:

COVID-19 TREATMENT & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (PART 4) – AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DR. RICHARD URSO

(00:40) Drug treatment protocols

(05:04) Treating his first Covid-19 patient

(05:55) Go to outpatient drugs

(06:28) Covid-19 prophylaxis

(06:57) Why has the FDA not approved certain drugs used in the treatment of Covid-19?

(07:38) Conflicts of interest within FDA, CDC and NIH

(08:50) Part 5 preview: Vaccines

DISCLAIMER Bright Light News does not provide medical advice and is intended for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Never ignore professional medical advice in seeking treatment because of something you have read or seen from Bright Light News. If you think you may have a medical emergency, immediately call your doctor or dial 911.

_________________________________________________________

For more great content, subscribe to our Youtube channel! Visit us at http://www.brightlightnews.com.

March 31, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Former Pfizer VP: ‘Entirely possible this will be used for massive-scale depopulation’

By Mordechai Sones | America’s Frontline Doctors | March 25, 2021

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.

At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.

“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.

“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.

“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.

“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.

“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.

“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?

“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else.
Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.

“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”

AFLDS: The Israel Supreme Court decision last week cancelling COVID flight restrictions said: “In the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.”

In a talk you gave four months ago, you said

“The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.

“The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.

“So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.

In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.

The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?

Yeadon: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2.
The study is from one of the best labs in their field.

“So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not “high throughput” and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.

“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.

“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”

My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.

For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.

Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.

Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?

Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?

And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?

“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.

“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.

“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.

“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”.

“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.

“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.

This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.

“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.

“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).

“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”

Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?

“Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA.

Always good quality interactions.

“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.

“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.

“The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.

“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s “Corona Committee” online.

“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.

“Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.

“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.

“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.

“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.

“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.

“As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.

“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the worlds population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.

“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”

March 31, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 2 Comments

The great Covid power grab: Why world leaders’ push for a post-WW2-style ‘Pandemic Treaty’ must be resisted

By Neil Clark | RT | March 31, 2021

Johnson, Macron and Merkel have warned that the world needs a settlement to protect itself in the wake of Coronavirus. The question, as ever, must be: ‘who benefits?’ The answer, as ever, is ‘it’s unlikely to be you.’

Out with nationalism and isolationism and in with international ‘Health and Security’!

That’s the cry from 24 world leaders, led by the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The call for a new global ‘pandemic preparedness’ treaty came in a letter to the Daily Telegraph and in papers across the world.

The letter uses words and phrases such as ‘solidarity,’ ‘global community,’ ’international cooperation’ and ‘protect’ repeatedly, to make us all feel that what is being proposed is for the good of us all. But is it?

If we read between the lines, we can see quite clearly that, while the plan is supposed to be about post-Covid pandemics, it is really about making sure that the draconian measures introduced since 2020 are maintained as long as possible. The ‘nobody is safe until everyone is safe’ mantra which appears at the end of the second paragraph in the letter, is saying to us – as Merkel and other globalists have strongly hinted – that restrictions cannot and will not be lifted until everyone in the world has been vaccinated.

If you have any doubts, just take a look at the very next sentence, which states: ‘We are therefore committed to ensuring universal and equitable access to safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines, medicines and diagnostics for this and future pandemics.’

Translation: ‘Africa, you’re going to take the vaccines we offer you whether you like it or not.’

To justify a ‘pandemic treaty,’ and other long-planned changes being implemented in its wake, they have to accord Covid a very special status. The first sentence of the letter boldly states: ‘The Covid-19 pandemic is the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s.’ But is that really true? Hong Kong flu claimed the lives of between one and four million people between 1968 and 1970. But it got a lot less coverage than Covid. There was no talk of a permanent ‘New Normal’ being established in 1970, or the need for a post-WW2-like settlement. Neither was there when HIV/AIDS hit in the 1980s. The UN says between 24.8m and 42.2 million people had died of AIDS-related illnesses by the end of 2019.

To compare Covid to the Second World War, as the 24 leaders have done, and argue that it needs a post-WW2 style settlement, surely redefines the word ‘hyperbolic.’ A reminder: some 75 million people died in the Second World War – including around 27 million citizens of the former Soviet Union. 60 million Europeans became refugees. By contrast, the current number of deaths ‘with’ Covid is 2.8 million. Yes, that’s serious –and all deaths are very sad– but the numbers alone can’t explain why it’s Covid –and not other diseases which killed many more and came before it– which necessitates a ‘Great Reset’.

We’re told that Covid-19 is ‘the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s’ but what happened to all the other ‘biggest challenges’ we’ve been warned about over the past thirty years by western leaders? Where did the ’War on Terror’ disappear to? And what about climate change?

While of course there needs to be sensible international co-operation on matters concerning global public health, isn’t there something a bit creepy about trying to scare us witless about the ‘next’ pandemic when we are still living under Covid-19 restrictions? When they state ‘there will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies’ the 24 leaders sound an awful lot like Bill Gates, who is forever warning us about the pandemics to come. In January the Microsoft founder declared that the next pandemic, which of course ‘we are not prepared for,’ could be ‘10 times more serious’. Thanks Bill, for cheering everyone up during another lockdown.

And, having read the letter of the world leaders, take a look at this section on the Gates blog: ‘Just as WW2 led to greater cooperation between countries to protect the peace and prioritize the common good, we think the world has an important opportunity to turn the hard-won lessons of this pandemic into a healthier, more equal future for all.’ And that, of course, means ‘getting ready for the next pandemic.’

But is being in a permanent state of worry over ‘the next pandemic’ a good way to live?

Do we really want to give up on things like hugging, kissing, mass social gatherings, the freedom to travel around the world, and accept the establishment of a permanent civil-liberties-destroying bio-security state because of a nasty lurgy that ‘might’ come along in the future?

The 24 leaders talk about building ‘a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations’ but what if what is really being built – under the guise of ‘keeping us safe,’ is one big hi-tech global prison, where we will not even be able to go to the pub without a ‘Vaccine Passport’ or showing our ‘Covid certification‘ – or be able to board a flight because we haven’t had the latest vaccine ‘update’? Is this the digitally-controlled future we really want?

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather take my chances as a free citizen in ‘the next pandemic,’ whenever that will be, than live under the soul-destroying oppression of ‘protective’ tyranny.

March 31, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Biden Regime Proposal to Break JCPOA Deadlock with Iran?

By Stephen Lendman | March 31, 2021

Hold the cheers!

Believe nothing from duplicitous USA, especially from interventionist Blinken and others in charge of the Biden regime’s hostile geopolitical agenda.

Iran and other countries know that hegemon USA can never be trusted — its word virtually never its bond.

Promises by its ruling regimes aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Sooner or later they’re breached. It happens time and again.

Good faith diplomatic outreach to the US by independent countries is virtually never reciprocated in kind.

It’s an exercise in futility virtually always.

The Biden regime has no intention of rejoining the landmark JCPOA nuclear deal as affirmed by Security Council Res. 2231.

It wants the agreement hardened with provisions no responsible government would accept.

According to Politico, the Biden regime is “struggling just to get the Iranians to the table (sic).”

Getting there is as simple as observing SC Res. 2231 provisions, what its hardliners refuse to do.

Politico reported that Biden’s geopolitical team intends “ask(ing) Iran to halt some of its nuclear activities, such as work on advanced centrifuges and the enrichment of uranium to 20 percent purity, in exchange for some relief from US economic sanctions (sic).”

On Tuesday, Iran’s Press TV reported the following:

An unnamed “senior Iranian official has told Press TV that Tehran will not stop 20-percent uranium enrichment before the US sanctions are lifted.”

“20-percent uranium enrichment is in line with Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA and will be stopped only if the US lifts all the sanctions.”

“The Iranian official said the country will not stop any of its current nuclear activities before the removal of all sanctions.”

If the Biden regime fails to comply with its obligations under international law by lifting illegally imposed sanctions “soon, Iran will take the next steps, which will be further reduction of its JCPOA commitment” — as permitted by JCPOA Article 36.

What Press TV explained above came in response to Politico’s report about an alleged Biden regime proposal not released so far.

Time and again, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif stressed that his government rejects renegotiating what’s affirmed by SC Res. 2231.

In early March he tweeted: “JCPOA cannot be renegotiated—period.”

The US breached the landmark agreement, not Iran.

The violator must return to compliance. Otherwise the deal is gone.

Last week, Zarif tweeted:

“There has been an inordinate amount of spin about what needs to be done to resurrect the JCPOA, trying to reverse the victim and the culprits.

This fact sheet indisputably corrects the historical amnesia & sets the record straight.”

It’s lengthy but here it is in its entirety as compiled by Iran:

Fact Sheet on the JCPOA timeline from implementation to present

January 16, 2016, Implementation Day:

• The IAEA certifies that Iran is fully implementing the JCPOA. Key steps on the part of Iran include restrictions on its nuclear program and increased monitoring.

• The IAEA’s report on Implementation Day should have triggered effective sanctions lifting on the part of the US and the EU/E3. It did not.

January 17, 2016: The US Treasury Department imposes new sanctions on 11 individuals and entities involved with Iran’s ballistic missile programs.

This defensive program is not prohibited by the JCPOA, UN Security Council Resolution 2231 nor even its Annex B, which “calls upon” Iran not to develop missiles “designed to be capable” of delivering nuclear weapons.

Iranian missiles are not designed for weapons that Iran will never develop.

March 21, 2016: Candidate Trump delivers remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual conference, noting his “number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”

September 21, 2016:

• The US Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) grants Airbus and Boeing partial permission to sell planes to Iran.

• The licenses were issued after a 7-month delay, and only in response to a written warning by Iran on September 2, 2016 to invoke the DRM (Dispute Resolution Mechanism) under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA.

• Iran receives only 3 out of 117 Airbus passenger aircraft it ordered—and none of the Boeing aircraft.

December 1, 2016:

• Congress passes a 10-year extension of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), in clear violation of the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2231.

• President Obama refuses to sign the legislation but fails to veto it, allowing it to become law on December 15.

December 16, 2016: Iran officially invokes the DRM under Paragraph 36 but does not take any remedial measures prescribed therein.

January 12, 2017: In his confirmation hearing for the position of Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis tells Congress that “when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”

March 23, 2017: Senator Corker introduces Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, in clear violation of both the JCPOA and UNSCR 2231.

March 31, 2017: Former Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and six former Obama administration officials pen an op-ed in Foreign Policy outlining their opposition to the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017.

May 16, 2017: Ambassador Wendy Sherman, the lead US negotiator for the JCPOA, states her opposition to the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, noting its potential to undermine the nuclear accord.

July 10, 2017: White House Spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders says that at the G20 summit, President Trump encouraged foreign leaders not to do business with Iran, a clear violation of both the JCPOA and UNSCR 2231.

July 17, 2017: The Trump (regime) reluctantly certifies Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA, delaying the announcement for hours and issuing new non-nuclear sanctions on Iran the next day.

October 13, 2017: Trump declares—in violation of the JCPOA and UNSCR2231—that he will not certify Iranian compliance under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA). Trump encourages Congress to enact legislation against the JCPOA’s “sunset clauses”. Trump says if his concerns about the deal are not resolved, he will terminate the agreement.

October 16, 2017: Iran officially invokes the DRM under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA again, in response to the unlawful decertification by Trump, but does not take remedial measures under the same paragraph to give diplomacy a chance.

May 8, 2018:

• Trump announces that he is ceasing US participation in the JCPOA and signs a presidential memorandum to institute the “highest level” of economic sanctions on Iran.

• President Rouhani announces that Iran will give diplomacy a chance for a few weeks so that the other states in the agreement can try to continue the deal without the United States.

May 10, 2018: Iran writes letters to the UN Secretary General and the JCPOA Joint Commission Coordinator, officially invoking again the DRM under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA, but states that it will not take remedial measures immediately to allow diplomacy to work.

May 17, 2018: The European Commission meets in Sofia and announces that it will pursue a “blocking statute” to ban European companies and courts from complying with US sanctions against Iran.

However, EU allows all European companies to comply with US secondary sanctions and cease doing business with Iran.

July 6, 2018: A Ministerial Meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission (China, France, Iran, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union) is convened to consider Iran’s invocation of the DRM under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA.

Ministers issue a joint statement promising wider economic relations and preservation of effective financial channels with Iran; continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas condensate, petroleum products and petrochemicals; continuation of sea, land, air and rail relations; promotion of export credit; effective support for economic operators trading with Iran; encouragement of further investments in Iran; protection of companies from the extraterritorial effects of US sanctions, etc.

Not a single one of these promises have been realized to date.

August 6, 2018: In a joint statement, the French, German, and British foreign ministers as well as the EU say they “deeply regret the re-imposition of sanctions by the US” and note that they are “determined to protect European economic operators engaged in legitimate business with Iran, in accordance with EU law and with UN Security Council resolution 2231.”

They reiterate that preserving the JCPOA is a “matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international security.”

This had no actual effect on international business with Iran, which remains frozen to this day.

August 7, 2018: Certain sanctions measures reimposed by Trump on May 8 the same year come into full effect.

The measures include restricting Iran’s purchase of US dollars, trade in gold, precious metals, aluminum, steel, coal, software, and transactions related to sovereign debt and the automotive sector.

Licenses allowing certain foodstuffs to be exported to the United States and Iran to purchase commercial aircraft are also revoked.

September 24, 2018: The second Ministerial Meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission, convened to discuss Iran’s triggering of the DRM under Paragraph 36 “re-affirmed their continued commitment to the objectives mentioned in the statement of the Ministerial session of the Joint Commission of the JCPOA on 6 July 2018, in particular to pursue concrete and effective measures to secure payment channels with Iran, and the continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas condensate, petroleum products and petrochemicals.”

Not a single effective measure has been taken to date.

October 3, 2018: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rules unanimously that the United States must remove any impediments to the export of food, agricultural products, medicine, aircraft parts, and other humanitarian goods.

The Court concludes that Trump’s decision to reimpose sanctions on Iran was unfounded given Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA.

November 5, 2018: The second round of sanctions on Iran following Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA—targeting Iran’s banking, oil, shipping and ship-building sectors—come into effect.

In addition to redesignating entities removed from the SDN list under the JCPOA, the United States designates an additional 300 new entities.

November 6, 2018: Iran officially informs the EU, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom that having waited 6 months in vain for the EU/E3 to take measures promised following the US withdrawal, Iran will start taking remedial measures under Paragraph 36 and will “cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.”

It continues, however, to fully observe the restrictions under the JCPOA for another 6 months.

November 8, 2018: Newsweek reports; “Mike Pompeo Says Iran Must Listen to US. ‘If They Want Their People to Eat.’”

November 22, 2018: The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments despite the US’ unlawful withdrawal and economic warfare.

February 13-14, 2019: The United States and Poland host a ministerial meeting on the Middle East in Warsaw where US Vice President Mike Pence explicitly calls on “our European partners to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.”

March 22, 2019: The US Treasury Department designates 31 Iranian entities and individuals for past involvement in Iran’s nuclear program.

April 8, 2019: The United States designates the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

April 22, 2019: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announces that the United States will not issue any additional sanctions waivers for states to continue importing Iranian oil on May 2.

May 8, 2019: Iran announces that it will no longer be bound by stockpiles limitations on enriched uranium and heavy water reserves in the JCPOA and could restart construction on its unfinished heavy water reactor at Arak and resume higher level enrichment in the future. Iran also declares that all its remedial measures are reversible upon the fullfilment of all JCPOA obligations by all sides.

May 31, 2019: IAEA reports for the 15th time (the 5th since Trump’s withdrawal) that Iran has continued to fully observe all of its obligations under JCPOA.

June 23, 2019: Trump says new sanctions are coming for Iran amid ongoing “economic war.”

June 24, 2019: The United States sanctions the Supreme Leader of Iran and his office.

July 1, 2019: IAEA reports for the first time that Iran has exceeded 300 Kg stock of enriched uranium—a full 14 months after Trump’s withdrawal and 8 months after Iran’s official notification of remedial measures under Paragraph 36.

July 31, 2019: The United States sanctions Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

September 3, 2019: The US Treasury sanctions the Iran Space Agency and two affiliated research

institutes.

September 20, 2019: The US Treasury imposes new sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and other entities.

September 25, 2019: The White House issues a proclamation suspending the entry of senior Iranian government officials to the United States.

January 2, 2020: President Trump officially claims responsibility for the targeted extra-judicial murder of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani.

February 5, 2020: IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi tells reporters in Washington, DC that Iran has not taken further steps to breach the JCPOA, and that Iran continues to comply with its ‘safeguards’ obligations mandated by the deal.

April 30, 2020:

• US Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, discloses Trump administration’s plan to prevent the October 2020 expiration of UN restrictions on arms sales to and from Iran—written into UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

Hook says that the Trump administration is prepared to use “every diplomatic option available” to extend the restrictions, including by making a legal argument that the United States remains a participant of the nuclear deal in order to exercise a Security Council provision to instate the UN restrictions indefinitely.

• EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell says that “it’s quite clear for us that the US is no longer a participating member in this agreement.”

May 27, 2020: US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announces that the United States will terminate sanctions waivers that allow for nonproliferation cooperation projects to continue in Iran.

These waivers cover the conversion of the Arak reactor, the provision of enriched fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, and the export of Iran’s spent fuel.

This makes it impossible for Iran to continue to fullfil its commitments under the JCPOA.

June 25, 2020: The United States imposes additional sanctions on Iran targeted at the country’s metal industry.

July 3, 2020: EU Foreign Policy chief Josep Borrell announces that he has received a letter from Iran triggering the JCPOA’s DRM, citing concerns about the E3’s implementation of the agreement.

July 4, 2020: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweets that the country triggered again the JCPOA Dispute Resolution Mechanism because of violations by the European members of the deal, in addition to outright U.S. violations.

Zarif notes that European members of the deal are failing to fulfill their JCPOA duties and have given in to U.S. “bullying.”

August 14, 2020:

• In a vote on a US resolution to extend UN arms restrictions against Iran, the United States is defeated with only 2 votes in favor, 2 votes against and 11 abstentions, falling drastically short of the nine votes needed for an extension.

• In an act of piracy on the high seas, the United States seizes cargo for the first time from Iranian fuel tankers bound for Venezuela.

August 20, 2020: US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo delivers a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General and to the President of the Security Council, invoking provisions of UNSCR 2231— which are only available to JCPOA participants—to re-instate revoked resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.

August 25, 2020: The United Nations Security Council dismisses the US effort to re-impose UN Security Council sanctions on Iran.

The President of the Security Council says the Council is “not in position to take further action” pursuant to the US request.

September 21, 2020: Speaking at a news conference, U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo says, “no matter who you are, if you violate the UN arms embargo on Iran, you risk sanctions.”

Pompeo also announces new sanctions on Iran’s Ministry of Defense, Iran’s Defense Industries Organization, and its director.

November 17, 2020: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif states that if the United States adheres to its commitments under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, Iran will return to compliance with the restrictions under the JCPOA.

He further reiterates that this can be done without negotiations.

November 27, 2020: Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh is assassinated near Tehran.

December 1, 2020: The Iranian Parliament responds to the assassination by requiring the Government to take further and more drastic remedial measures under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA if US unilateral sanctions are not lifted by February 23, 2021.

January 5, 2021: The US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control imposes a new round of sanctions on Iran’s steel industry.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin says in a statement that “the Trump administration remains committed to denying revenue flowing to the Iranian regime.”

February 21, 2021: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi travels to Tehran to meet with Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as well as Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

They discuss Iran’s planned Feb. 23 suspension of the Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement and together reach an arrangement whereby the IAEA will continue its necessary verification activities for up to 3 months.

March 25, 2021:

• Despite promises made by incoming US President Joe Biden, his (regime) has yet to take any steps to abide by either the JCPOA or UNSCR 2231—a resolution the US itself co-sponsored.

• Iran, as evidenced by the above timeline, has shown maximum restraint in the face of “maximum pressure”, “economic war”, bullying, assassinations, cruelty and collective punishment of its

people.

• Today, the ball is firmly in the US court.

If it claims interest in the JCPOA, it must abandon its unlawful violations and verifiably remove all sanctions imposed, re-imposed and re-labeled since January 20, 2017.

• Iran will stop all of its remedial measures upon verification of a US return to compliance.

The detailed account above shows why the US can never be trusted — why it’s a waste of time dealing with its duplicitous regimes.

Nonbelligerent Iran threatens no one.

Yet it’s been wrongfully vilified, lied about, and targeted by the US for regime change for over 40 years — because it won’t be subservient to its interests at the expense of its own.

Looking ahead, there’s virtually no chance that Biden regime hardliners will soften their agenda toward Iran — nor against other countries free from US control.

Whatever proposal Biden’s geopolitical team may make to Iran will no doubt be rejected unless it includes lifting all illegally imposed sanctions — and not reimposing any.

Chances for this to happen are virtually nil.

Whatever the US says publicly or proposes, its hostility toward Iran remains unchanged.

The JCPOA will likely dissolve ahead because the US won’t observe its provisions.

Nor will colonized Britain, France and Germany — going along with their US [or Israeli] master even when harming their own interests.

March 31, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

They’re Not Even Trying to Make Sense Now

By Patrick Armstrong | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 31, 2021

The US intelligence community published a report on 10 March, widely reported in the US free speech news media, on foreign interference in the US election (how many oxymorons so far?). The report establishes a new level of idiocy on the long-running “Russiagate” nonsense.

The idiocy began when Trump, campaigning, remarked that it would be better to get along with Russia than not. A sentiment that would not have surprised Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan or any of the others who recognised that, like it or not, Moscow was a fact. A fact that had to be dealt with, talked to, negotiated with so as to produce the best possible result. Why? Well, apart from the diplomatic reality that it is better to get on with your neighbours, the fact that the USSR/Russia was a nuclear power that could obliterate the USA was adequate reason to keep communications alive. If relations could be improved, all earlier US Presidents would agree, so much the better. But for Trump – the outsider – to dare to say so was an outrage. Or more accurately, a hook on which to hang enough simulated outrage to cost him the election. Then, upsetting all expectations, he won. Immediately pussy hat protests, blather about tax returns, Electoral College speculations, 25th Amendment, psychiatrists opining unfitness (COVFEFE: Bizarre Trump Behavior Raises More Mental Health Questions): an entire industry was created to get Trump out, or, if he couldn’t be got out, then at least prevented from doing any of the things he campaigned on. All the swamp creatures were mobilised. The most enduring of these efforts was the Russia allegation. A Special Counsel was created to investigate Russia, Trump and the election. Leaks from this and other investigations fuelled outrage and talk shows.

One of the indications that the story was actually an information operation and not based on fact was its imprecision. Was Trump merely too friendly with Putin, or was he his puppet? Was Trump just a fool to think that relations with Russia could be improved, or was he following instructions? In short, was he a dupe or a traitor? How exactly had Russia interfered in the election and to what effect? Had a few voters been influenced or had the result been completely determined by Moscow? In short was Moscow running the USA or just trying to? Proponents of these crackpot theories never quite specified what they were talking about – it was all suggestion, innuendo, rumours and promises of future devastating revelations. Some of the highlights of the campaign: Keith Olberman shouting Russian scum! Morgan Freeman solemnly intoning that we were at war, and, night after night, Rachel Maddow spewing conspiracies. Some media headlines: Opinion: Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian assetTrump is ‘owned by Putin’ and has been ‘laundering money’ for Russians, claims MSNBC’s Donny DeutschMueller’s Report Shows All The Ways Russia Interfered In 2016 Presidential ElectionA media firestorm as Trump seems to side with Putin over US intelligenceTrump and Putin, closer than everAll signs point the same way: Vladimir Putin has compromising information on Donald Trump. And so on. Four years of non-stop nonsense promising, tomorrow, or the next day, the final revelation that would disgrace Trump and rid the country of him forever: my personal favourite is this mashup of TV hairstyles telling us that the walls were closing in. Information war. Propaganda. Fake news.

All this despite the fact that the story as presented simply made no sense at all. As I pointed out in December 2017, if Moscow had wanted to nobble Clinton, it had far more potent weapons at its disposal than a too-late revelation of finagling inside the DNC.

And it wasn’t just TV talking heads; the US intelligence community participated. There were two laughable “intelligence assessments”. The DHS/FBI report of 29 December 2016 carried this stunning disclaimer:

This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.

The DNI report of 6 January 2017 devoted nearly half its space to a four-year-old rant about RT and admitted that the one Agency that would really know had only “moderate confidence”. In short: ignore the first report, and don’t take the second one seriously. Were people inside these organisations trying to tell us it was all phoney? No matter, the anti-Trump conspiracy shrieked out the reports immediately.

One by one, it fell apart. Mueller, despite the prayer candles, came up with nothing. The “Dirty Dossier” was a fraud. The impeachment for something that Biden actually did failed. These dates should be remembered – Crowdstrike CEO Shawn Henry told the House committee that he had no evidence on 5 December 2017; this classified testimony was not made public until 7 May 2020. Simply put: the key allegation, the trigger for all the excitement and investigations that followed, was a lie, many people knew it was a lie, the lie was kept secret for 884 days. But the lie served its purpose.

There were no investigations of this fraud, only pseudo investigations that went nowhere. When the Republicans had a majority on the House of Representatives there were serious investigations but the testimonies – like Henry’s – were kept secret because they were “classified”. When the Democrats gained control, there were continual boasts that the evidence of collusion was overwhelming, but nothing happened either. Trump’s first Attorney General recused himself and the investigation was conducted by the conspirators. His second Attorney General promised much, set up a Special Counsel, but nothing happened. Well, not quite nothing: a junior conspirator had his knuckles rapped for faking a FISA warrant. In short, the Deep State ran the clock out: the swamp drained Trump.

Ran it out quite successfully too: relations with Russia got worse and Trump himself was hamstrung. His orders were ignored everywhere: on investigating the conspiracy and on removing troops; here’s an insider telling us that the Pentagon ignored his orders on Afghanistan. He was stonewalled on Syria: “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there.” The “most powerful man in the world” was blocked on almost every initiative and the long false Russia connection story was a powerful weapon in the conspiracy to impede his attempts to change course.

In 2021 Trump left office and there was no need to mention any of it again. But here’s where it gets really stupid. In December 2020, the NYT solemnly told us: Russian Hackers Broke Into Federal Agencies, U.S. Officials Suspect: In one of the most sophisticated and perhaps largest hacks in more than five years, email systems were breached at the Treasury and Commerce Departments. Other breaches are under investigation. At the same time we were equally solemnly told by US officials “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history”.

In short, we are supposed to believe that

in 2016 the Russian hacked nothing but the election

and in 2020 they hacked everything but the election.

How stupid do they think we are? Even stupider evidently. Instead of retiring the Trump/Russia/collusion/interference nonsense when it had achieved its purpose, the Intelligence Community Assessment on Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections takes us right back down the rabbit hole. I haven’t read it and certainly don’t intend to (see oxymoron above), but Matt Taibbi has and eviscerates it here; he’s read far enough to have mined this gem “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact”. (Is this a hint from insiders that it’s all fake?) The report claims that Putin authorised, and various Russian government entities conducted, a campaign to denigrate Biden. Specifically by using Ukrainian sources to talk about corruption of Biden and his son Hunter; despite the video of Biden boasting about firing the investigator, we’re assured that this is all disinformation. And the consumers of the NYT and CNN will believe what they were told. Or, actually, will believe what they weren’t told: the media kept quiet. (Now that’s interference and interference that actually might have changed votes.) The report goes on to say that China did something or other and Iran, Hezbollah, Cuba and Venezuela also chipped in. But fortunately no foreign actor did anything to affect the technical part of the election.

The US security organs expect us to believe,

giving no proof,

that there was lots of malign activity

which had no effect on the election whatsoever.

Which is telling us they think we’re even stupider. Russia swung the election four years ago but forgot how to this time? Putin’s attempt to keep Trump in was blocked by security measures adopted when his tool was President? This time Putin wanted Biden in? Russia’s efforts on behalf of Trump were countered by China’s on behalf of Biden and Iran’s interference broke the tie? But then, information operations don’t have to make sense, they just have to create an impression: Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela do bad things to good people.

Oh, and the latest is that Moscow cultivated Trump for over 40 years, Imagine that: in 1980 they were so perceptive as to see the future importance of a property developer; who’ve they got lined up in the wings now? And Rachel Maddow is back at the old stand pushing some conspiracy theory about Trump, Putin and COVID. I guess it’s not yet time to put away the tinfoil hats.

As I have said before, English needs a whole new set of words for the concept “stupid”: the old ones just don’t have the power any more.

March 31, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | 1 Comment

Google renews attack on YouTube account of Iran’s Press TV

Press TV – March 30, 2021

Google has for the seventh time targeted Iranian broadcaster Press TV, blocking the English-language news network’s access to its official YouTube account without any prior notice.

The US tech giant shut YouTube accounts of Press TV late on Tuesday, citing “violations of community guidelines.”

“We have reviewed your content and found severe or repeated violations of our Community Guidelines. Because of this, we have removed your channel from YouTube,” Google said in a message.

The community guidelines, as YouTube says, are designed to ensure the video-sharing platform stays protected and set outs what is allowed and not allowed on YouTube. The guidelines apply to all types of content, including videos, comments, links, and thumbnails.

The last time Google blocked Press TV’s access to its official YouTube account was last September, again without any prior notice but citing “violations of export laws.”

The United States export laws and regulations prohibit the use of and access to controlled information, goods, and technology for reasons of national security or protection of trade.

Over the past years, the US tech giant has recurrently been opting for such measures against Iranian media outlets. It has taken on Press TV more than any other Iranian outlet given the expanse of its viewership and readership.

The measure comes hot on the heels of another hostile move and aggression on the Iranian media outlets, with Facebook having permanently shut down the page of Press TV news network.

The US-based social media giant informed Press TV on Friday that its account had been shut down for what it claimed to be the Iranian news channel’s failure to “follow our Community Standards.”

Facebook has on a number of occasions attacked Press TV, despite its claim of providing space for freedom of expression.

The Tehran-based English-language news network has repeatedly fallen victim to censorship on multiple fronts, including Twitter and Instagram besides Google and its services.


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

March 31, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

GAVI Vaccine Alliance Is The Source Of Terror Behind Global Lockdowns And Vaccine Coercion

By Lance D Johnson | Humans Are Free | March 23, 2021

The World Health Organization (WHO) is facilitating a global health dictatorship, commanding all member states to enforce totalitarian lock downs and far-reaching medical edicts that empower government authorities and the vaccine industry – not human health.

gavi vaccine alliance is the source of terror behind global lockdowns and vaccine coercion

WHO’s authoritarian recommendations were adopted in rapid fashion by almost every government on Earth.

The behavioral controls and livelihood restrictions imposed by WHO have no basis in immune system health, mental health, or general well being.

WHO operates like a global oligarchy, forcing all member states to carry out their orders. In 2020 and beyond, WHO has ordered populations into isolation, avoidance, and unlawful quarantines.

WHO has forced perpetual oxygen restrictions, coercive DNA harvesting, and mRNA vaccines experiments, while instructing governments around the world to quash civil liberties and promote medical martial law.

This dictatorship is giving rise to a medical apartheid – a system of segregation that punishes healthy people for not complying.

Bill Gates Vaccine Alliance Is The Source Of Terror Behind WHO’s Lock Downs And Coercive Vaccine Passports

Where is WHO coming up with these restrictive medical edicts and coercive vaccine policies?

According to WHO insider Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D., WHO serves the financial interests of GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance run by Bill Gates.

GAVI was formed in 2000 and set up as an international institution in Switzerland. GAVI operates tax free and enjoys blanket immunity against criminal sanctions.

Bill Gates leveraged GAVI and bought his influence into the WHO. He even asked to become a member state in 2017, with the privilege of being on WHO’s executive board.

Bill Gates now controls Swissmedic, the FDA of Switzerland, due to a three-way vaccine distribution contract agreement reached by Gates, WHO, and the Swiss regulatory agency.

By controlling WHO, Gates funnels tens of billions of dollars through his GAVI Vaccine Alliance, with the ultimate power of controlling member states.

As the controller of information and the arbiter of science, Gates and the vaccine industry has the power to suppress prophylactics, treatments, phytonutrients, adaptogens, and antivirals.

Bill Gates and GAVI is the source of terror behind WHO, the lock downs, restrictions, and authoritarian medical edicts that are compelling vaccination experiments.

WHO insider, Astrid Stuckelberger came clean about WHO’s political motivations and how the science is manipulated and leveraged to force populations to comply with vaccine experiments.

Stuckelberger is an international expert who evaluates scientific research and advises policymakers.

She has written more than 180 scientific articles, policy papers and governmental reports. She admits that this research is conducted to support political agendas and to justify government policy.

Since 2009, she managed WHO’s international health regulations, which were primarily used to prepare member states to act in unison during a future pandemic. At the center of this world government plandemic is Bill Gates and the GAVI Vaccine Alliance.

GAVI And WHO Control Governments Around The World Now, Threaten Populations

Bill Gates has more power and influence over WHO than entire nations. The United Nations originally established WHO, but has repeatedly refused to rein in their dictatorial powers, illegal quarantine procedures, coercive vaccine passports, and undemocratic power grabs.

Justus Hoffmann, Ph.D., one of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee members, pointed out that GAVI has no political power but enjoys “qualified diplomatic immunity.”

GAVI is immune from all criminal business dealing, as well, whether their potential criminal actions are intentional or inadvertent.

“They can do whatever they want,” Stuckelberger confirmed, and they answer to no authority. No law enforcement is allowed to investigate GAVI, even if the Vaccine Alliance was implicated in a criminal conspiracy to defraud or coerce people.

“Stuckelberger, who worked four years on the ethics committee for the WHO, said its “disturbing” that GAVI enjoys blanket immunity especially when GAVI is “directing, as a corporate entity, the WHO.”

The director general of WHO forces all member states to follow GAVI’s orders, from the type of diagnostic tests, to the type of treatments allowed, to top-down population controls, pandemic messaging, and most importantly, vaccine experimentation.

The WHO has been set up over the years to assume dictatorial power over world governments and GAVI is the source of their authoritarianism, terror, and coercive vaccination push.

After months of using high cycle PCR tests to diagnose covid-19, the WHO finally alerted the world in January of 2021 that these tests were producing mostly false positives all along.

As laboratories dial back the cycle threshold on the PCR tests, the official number of covid cases and deaths will slowly dissipate.

This medical fraud will not stop the wave of hospital dependence, ventilator-associated pneumonia, lung infections, stress induced heart disease, drug overdoses, severe mental illness, and vaccine injury that is now taking hold of the world.

References: LifeSiteNews.comGAVI.orgHumansAreFree.com

March 31, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

The AstraZeneca Jab IS Killing People & It’s Being Covered Up

By Richie Allen | March 31, 2021

Last night Germany suspended use of the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab for people under 60. The German medicines regulator found 31 cases of a type of rare blood clot among the nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine. Let’s be clear, that’s 31 cases they know of.

Canada has withdrawn it for use in the under-55’s. This morning, AstraZeneca is insisting that the benefits of taking its vaccine far outweigh the risks. This is nonsense.

The great great majority of people will not get coronavirus and of those who do get it, the great great majority will have mild or no symptoms. To be blunt, you’d have to be nuts to take it. You might as well play Russian roulette.

Two weeks ago, Norway’s chief physician, Professor Pål Andre Holme concluded that three healthcare workers were killed by the AZ vaccine. He said a powerful immune response could only have been triggered by the jab.

“We have the reason. Nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals had this immune response”, he said.

Someone calling themselves Mr. Page, sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Public Health Scotland on February 20th. Mr. Page wanted to know how many people died within 28 days of receiving a covid vaccine.

Here’s the response from Public Health Scotland:

Thank you for your information request of 20th February 2021. (entitled)“Could you please provide the total number of deaths for any reason within 28 days of having a covid vaccine from the start of the vaccination roll out to date.”

I confirm that Public Health Scotland holds the information you have requested and that this can be provided to you.

Using the latest mortality data available (up to 26th February), 2,207 people have died within 28 days of vaccination (number of days between vaccine and death is 0-27 where0 is the day of vaccination).

Please note that these deaths are due to any cause.

PHS is not currently aware of any deaths in Scotland that are considered conclusively linked to vaccination.

Public Health Scotland says that up until February 26th, 2,207 people have died within 28 days of having a vaccine, but says they are not aware of any death “conclusively linked to vaccination.”

Public Health England (PHE) has had dozens of FOI requests from citizens asking the same question, that is, how many have died within 28 days of having a jab? PHE has yet to respond to any of the requests.

Last week, two Conservative MP’s asked Health Secretary Matt Hancock the same question. He nearly had a heart attack. He had no information to hand.

The AstraZeneca vaccine is killing people. There’s no doubt about that. The coverup has already started. Share this information with everyone you know who is considering having a jab.

March 31, 2021 Posted by | Deception | , | Leave a comment

Covid-19 cases decrease in Texas as governor’s ‘NEANDERTHAL THINKING’ apparently hasn’t caused a predicted virus catastrophe

RT | March 30, 2021

Nearly three weeks on from Texas ending its mask mandate and other Covid-19 measures – leading to Governor Greg Abbott being called a murderer by media and politicians – there’s no sign of the sky falling on the Lone Star State.

In fact, Texas just posted a record low in its rate of positive Covid-19 tests, at less than 5.3%, and hospitalizations are at the lowest level since last October. Deaths are at the lowest level in four months. Since March 2, the day Abbott announced that state Covid-19 restrictions would end the following week, the seven-day average for new infections has dropped 48%, to a nearly six-month low of 3,774.

No one is claiming that infections and other Covid-19 measures are down in Texas specifically because Abbott decided “we no longer need government running our lives,” but the absence of predicted catastrophe is providing a shining example for those who argue that states that keep their economies open fare just as well on pandemic performance as those that lock their people down and destroy livelihoods.

Texas, in fact, is seeing declines in Covid-19 cases just as New York and New Jersey – states with such draconian measures that business owners were literally taken to jail for refusing to obey – are once again suffering the highest infection rates in the country. New Jersey has seen a 37% surge in new cases in the past month, to 23,600 weekly.

The juxtaposition in statistics is clearly flipped the wrong way for President Joe Biden, who earlier accused Abbott and Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves of “Neanderthal thinking” for lifting their coronavirus restrictions, and other doomsayers. And by the way, Mississippi’s Covid-19 case rate is down 57% in the past month, to a seven-day average of 254.

Abbott set off a wave of Republican governors freeing their citizens from mask mandates, which Vanity Fair called a “bold plan to kill another 500,000 Americans.” Biden’s fellow Democrat, California Governor Gavin Newsom, called Abbott “absolutely reckless.” Mainstream media hero Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to Biden, called Abbott’s decision “inexplicable,” while author Kurt Eichenwald said it was “murderous.”

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa accused the governor of being “anti-human” and predicted that hospitals would be jammed with Covid patients.

That hasn’t happened so far, and Texas has posted 18 straight days of improving case numbers since the restrictions officially ended on March 10. But US mainstream media outlets have responded to the counter-narrative phenomenon mostly by ignoring it.

Instead of telling the Texas story, the New York Times breathlessly warned on Monday that case numbers in Republican-controlled Florida had ticked up 8% from two weeks ago, to nearly 5,000 infections a day. Hospitalizations and deaths remained down, the Times conceded, and the increase in cases paled in comparison to those in New York and New Jersey.

But the outlet warned that Florida is a “bellwether for the nation” and falsely said it was “furthest along in lifting restrictions.” Iowa and Montana lifted their restrictions in early February, and some GOP-led states didn’t have mask mandates to begin with.

And rather than rethinking the efficacy of tight Covid-19 mitigation measures, lockdown proponents suggest that the recent case increases in New York and New Jersey mean that their apparently ineffective rules need to be tougher. New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams urged Governor Andrew Cuomo to “stick to the science, trust the experts and pause planned reopenings now.” Biden said Monday that a national increase in Covid cases may stem from people “letting up on precautions.”

March 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Florida Governor Says He’ll Ban Vaccine Passports

By Richie Allen | March 30, 2021

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said yesterday, that he would take “executive action” and ban vaccine passports in his state. Republican DeSantis told a press conference, that the passports present “huge privacy implications.”

New York was the first state in the U.S. to announce it would implement a vaccine passport programme. It’s called “Excelsior Pass” and uses a QR code to admit a vaccinated person into different venues.

Governor DeSantis insisted that there’s no way it will be rolled out in Florida. He said;

“It’s completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply participate in normal society.”

DeSantis said he believes people, “have certain freedoms and individual liberties” to decide whether to get the vaccine and he expressed concerns about privacy if such a program was launched.

“You’re going to do this and what, give all this information to some big corporation?” he said. “You want the fox to guard the hen house? I mean give me a break.”

Andy Slavitt, White House senior adviser on COVID-19, said yesterday; “The US government is not viewing its role as the place to create a passport, nor a place to hold the data of citizens.”

“We view this as something that the private sector is doing and will do,” he said.

March 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

Covid Vaccine Nonsense

US-based human rights lawyer breaks down the contradictory claims of “effectiveness”, the incomplete studies and legal minefield of forced use of experimental vaccines

By P Jerome | OffGuardian | March 30, 2021

The efforts to require every American to be injected with an experimental vaccine for Covid-19 are based on the false notion that vaccination will protect recipients from becoming infected with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, or protect them from passing along the infection to other people

The FDA, the CDC, the NIH and the pharmaceutical companies involved have all stated very clearly that there is no evidence to support this idea.

None of the three experimental Covid-19 vaccines now being distributed in the United States have been demonstrated to protect against infection with or transmission of the virus believed to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 disease from developing.

This fact is indisputable, yet media, medical providers, and politicians continue to repeat the lie that vaccination provides “immunity to Covid” and even sources like the Mayo Clinic make irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims that vaccination “might prevent you from getting” or “spreading” Covid-19. The same lies are the basis for President Biden’s hard press for mass vaccination to “make this Independence Day truly special.”

On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it had “issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the third vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” the Janssen (Johnson&Johnson) Covid-19 vaccine.

This announcement is virtually identical to the EUAs previously issued for Covid-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna.

In each of the EUAs, the FDA has been careful to avoid any claim that the vaccines provide protection against infection or transmission of the virus. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have each publicly stated that the vaccines have NOT been shown to prevent infection or transmission.

All of their regulatory documents and commentary addressing the issue state clearly that there is no evidence that the vaccines affect either infection with or transmission of the virus, nor do they prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from appearing.

THE US GOVERNMENT POSITION

The FDA’s Briefing Document analyzing clinical trial data for the Pfizer vaccine, released the day before the FDA’s issuance of an EUA for that vaccine, noted (on page 47):

Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against asymptomatic infection

And:

Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [virus] from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.

The FDA Briefing Document on the Moderna vaccine stated the same fact, while also describing plans for a future clinical trial to measure infection prevention, but that will not be completed until December 31, 2023 (p.47). The FDA’s review of the Janssen vaccine noted the same “limited” data…

to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing asymptomatic infection… and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn at this time.”

“Limited data” means there is in fact no evidence to support those conclusions.

The CDC Advisory Committee that recommended emergency use of the Moderna vaccine noted:

“the level of certainty for the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was… type 4 (very low certainty) for the estimates of prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause death.”

The CDC guidance to Covid vaccine administrators (January 2, 2021) asks:

Can a person who has received a Covid-19 vaccine still spread COVID-19? At this time, we do not know if COVID-19 vaccination will have any effect on preventing transmission.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) on January 26, 2021 similarly admitted:

We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”

This is all very confusing due to the language the FDA, NIH and other agencies use to describe the potential effectiveness of the vaccines. For example, in the NIH analysis of the Janssen vaccine data, the authors note the vaccine’s reported effectiveness in “preventing moderate and severe COVID-19 in adults.”

This deliberately blurs the distinction between infection with a virus (SARS-Cov-2) and the illness called Covid-19.

The NIH claims the Janssen vaccine prevents or lessens symptoms of the illness Covid-19, but is silent on whether the vaccine prevents infection or transmission of the virus said to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The similar analysis for the Moderna vaccine notes, however:

“[T]here is not yet enough available data to draw conclusions as to whether the [Moderna] vaccine can impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Unfortunately, we have seen many reports over the last few months of deaths attributed to Covid-19 days and weeks after vaccination (see here and here (video)), confirming that vaccinated people can and do become infected with the virus.

Health officials have avoided blaming these deaths on side effects from the vaccines themselves. Instead, they say these deaths are the result of infections with the virus (SARS-Cov-2) acquired after receiving the vaccines.

Particularly devastating reports from an isolated Kentucky monastery describe how two nuns died of Covid-19 after receiving Covid-19 vaccines, despite the complete absence of any cases of infection in the monastery during the ten months prior to vaccination.

Moderna’s chief science officer was quoted in the British Medical Journal about the clinical trials in 2020 that resulted in the FDA’s decision to grant a EUA to the Moderna shot:

Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”

The most important questions about the experimental Covid-19 vaccines were not even asked during the clinical trials: Do these experimental vaccines prevent infection with the virus and do they prevent transmission of that virus? The short answer is No.

The FDA has stated clearly in each of the Covid vaccine Briefing Documents (see Moderna document here, Pfizer here, Janssen here) that the trials were not even designed prove or disprove a hypothesis that the vaccines prevent infection or transmission of the virus, or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from developing.

The FDA issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen vaccines on December 11 and December 18, 2020, and on February 27, 2021, respectively.

The EUAs indicate that the vaccines “prevent severe Covid-19,” that is, they don’t prevent infection or development of symptoms after infection, but they may make the illness less severe.

The EUAs explicitly deny any evidence that the Pfizer, Moderna or Janssen vaccines prevent infection, or prevent hospitalization or even death from Covid-19 after vaccination. The highly publicized “success rates” of the vaccines refer only their potential ability to lessen the severity of those symptoms, but there is “no data” that they prevent the infection that could cause those symptoms.

MANDATING VACCINATION UNDER EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION IS IMPERMISSIBLE

An EUA is not “FDA Approval.”

An EUA indicates that a product has not been fully tested but, despite the obvious risks, distribution is permitted because the government declared a “public health emergency” in January 2020.

As the FDA notes in its Information Sheet for the Moderna shot:

The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”

The FDA granted EUAs for all three experimental vaccines after less than five months of clinical trials, with most of trial data still to be collected. All three vaccines will be in clinical trial status through January 31, 2023.

According to comments from vaccine scientists in September 2020 (prior to the Covid-19 EUA issuances), no vaccine had ever before been distributed on an EUA basis.

“We don’t do EUAs for vaccines,” [Dr. Peter] Hotez said, “It’s a lesser review, it’s a lower-quality review, and when you’re talking about vaccinating a large chunk of the American population, that’s not acceptable.”

Three months later, the FDA issued EUAs for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but with explicit guidance that the vaccine “has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”

Indeed, the highly experimental nature of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine, in particular, is extraordinary as that vaccine is the first and only product the company has ever been allowed to distribute, and it was allegedly developed in only two days.

Any use of an experimental vaccine under an EUA must be voluntary and recipients must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the productof 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.

This information is repeated in small print on each of the FDA Covid-19 vaccine Fact Sheets, but it is largely ignored.

Dr Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked in October 22, 2020, if the new Covid-19 vaccines could be legally required. She responded that, under a EUA:

Vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.”

Under EUA status, the government is not permitted to require Covid-19 vaccinations because the vaccines are not FDA-approved and recipients are clinical trial participants. This is why states cannot legally require vaccination, despite suggestions by some legislators to do just that.

Indeed, the US military is barred from mandating the vaccines. This ban on government vaccine mandates explains why some private companies are trying to require vaccination of employees, which makes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on this issue potentially relevant.

THE EEOC GUIDANCE ON COVID-19 VACCINATION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE VACCINE MANDATES

The EEOC updated its guidance on the issue of Covid-19 vaccination on December 16, 2020.

This update appeared five days after the FDA issued an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine and two days prior to issuing the Moderna EUA. Based on this timing, we can safely assume that the EEOC was well-aware of the contents of the FDA briefing documents and Fact Sheets, specifically the FDA statements about the lack of proof that the vaccines prevent infection with or transmission of the virus (SARS-CoV-2).

The EEOC guidance evaluates the idea of employer Covid-19 vaccine mandates under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) “direct threat” analysis:

The ADA allows an employer to have a qualification standard that includes ‘a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace.’“

But the EEOC’s analysis presupposes that vaccines protect against infection, which is false.

The “direct threat” doctrine is an employer’s potential defense to a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA. According to the EEOC, “A conclusion that there is a direct threat would include a determination that an unvaccinated individual will expose others to the virus at the worksite.”

The specific but theoretical “direct threat” described here is one allegedly posed by an unvaccinated person who might become infected with the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and then spread infection to the workplace.

But no “determination” of such a threat is possible. The EEOC was careful to state only that a direct threat defense “would include” such a “determination.” The EEOC took no position on this issue because officials there were likely aware there has been no determination that vaccination prevents infection or transmission, and none is possible with current data.

Aspirational claims that vaccination “might” [be eventually be shown to] prevent infection or that “some data tends to show” such an effect are insufficient bases for a direct threat defense.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Bragdon v Abbott (1988) that the assertion of a direct threat defense must be evaluated “in light of the available medical evidence,” noting that “the views of public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, are of special weight and authority.”

Overcoming the long-standing protections of the right to bodily integrity and informed, voluntary consent to medical treatment requires articulation of an actual and imminent, not theoretical, threat presented by an unvaccinated person in the workplace.

The CDC, the National Institutes of Health and numerous other “public health authorities” have all stated that there is no evidence to show that vaccination prevents viral infection or transmission, a fact the EEOC should have presented but did not.

The EEOC guidance does not provide any legal cover for employers to require vaccination. The guidance proposes that employers might be successful in proving a direct threat if they were able to prove facts which, it turns out, cannot be proven.

Even more importantly, according to the CDC, more than 29 million Americans (and likely many, many more) have already contracted the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and recovered from it.

recent NIH study demonstrates that these millions of “recovered” people have long-lasting, and likely permanent protection from re-infection. They present no threat of infection or transmission of the virus. However, under a blanket employer vaccine requirement, these people who are already immune would still be required to get vaccinated. It makes no sense logically or legally to require the vaccination of people who already have more protection from the virus than people who get vaccinated.

WHAT IS THE THREAT PREVENTED BY MANDATORY VACCINATION?

Outside the employment context, companies are demanding proof of vaccination from travelers and even movie- and concert-goers, based on the same debunked idea that vaccination with one of the Covid-19 vaccines will prevent the theoretical spread of the virus in trains, planes, movie theaters and concert halls among low-risk populations. But the relevant government agencies have all stated clearly that the vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of infection.

The benefit from any vaccination lies with the recipient of the vaccine. In the case of Covid-19 vaccines, vaccinated people may have fewer symptoms after becoming infected. While this is an important consideration for many people, this benefit has nothing to do with preventing the spread of the virus SARS-Cov-2.

A vaccinated person presents at least the same “risk” of infection and transmission of the virus (if not more risk) as a person who is not vaccinated. At best, vaccination might prevent a more serious case of Covid-19 illness from developing. The vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of the virus that causes Covid-19. They can have little or no impact on stopping transmission.

Because no one has shown that vaccination prevents infection or transmission of the virus SARS-CoV-2, a fact undisputed by all official sources, this also means that vaccination cannot help to achieve the goal of herd immunity.

“Herd immunity” means that a population can be protected from a virus after enough of the population has become immune to infection, either through exposure to the virus and later recovery, or through vaccination.

But with Covid-19, there is no proof that vaccination makes anyone immune to the virus SARS-CoV-2. Covid-19 vaccination cannot play any meaningful role in the pursuit of herd immunity because the Covid-19 vaccines do not provide immunity from infection.

Oddly, the WHO contradicts itself in arguing that Covid-19 vaccination promotes herd immunity to the virus that causes Covid-19, claiming:

To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”

This statement is simply false. It also contradicts the WHO’s prior admission that “We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”

If the WHO has already acknowledged that it “does not know if” the Covid-19 vaccines protect people from becoming infected or transmitting the virus, it is a deliberate lie to claim that somehow these vaccines can lead to herd immunity.

A far more useful strategy than forcing people to accept an experimental vaccine that does not even protect them from infection would be to instead protect those most vulnerable to serious illness or death as a result of infection. Tens of thousands of renowned doctors and scientists in the U.S. and around the world proposed such a strategy in October 2020.

Unfortunately, the media and Silicon Valley tech monopolies attacked and effectively censored discussion of this common sense approach as “anti-science” and “right wing” by removing discussion of the proposal from nearly all media platforms.

Yet the fake “scientific” approach to herd immunity touted by the WHO, US government agencies and politicians, and media monopolists is blatantly dishonest, and has nothing to do with “science.” The push by private companies to require vaccination and “immunity passports” is similarly based on private financial interests, not scientific research.

Government scientists admit that the Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus they say causes Covid-19, but many of these same scientists also dishonestly claim the vaccines will somehow prevent the spread of the virus, leading to herd immunity.

Such an approach is not only unscientific and dishonest. It’s nonsense.

P Jerome is civil rights attorney based in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at jeromeinpassing@protonmail.com

March 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Twitter Censors Famed Epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff

By Jeffrey A. Tucker | AIER | March 29, 2021

We’ve been witness to Twitter censorship for more than a year, beginning with obviously objectionable extremists then gradually moving to silence people based on merely having an opinion that contradicts lockdown orthodoxy. There have been days when I wondered whether I would cross the invisible line and even whether AIER would itself be silenced. Stanford public health expert Scott Atlas has been censored, and Naomi Wolf, visiting senior fellow at AIER, was put in Twitter jail for a week for landing on the wrong side of the high priests of allowable content.

Well, a new line has been crossed. Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and co-creator of the Great Barrington Declaration, one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious -disease experts in the world (latest count of citations: 25,290) has been censored by Twitter. His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post.

Here is what he wrote without the warning slapped in front of it.

Keep in mind, too, that Dr. Kulldorff serves on the Covid-19 vaccine safety subgroup that the CDC, NIH, and FDA rely upon for technical expertise on this very subject..

So here we have some geeks at Twitter curating science, in areas totally outside the specialization of web nerds, in a way that skews public understanding of the scientific debate. Dr. Kulldorff’s censorship directly coincides with Anthony Fauci making a political push to retain social distancing and mask restrictions and forced separation for children until they are vaccinated. He was all over Sunday TV shows doing that.

This attempt to silence accredited experts completely distorts the process of scientific inquiry, discovery, and public opinion. And to what end? Twitter has generally been biased in a lockdown direction. If you want to be cynical about it, you could observe that everyone who works there can get by on laptops and houseshoes for the duration.

Its stock price has more than doubled in the course of lockdowns and user engagement has risen dramatically.

It would appear that with this latest act of censorship – we are not talking about political extremism or anything else that violates normal terms of use – we have entered into a new realm. Twitter is now curating the scientific debate in ways that exclude alternative points of view, particularly those that raise doubts about the need for universalized vaccines and vaccine passports. To be sure, Dr. Kulldorff is not an anti-vaxxer (why should I have to say that?) but instead has a nuanced position in light of his professional understanding of the demographics of risk of this virus.

If there ever was a troubling sign of the power and arrogance of big tech, of which I’ve long been a defender, this new action is it. Dr. Kulldorff has been a brave proponent of traditional public health in the midst of an unprecedented and very obviously failed policy of lockdowns. He has been a voice of clarity, reason, calm, and science. That Twitter would choose to use its power over public debate to silence his insights should be of profound concern to everyone concerned about the use of science in the public interest.

March 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment