Aletho News


CDC Records: 12,791 DEAD and 682,873 Injuries Following COVID-19 Experimental Shots

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | August 16, 2021

According to the most recent stats released by the CDC this past Saturday, August 14, 2021, their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now has recorded more than twice as many deaths following the non-FDA approved experimental COVID-19 shots during the past 8 and a half months, than deaths recorded following ALL FDA approved vaccines for the past 30 years.

This has to be the most censored information in the U.S. right now, even though these statistics come directly from the CDC.

They have now recorded 12,791 deaths, 16,044 permanent disabilities, 70,667 emergency room visits, 51,242 hospitalizations, 13,139 life threatening events, among 682,873 reported injuries from 571,831 cases.

The CDC’s official response to these statistics is that they are basically coincidences, and are not related to the experimental COVID-19 shots.

Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)

Trusting in the CDC for COVID-19 safety information is quite obviously deadly. Because it is widely known that these statistics that they admit to are but a fraction of actual cases, as very few medical professionals are willing to classify an injury or death as caused by COVID-19 injections.

By way of contrast, deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the 30 years prior to the emergency use authorizations of the COVID-19 shots total 6,068 over 30 years according to the CDC.

What are NOT included in these 12,791 deaths the CDC is reporting following COVID-19 shots, are the number of fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections into pregnant women, which now numbers 1,360 deaths according to the CDC.


The FDA and CDC Serve Big Pharma – Not the Public

The Big Pharma cartel is now fully in control of just about every aspect of our lives. They own the corporate media which is not reporting any of these statistics from VAERS, and they control the health agencies like the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA.

They are rushing now to remove the emergency use authorization on these COVID-19 shots, so that they can legally be mandated, and the Pentagon has already stated that they will mandate them for the U.S. Military in September.

The FDA has also just recently approved a 3rd booster COVID-19 shot “for those who are immunocompromised.”

Los Angeles County started offering these 3rd Pfizer COVID-19 shots this past weekend.

Anthony Fauci did the Sunday talk show tour yesterday, and stated that Americans need to surrender their liberties (yes, he actually said that) because we are all fighting a common enemy, “the virus.”

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security has now issued a bulletin declaring that anyone who questions COVID-19 measures like masks and “vaccines” are potential “domestic terrorists.”

They are using a bogus COVID-19 “outbreak” called the “Delta variant,” and the CDC has already been caught lying about who are actually being hospitalized right now, falsely stating that the “unvaccinated” are filling up hospitals, when almost the exact opposite is happening around the world.

Israel, Australia Report 95-99% Hospitalized are Fully Vaccinated

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

The IPCC Report & the Pivot from Covid to Climate

The New Normal brigade are prepping us for a change of direction

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | August 16, 2021

The latest IPCC report on climate change was released last week, and has signalled a sea-change in the ongoing “big issue”. The Pandemic was fun while it lasted, but it’s time it faded back and we got on with the next stage.

That’s not just my interpretation either, they are quite literally saying it themselves.

Usually, when there’s a big narrative shift looming, you can find one key article that tells you everything you need to know about the plan. For the IPCC report, it’s this iNews article by Andrew Marr. Where he literally uses the phrase “hinge to climate from Covid” several times:

“There is a great turn coming, a change in the terms of political debate, a period of hinge. We are swinging from the many months of coronavirus obsession into an autumn which will be dominated, rightly, by the climate emergency. But much of what we have learned from Covid-19 – about the state, authority, journalism and civil society – is directly applicable to what’s coming next.”

The media have, naturally, been full of headlines on the IPCC report, with varying degrees of alarmism and insanity.

“It’s now or never!” screams the Guardian as a “climate reckoning” is upon us. The Sun calls it a “full fledged arson attack on the planet!

But none of them outline just what the next few months have in store for us better than Marr. The goblinoid face of the establishment, who nauseatingly cheered on Blair in Iraq, can always be relied upon to keep on message. He’s always right there saying the right thing at the right time. And this piece is no exception.

He headlines “Treat people like grown-ups and they will fight climate change like Covid-19”, adding [our emphasis]:

“Education works. We are following the science and as we continue to do so, we will successfully tackle climate-change issues in the same way we faced down the coronavirus.”

He never outright states what this “same way” is, exactly, but it’s not really hard to imagine what he means. His article isn’t about the future, anyway, it’s all about the past.

It’s tracking the tools deployed during the “pandemic”, and how effective they were. A performance review for the politicians and “journalists” who have successfully parlayed a “virus” that poses almost zero danger to the general public into a full-fledged remodelling of society.

He points out how politicians under-estimated how willingly people would leverage their freedoms:

“To begin with [Western leaders] worried that voters would not accept restrictions on their liberties for the greater good. By and large, they were wrong. […] This shaped how Germans, Americans, the French and British – and many more – responded, and allowed societies to change direction faster than anyone would have predicted.”

How easily the media were able to spread misinformation that controlled public opinion:

“The media, so often blamed for almost everything, found new ways to explain complex scientific arguments in ways that most people understood.”

And how these lessons can be applied to messaging on climate change going forward:

“This is a core lesson that needs to be learned, as we hinge from Covid to climate. Public understanding of science has become a security issue. Without it, there will be no public support for the hard decisions on transport, heating and land use.”

The whole thing reads that way, like a cross between a press release and a progress report. Appearing a blithe opinion piece to the uninitiated, but having a clear second layer of meaning to those who know how to read it.

There are throwaway lines propping up globalism (“how little nature notices national borders”), and brief praise for China’s authoritarian government vs the West’s “slapdash” approach and “tardy lockdowns”, but those are B plots.

The story here is “hey guys, this all worked much better than we thought it would, we could do the same thing for climate change”.


Not “over”, but certainly on the decline. It’s obvious that the press are prepping the groundwork to leave Covid behind, and turn their focus to the next stage of the Great Reset.

But, all that said, it will be a difficult sell. Harder than Covid, in some ways, because people are so much more used to climate alarm calls. For want of a better word, they have become somewhat immune to it.

What’s more, the establishment clearly knows this, because they’re keeping the pandemic warm on the backburner. Ready to bring it back to the boil should the need arise.

We’re being told the disease will be endemic, but that “Delta has changed the endgame” and that “herd immunity is impossible

The pandemic is becoming a new forever war, akin to the war on terror. We won’t ever win it, but it will disappear from headlines until they need to shock or distract people.

Marr, for example, doesn’t declare the pandemic over, instead he says:

“The pandemic is not, of course, yet over. It will end raggedly and slowly; and politicians who proclaim victory will quickly sound foolish[…]it will probably feel as if we have beaten this thing.”

Before adding the ubiquitous riders that will keep the “threat” of the Covid alive in the public imagination:

“The Delta variant may be the most contagious virus ever [and] can reinfect the double-vaccinated […] Britain is going to face a period of “bumpiness” in transmission rates and uncertainty about the near future […] the winter may be tough […] Booster jabs will become routine.”

There’s clearly a plan in place. He practically spells it out, claiming Covid19 will be pushed off the front pages…

“Though not every day… this will be bumpy. There will be sudden scares about the emergence of a possible new variant somewhere unexpected; and urgent questions about biosecurity at Heathrow. There will be stories about outbreaks in care homes, or a sudden spike in infections in particular age or ethnic groups.”

Do you see what he’s saying yet?

The pandemic isn’t over, it will just “feel” like it is, while they fill the front pages with big red numbers about climate change.

If people don’t respond to those big red numbers the way they should… well, there just might be another variant. Maybe a racist one.

The pandemic has served its purpose, but they won’t end it yet. Not until they’re sure everyone is good and scared of something else.


It’s not hard to see exactly where this all leads. Mostly because they’re telling us.

Establishment voices have already talked about “climate lockdowns”, and the UK’s Science Advisor Patrick Vallance wrote, last week, about how:

“nothing short of transforming society will avert catastrophe”

This isn’t new. This has been bubbling along in the background for months (I have already written two articles about it), but the message is being refined into a simple three-step process:

  1. Point out all the ways Covid and climate change are similar.
  2. Emphasise that Climate Change is much more of a threat than Covid. Use the word “existential.” A lot.
  3. Argue that since we were willing to change to fight Covid, we should do the same for climate.[optional]

You can see it in Marr’s article.

The comparison:

“The interesting thing is that so much of the world’s experience during the pandemic relates quite closely to the climate crisis – our human interrelatedness, the importance of effective governance, the centrality of science and its communication.”

Followed by the “covid is worse” [my emphasis]:

“Of course, the two challenges are different. So far, a little over 4.3 million people have died from Covid. Australian and Chinese academics estimate that around five million people are dying each year from the effects of climate change […] Suffice it to say that even if the Delta variant is the most infectious disease mankind has so far faced, the climate emergency is at another level – a reshaper of geography, highly unpredictable and, in short, existential for the planet and its inhabitants.”

Patrick Vallance does the same in his article in the Guardian, and then again in The Times. There are several others along the same lines, such as this one from the Hill, or this one from the International Monetary Fund.

It’s also apparent that the same tactics of demonising any opposition and attempting to turn it into an opportunity to virtue-signal will be used. There are lots of articles comparing “covid denial” and “climate denial”, or otherwise attempting to politicise the issue.

So, the way they’re going to talk about (or should we say say “market”?) climate change action is fairly clear. But what are these hypothetical actions going to be?

Are we seeing any hints as to what this “transformation of society” might entail? Or what these “tough decisions” could be?

Well, there were whispers of climate lockdowns, but they have died away since the outraged reaction. There’s always talk of other schemes, like limiting flightsoutlawing beef and “personal carbon allowances”, but these are hardly new.

Andrew Marr’s article contains a couple of hints. But the only specific policy he mentions is forcing households to replace their boilers (“at a high cost to millions of families”), and this somewhat creepy allusion to the importance of the Deep State:

“A final lesson is that Westminster and the state are two very different things. The state includes the NHS, national science labs, networks of experts […] I now feel we should spend less time on the distracting national puppet show and more time thinking about what I might delicately call the deeper sources of authority.”

(Attacking democracy for hampering “drastic efforts” is a concerning trend, one to watch out for)

Mostly, though, the mainstream voices are being very quiet on specifics. I suspect partly to stop the spread of what Marr calls “an outbreak of conspiracy theories in new media”, but mostly because they’re not sure exactly what they want to do yet, and they don’t believe the majority mentally prepared enough.

The COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow, this November, will be something to keep an eye on. Expect a lot of scary stories in the weeks leading up to it, and then a lot of “policy recommendations” in its wake.

We’re pivoting to climate change guys. Great Reset Phase II is upon us.

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Sheriff who used “pre-crime” algorithm to target “would-be” criminals will face trial

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | August 16, 2021

A federal judge refused to dismiss a case against a sheriff in Florida over a “Minority Report-style” computer program that predicts criminals. The sheriff’s office is accused of then proceeding to harass the “future criminals” identified by the program.

Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco sought to dismiss the case. According to the Institute for Justice(IJ), the organization representing the plaintiffs in the case, Judge Steven Merryday’s ruling to dismiss the motion to dismiss is a victory.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

“Today’s decision is an important step toward the ultimate dismantling of the program,” explained Ari Bargil, an attorney at the Institute for Justice.

The lawsuit cites a “dystopian ‘predictive policing’ program used in the county, and enforced by the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO). According to the IJ, for the past decade, the PCSO has used a “crude computer algorithm to identify and target supposed ‘future criminals.’”

The Tampa Bay Times conducted an investigation that found out that the sheriff’s deputies show up at the homes of the identified “potential criminals” unannounced and demand to enter. If there was no cooperation, the deputies would write tickets for petty offenses such as having tall grass or missing house numbers.

A former deputy told the paper that they were ordered to “make their lives miserable until they move or sue.”

“By rejecting the PCSO’s attempt to have the case thrown out, the judge signaled that the plaintiffs’ claims are meritorious and that a full inquiry into the constitutional legitimacy of the program is necessary. We look forward to proving up our claims in the weeks and months to come.”

The lawsuit, filed at the US District Court in Tampa, argues that the program and the sheriff’s office violate the Fourteenth, Fourth, and First Amendments. The case was filed by IJ on behalf of Robert Jones, Darlene Deegan, Dalanea Taylor, and Tammy Heilman, all who were “relentlessly surveilled and harassed.”

According to IJ, Jones received the worst treatment, which started in 2015 after his son was involved in an incident where police also became involved. After that, the “deputies started to conduct ‘prolific offender checks.’ These warrantless ‘checks’ involved repeated, unannounced visits to Robert’s home at all hours of the day. Robert grew tired of the harassment and stopped cooperating with police. That only made matters worse.”

He was then given a citation after the deputies measured the length of his grass and said it was too tall. He was later arrested for failing to appear in court for the citation, which “he was never told was happening.” He was arrested four more times after that.

“I lived through a living hell because a computer program said my family didn’t belong in Pasco,” said Robert Jones. “I only thought this kind of thing happened in movies, not in America. We’ve got rights. And I’m going to stand up for them and shut this program down.”

“The Pasco Sheriff’s Office has appointed itself judge, jury, and executioner in the lives of its residents, punishing alleged future criminals for hypothetical crimes that have not been committed,” said IJ Senior Attorney Rob Johnson. “Today’s decision means the sheriff is going to have to justify that behavior before a real judge.”

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

What Afghanistan’s Saigon moment teaches us about America’s ‘humanitarian wars’

By Maram Susli | RT | August 16, 2021

What we’ve just witnessed in Afghanistan is a historical repeat of the ‘Saigon moment’. But the final hours of the US occupation have been accompanied by a cacophony of neocons decrying the decision to end the war.

They cite women’s rights, regional stability and anti-terrorism as reasons the US should have remained in Afghanistan. But those were the very reasons cited for starting the war in the first place, back in 2001. How many more decades do they expect the world to be held hostage to the narratives of ‘the humanitarian war’? It’s now, at the end of the US’s longest war, that we must reflect on the past 20 years, and consider how it was that those false “humanitarian” narratives led us to this point.

Some of the most grave human rights violations occurred at the very onset of the war.

In the first months, the US dropped thousands of yellow cluster bombs around Afghan villages. They resembled aid packages – also yellow. Children would rush to collect what they believed to be food, only to end up dead after picking up and setting off an explosive device.

In an incident now known as ‘the convoy of death’, Taliban fighters who surrendered to the Afghan Northern Alliance were stuffed into sealed shipping containers and allowed to asphyxiate as they were driven across the desert – allegedly under the watchful eye of the CIA.

The list of US war crimes grew as the years went by. Reports emerged that US soldiers were killing civilians and allegedly keeping their body parts as souvenirs. Thanks to the bravery of former British Army major turned Australian army lawyer David McBride, who leaked secret documents, we learnt that Australian special forces had a similar kill team operating in Afghanistan.

One of the strongest narratives that sold the war on Afghanistan to the public was what removing the Taliban could do for women’s rights. But the notion that the US had any real interest in women’s rights is ludicrous, since, in the first place, it was the US that helped the Taliban take control of Afghanistan away from the Soviet-backed secular government.

In 2001, when the former Islamist commanders from the days of the anti-Soviet insurgency came to power, ‘bacha bazi’ – a practice linked with the oppression of women’s rights and child sex abuse that had been outlawed by the Taliban – became common again. American soldiers were reportedly instructed not to intervene, not even when their Afghan allies abused boys on US military bases. In fact, in 2010, a WikiLeaks cable revealed that American mercenaries in the employ of DynCorp paid to bring bacha bazi boys onto a military base to dance for Afghan commanders.

Afghan women deserve rights, but not through US occupation.

And, while we’re talking about rights abuses, what about the rights of American soldiers? How many young men were buried in pursuit of this ill-fated war? Many who survived face a lifetime of pain or mental illness. Veterans are twice as likely as the average American to die from an overdose using opioids – which, ironically, likely originated in Afghanistan.

According to the US military, 90% of the world’s heroin is made from Afghan opium. In 2000, the Taliban outlawed its cultivation, but after the US invasion, there was record-high production year after year. The US effectively turned Afghanistan into a narco-state. Even the longest-running US-backed Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, had a brother who was a drug lord and allegedly on the CIA’s payroll. It is perhaps no coincidence that the US is now facing one of the deadliest opioid epidemics in a century.

In order to buy into the notion that the US pull-out will be a threat to peace and stability in the region, we would first have to believe the occupation of Afghanistan was a source of peace and stability. The reality is, in the past 20 years, not a day went by without violence, and it has left Afghanistan in ruins. The invasion was sold as a way to defeat Al-Qaeda in the War on Terror, but instead, we saw the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) across the Middle East and an increase in terrorist activity across the globe. Again, if the US were serious about defeating terrorism, it wouldn’t be backing Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Syria.

There is no reason to believe that America’s goals in Afghanistan had anything to do with maintaining stability. Although the US military has pulled out, that may, in fact, be part of Washington’s calculus to cause instability from afar – a cheaper alternative to the occupation. After all, as it pivots towards a confrontation with China, the US needs to retain its resources. China’s volatile Xinjiang province shares a border with Afghanistan. It would want to avoid any instability that could mean militants flowing over that border. Perhaps the US hopes to draw China into the graveyard of empires.

No one has a higher stake in maintaining Afghanistan’s stability than its neighbours – in particular, Pakistan, China, Iran, and Russia. After 40 years of conflict, the Taliban is now decidedly more pragmatic in its dealings with all of them. Russia, in spite of its own history of war in Afghanistan, has decided to normalise relations with the Taliban in the interests of stability. Iran, which had its share of animosity towards the formerly anti-Shi’ite Taliban, hosted peace talks with the militants and the US-backed Afghan government. China, too, has had its issues with the Taliban, as members of its Uighur minority have previously crossed the border to join Al-Qaeda and fight alongside them. The Taliban has promised not to intervene in China’s Uighur issue and, in return, China has offered to build Afghanistan’s infrastructure and bring it out of an era of ruin into an era of economic prosperity. That’s something else the decades of US control failed to accomplish.

Whatever may come next, as the last Chinook takes off from the US Embassy, Afghans finally have the ability to decide their own destiny. May we all stop to think twice when next the neocons spin a humanitarian narrative to breach the sovereignty of a nation.

Maram Susli is a Syrian-Australian political analyst and commentator. She has written for New Eastern Outlook and Sputnik UK, among others.

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments

Hamas congratulates Afghan people on liberating their land

Palestine Information Center – August 16, 2021

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM – The Hamas Movement has congratulated the Muslim Afghan people on liberating their land from the American occupation.

In a press release on Monday, Hamas said that the victory that was achieved by the Taliban Movement and its courageous leadership came as a culmination to its long struggle against the American occupation over the past 20 years.

Hamas said that the ousting of the US occupation and allies from Afghanistan proved that victory is the destiny of every occupied nation struggling for the liberation of its homeland.

Finally, the Movement has wished the Afghan people and its leadership every success in achieving unity, stability and prosperity in their liberated land.

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism | , | 1 Comment

The U.S. Government Lied For Two Decades About Afghanistan

By Glenn Greenwald | August 16, 2021

“The Taliban regime is coming to an end,” announced President George W. Bush at the National Museum of Women in the Arts on December 12, 2001 — almost twenty years ago today. Five months later, Bush vowed: “In the United States of America, the terrorists have chosen a foe unlike they have faced before. . . . We will stay until the mission is done.” Four years after that, in August of 2006, Bush announced: “Al Qaeda and the Taliban lost a coveted base in Afghanistan and they know they will never reclaim it when democracy succeeds.  . . . The days of the Taliban are over. The future of Afghanistan belongs to the people of Afghanistan.”

For two decades, the message Americans heard from their political and military leaders about the country’s longest war was the same. America is winning. The Taliban is on the verge of permanent obliteration. The U.S. is fortifying the Afghan security forces, which are close to being able to stand on their own and defend the government and the country.

Just five weeks ago, on July 8, President Biden stood in the East Room of the White House and insisted that a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was not inevitable because, while their willingness to do so might be in doubt, “the Afghan government and leadership . . . clearly have the capacity to sustain the government in place.” Biden then vehemently denied the accuracy of a reporter’s assertion that “your own intelligence community has assessed that the Afghan government will likely collapse.” Biden snapped: “That is not true. They did not — they didn’t — did not reach that conclusion.”

Biden continued his assurances by insisting that “the likelihood there’s going to be one unified government in Afghanistan controlling the whole country is highly unlikely.” He went further: “the likelihood that there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.” And then, in an exchange that will likely assume historic importance in terms of its sheer falsity from a presidential podium, Biden issued this decree:

Q.  Mr. President, some Vietnamese veterans see echoes of their experience in this withdrawal in Afghanistan.  Do you see any parallels between this withdrawal and what happened in Vietnam, with some people feeling —

THE PRESIDENT:  None whatsoever. Zero.  What you had is — you had entire brigades breaking through the gates of our embassy — six, if I’m not mistaken.

The Taliban is not the south — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan.  It is not at all comparable.

When asked about the Taliban being stronger than ever after twenty years of U.S. warfare there, Biden claimed: “Relative to the training and capacity of the [Afghan National Security Forces] and the training of the federal police, they’re not even close in terms of their capacity.” On July 21 — just three weeks ago — Gen. Mark Milley, Biden’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that “there’s a possibility of a complete Taliban takeover, or the possibility of any number of other scenario,” yet insisted: “the Afghan Security Forces have the capacity to sufficiently fight and defend their country.”

Similar assurances have been given by the U.S. Government and military leadership to the American people since the start of the war. “Are we losing this war?,” Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, asked rhetorically in a news briefing from Afghanistan in 2008, answering it this way: “Absolutely no way. Can the enemy win it? Absolutely no way.” On September 4, 2013, then-Lt. Gen. Milley — now Biden’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — complained that the media was not giving enough credit to the progress they had made in building up the Afghan national security forces: “This army and this police force have been very, very effective in combat against the insurgents every single day,” Gen. Milley insisted.

None of this was true. It was always a lie, designed first to justify the U.S’s endless occupation of that country and, then, once the U.S. was poised to withdraw, to concoct a pleasing fairy tale about why the prior twenty years were not, at best, an utter waste. That these claims were false cannot be reasonably disputed as the world watches the Taliban take over all of Afghanistan as if the vaunted “Afghan national security forces” were china dolls using paper weapons. But how do we know that these statements made over the course of two decades were actual lies rather than just wildly wrong claims delivered with sincerity?

To begin with, we have seen these tactics from U.S. officials — lying to the American public about wars to justify both their initiation and continuation — over and over. The Vietnam War, like the Iraq War, was begun with a complete fabrication disseminated by the intelligence community and endorsed by corporate media outlets: that the North Vietnamese had launched an unprovoked attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. In 2011, President Obama, who ultimately ignored a Congressional vote against authorization of his involvement in the war in Libya to topple Muammar Qaddafi, justified the NATO war by denying that regime change was the goal: “our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives . . . broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.” Even as Obama issued those false assurances, The New York Times reported that “the American military has been carrying out an expansive and increasingly potent air campaign to compel the Libyan Army to turn against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.”

Just as they did for the war in Afghanistan, U.S. political and military leaders lied for years to the American public about the prospects for winning. On June 13, 1971, The New York Times published reports about thousands of pages of top secret documents from military planners that came to be known as “The Pentagon Papers.” Provided by former RAND official Daniel Ellsberg, who said he could not in good conscience allow official lies about the Vietnam War to continue, the documents revealed that U.S. officials in secret were far more pessimistic about the prospects for defeating the North Vietnamese than their boastful public statements suggested. In 2021, The New York Times recalled some of the lies that were demonstrated by that archive on the 50th Anniversary of its publication:

Brandishing a captured Chinese machine gun, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara appeared at a televised news conference in the spring of 1965. The United States had just sent its first combat troops to South Vietnam, and the new push, he boasted, was further wearing down the beleaguered Vietcong.

“In the past four and one-half years, the Vietcong, the Communists, have lost 89,000 men,” he said. “You can see the heavy drain.”

That was a lie. From confidential reports, McNamara knew the situation was “bad and deteriorating” in the South. “The VC have the initiative,” the information said. “Defeatism is gaining among the rural population, somewhat in the cities, and even among the soldiers.”

Lies like McNamara’s were the rule, not the exception, throughout America’s involvement in Vietnam. The lies were repeated to the public, to Congress, in closed-door hearings, in speeches and to the press.

The lies were repeated to the public, to Congress, in closed-door hearings, in speeches and to the press. The real story might have remained unknown if, in 1967, McNamara had not commissioned a secret history based on classified documents — which came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. By then, he knew that even with nearly 500,000 U.S. troops in theater, the war was at a stalemate.

The pattern of lying was virtually identical throughout several administrations when it came to Afghanistan. In 2019, The Washington Post — obviously with a nod to the Pentagon Papers — published a report about secret documents it dubbed “The Afghanistan Papers: A secret history of the war.” Under the headline “AT WAR WITH THE TRUTH,” The Post summarized its findings: “U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it, an exclusive Post investigation found.” They explained:

Year after year, U.S. generals have said in public they are making steady progress on the central plank of their strategy: to train a robust Afghan army and national police force that can defend the country without foreign help.

In the Lessons Learned interviews, however, U.S. military trainers described the Afghan security forces as incompetent, unmotivated and rife with deserters. They also accused Afghan commanders of pocketing salaries — paid by U.S. taxpayers — for tens of thousands of “ghost soldiers.”

None expressed confidence that the Afghan army and police could ever fend off, much less defeat, the Taliban on their own. More than 60,000 members of Afghan security forces have been killed, a casualty rate that U.S. commanders have called unsustainable.

As the Post explained, “the documents contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents, military commanders and diplomats who assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting.” Those documents dispel any doubt about whether these falsehoods were intentional:

Several of those interviewed described explicit and sustained efforts by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public. They said it was common at military headquarters in Kabul — and at the White House — to distort statistics to make it appear the United States was winning the war when that was not the case.

Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible,” Bob Crowley, an Army colonel who served as a senior counterinsurgency adviser to U.S. military commanders in 2013 and 2014, told government interviewers. “Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone.”

John Sopko, the head of the federal agency that conducted the interviews, acknowledged to The Post that the documents show “the American people have constantly been lied to.”


Last month, the independent journalist Michael Tracey, writing at Substack, interviewed a U.S. veteran of the war in Afghanistan. The former soldier, whose job was to work in training programs for the Afghan police and also participated in training briefings for the Afghan military, described in detail why the program to train Afghan security forces was such an obvious failure and even a farce. “I don’t think I could overstate that this was a system just basically designed for funneling money and wasting or losing equipment,” he said. In sum, “as far as the US military presence there — I just viewed it as a big money funneling operation”: an endless money pit for U.S. security contractors and Afghan warlords, all of whom knew that no real progress was being made, just sucking up as much U.S. taxpayer money as they could before the inevitable withdraw and takeover by the Taliban.

In light of all this, it is simply inconceivable that Biden’s false statements last month about the readiness of the Afghan military and police force were anything but intentional. That is particularly true given how heavily the U.S. had Afghanistan under every conceivable kind of electronic surveillance for more than a decade. A significant portion of the archive provided to me by Edward Snowden detailed the extensive surveillance the NSA had imposed on all of Afghanistan. In accordance with the guidelines he required, we never published most of those documents about U.S. surveillance in Afghanistan on the ground that it could endanger people without adding to the public interest, but some of the reporting gave a glimpse into just how comprehensively monitored the country was by U.S. security services.

In 2014, I reported along with Laura Poitras and another journalist that the NSA had developed the capacity, under the codenamed SOMALGET, that empowered them to be “secretly intercepting, recording, and archiving the audio of virtually every cell phone conversation” in at least five countries. At any time, they could listen to the stored conversations of any calls conducted by cell phone throughout the entire country. Though we published the names of four countries in which the program had been implemented, we withheld, after extensive internal debate at The Intercept, the identity of the fifth — Afghanistan — because the NSA had convinced some editors that publishing it would enable the Taliban to know where the program was located and it could endanger the lives of the military and private-sector employees working on it (in general, at Snowden’s request, we withheld publication of documents about NSA activities in active war zones unless they revealed illegality or other deceit). But WikiLeaks subsequently revealed, accurately, that the one country whose identity we withheld where this program was implemented was Afghanistan.

There was virtually nothing that could happen in Afghanistan without the U.S. intelligence community’s knowledge. There is simply no way that they got everything so completely wrong while innocently and sincerely trying to tell Americans the truth about what was happening there.

In sum, U.S. political and military leaders have been lying to the American public for two decades about the prospects for success in Afghanistan generally, and the strength and capacity of the Afghan security forces in particular — up through five weeks ago when Biden angrily dismissed the notion that U.S. withdrawal would result in a quick and complete Taliban takeover. Numerous documents, largely ignored by the public, proved that U.S. officials knew what they were saying was false — just as happened so many times in prior wars — and even deliberately doctored information to enable their lies.

Any residual doubt about the falsity of those two decades of optimistic claims has been obliterated by the easy and lightning-fast blitzkrieg whereby the Taliban took back control of Afghanistan as if the vaunted Afghan military did not even exist, as if it were August, 2001 all over again. It is vital not just to take note of how easily and frequently U.S. leaders lie to the public about its wars once those lies are revealed at the end of those wars, but also to remember this vital lesson the next time U.S. leaders propose a new war using the same tactics of manipulation, lies, and deceit.

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , | 3 Comments

The Lies Behind the ‘Pandemic of Unvaxxed’

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | August 16, 2021

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House and most mainstream media, what we have now is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”1

According to the official narrative, 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations are occurring among the unvaccinated. In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,2 CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.”

But as reported by Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle,” “that statistic is grossly misleading,”3 and in an August 5, 2021, video statement, Walensky inadvertently revealed how that 95% to 99% statistic was created.

Grossly Misleading Data Manipulation

As it turns out, to achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021. It does not include more recent data or data related to the Delta variant, which is now the most prevalent strain in circulation. The problem is, the vast majority of the United States population was unvaccinated during that timeframe.

January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,4 and as of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.”5 Keep in mind that you’re not “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second dose (in the case of Pfizer or Moderna), which is given six weeks after your first shot. This is according to the CDC.6

So, those receiving an initial dose in June, for example, won’t be “fully vaccinated” until eight weeks later, sometime in July or August.

By using statistics from a time period when the U.S. as a whole was largely unvaccinated, the CDC is now claiming we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” in an effort to demonize those who still have not agreed to receive this experimental gene modification injection.

Selective Pressure Promotes Emergence of New Variants

Here’s what Canadian viral immunologist and vaccine researcher Dr. Byram Bridle told Ingraham about the claim that we’re in a pandemic of the unvaxxed, and that the unvaccinated are hotbeds for dangerous variants:

“Absolutely, it’s untrue to be calling this a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And it’s certainly untrue … that the unvaccinated are somehow driving the emergence of the novel variants. This goes against every scientific principle that we understand.

The reality is, the nature of the vaccines we are using right now, and the way we’re rolling them out, are going to be applying selective pressure to this virus to promote the emergence of new variants. Again, this is based on sound principles.

We have to look no further than … the emergence of antibiotic resistance … The principle is this: If you have a biological entity that is prone to mutation — and the SARS-CoV-2, like all coronaviruses is prone to mutation — and you apply a narrowly focused selective pressure that is nonlethal, and you do this over a long period of time, this is the recipe for driving the emergence of novel variants.

This is exactly what we’re doing. Our vaccines are focused on a single protein of the virus, so the virus only has to alter one protein, and the vaccines don’t come close to providing sterilizing immunity.

People who are vaccinated still get infected, it only seems particularly good at blunting the disease, and what that tells you therefore is that these vaccines in the vast majority of people are applying a nonlethal pressure, narrowly focused on one protein, and the vaccine rollout is occurring over a long period of time. That’s the recipe for driving variants.”

Natural Immunity Offers Far Superior Protection

Bridle also explains why natural immunity offers robust protection against all variants, whereas vaccine-induced immunity can’t. When you acquire the infection naturally, your body develops antibodies against ALL of the viral proteins whereas the COVID shots only trigger antibodies against one, namely the spike protein.

As mentioned above, when you have antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, the virus only needs to mutate that one protein in order to evade your immune system. When you have natural immunity, on the other hand, your antibodies will recognize all parts of the virus, so even if the spike protein is mutated, your body will recognize other parts of the virus and mount an attack against those.

That SARS-CoV-2 works the same way other viruses do was shown in a Nature Reviews Immunology study7 by Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty, published in October 2020. The study, “Cross-Reactive Memory T Cells and Herd Immunity to SARS-CoV-2” argued that naturally-acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is potent, long-lasting and very broad in scope, as you develop both antibodies and T cells that target multiple components of the virus and not just one.

If we are to depend on vaccine-induced immunity, as public health officials are urging us to do, we’ll end up on a never-ending booster treadmill. Boosters will absolutely be necessary, as the shot offers such narrow protection against a single protein of the virus. Already, data around the world show vaccine-induced protection is waning rapidly in the face of new variants, and Moderna has publicly stated that the need for additional boosters is expected.8

How Dangerous Is the Delta Variant?

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Delta variant is both more transmissible and more dangerous than the original virus and previous variants. July 4, 2021, he told NBC News:9

“It is more effective and efficient in its ability to transmit from person to person. And studies that we’ve seen where they have been the variant that’s dominated in other countries, it’s clear that it appears to be more lethal in the sense of more serious — allow you to get more serious disease leading to hospitalization, and in some cases leading to deaths.”

In a June 29, 2021, interview,10 Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it.

Remember, Fauci is not a clinician and has never treated someone infected with SARS-CoV-2. Other health experts and practicing physicians who treat COVID-19 patients disagree with Fauci’s claims, arguing that not only is the Delta variant not more dangerous, it’s certainly not more dangerous for the unvaccinated.

As reported by Ingraham in June 2021 (video above), there’s an evolutionary genetics theory called Muller’s Ratchet, which states that as an outbreak starts to peter out, the virus tends to mutate into a more transmissible form, but at the same time it grows weaker, causing far less serious infection. According to epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, this is exactly what we’re seeing. He told Ingraham:

“The good news is on the 18th of June, the United Kingdom presented their 16th report11 on the mutations — and they’re doing a great job, much better than our CDC — and what they demonstrated is that the Delta is more contagious but it’s far less deadly, far less worrisome. In fact, it’s a much weaker virus than both the U.K. [Alpha] and the South African [Beta] variants.”

Spike Mutations Render Vaccinated Vulnerable to Delta

Importantly, the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This, McCullough explains, allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs — but not those who have natural immunity which, again, is much broader. In a June 30, 2021, appearance on Fox News, McCullough stated:12

“It is very clear from the UK Technical Briefing13 that was published June 18th that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant. It’s a very mild variant.

Whether you get the vaccine or not, patients will get some very mild symptoms like a cold and they can be easily managed … Patients who have severe symptoms or at high risk, we can use simple drug combinations at home and get them through the illness. So, there’s no reason now to push vaccinations.”

Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D., has echoed McCullough’s sentiments. The Defender quotes Hooker:14

“What we’re seeing is virus evolution 101. Viruses like to survive, so killing the host (i.e. the human who is infected) defeats the purpose because killing the host kills the virus, too. For this reason, new variants of viruses that circulate widely through the population tend to become more transmissive but less pathogenic. In other words, they will spread more easily from person to person, but they will cause less damage to the host.

The vaccine focuses on the spike protein, whereas natural immunity focuses on the entire virus.

Natural immunity — with a more diverse array of antibodies and T-cell receptors — will provide better protection overall as it has more targets in which to attack the virus, whereas vaccine-derived immunity only focuses on one portion of the virus, in this case, the spike protein. Once that portion of the virus has mutated sufficiently, the vaccine no longer is effective.”

Real-World Data Show Most of Infected are Fully ‘Vaccinated’

Real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show the complete converse of what media, the CDC and White House officials are telling us. In addition to the British Technical Briefing No. 16,15 cited above, we have additional data from Israel, Scotland, Massachusetts and Gibraltar:

August 1, 2021, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.16 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

A few days later, August 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.17 As of August 2, 2021, 66.9% of Israelis had received at least one dose of Pfizer’s injection, which is used exclusively in Israel; 62.2% had received two doses.18

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.19

A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6 through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.20,21 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant of the virus.

The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected.22 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021.23

While those who benefit from keeping the pandemic going would like you to cower in fear at the thought of the Delta variant, there’s really no evidence that it’s any worse than the original. It’s more transmissible, yes, but far less dangerous, as its primary symptoms are that of a regular cold.

According to Harvard and Stanford professors, the actual number of Americans dying from or with COVID-19 are actually at an all-time low, so alarmism is uncalled for.24

And, as for viral social media posts by doctors and nurses claiming hospitals are overflowing with unvaccinated COVID patients, don’t believe them. Most are bots. We’ve repeatedly seen evidence that fearmongering is being spread not by real people but by fake accounts run by artificial intelligence. This includes blue check accounts. Here’s a sampling of recent bot farm tweets trying to scare everyone:25

bot farm tweets
bot farm tweet

Don’t Fear It, Just Treat It

In closing, remember there are several different treatment protocols for COVID-19 that appear just as effective for variants as for the original virus, including the following:

Sources and References

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

California Hospitals Require Proof of Visitors’ COVID Vaccine or Negative Test to Enter

21st Century Wire | August 16, 2021

Since the very beginning of the ‘global pandemic,’ the state of California has led the way as one of the most aggressive violators of its citizens Constitutional rights and freedoms. Like many governments, the state has sought to justify its authoritarian policies and coercive measures by claiming these are necessary in order to ‘stop the spread of virus’ – despite the fact that there exists no scientific basis for such broad claims on the efficacy of such interventions. Regardless, governments everywhere are pushing forward even harder in the race to implement Vaccine Passports as a mechanism to to force the entire population to accept an unending series of unlicensed, experimental corporate products – in this case, brand new COVID-19 vaccines. Once again, government is claiming these are absolutely necessary to ‘stop the spread of virus,’ and again, there exists no scientific basis for these broad claims either.

Regardless of these facts, American healthcare providers are now pushing ahead by banning visitors from their facilities who do no submit to either COVID-19 corporate PCR testing or experimental vaccine regimes.

Given the state’s already abysmal record in protecting its residents’ civil liberties, it should be no surprise that California is now leading the way in the United States in denying freedom of movement of the unvaccinated.

According to an email (see below) sent out this week to the members of Sutter Health Network, the state public health’ officials have issued a new decree that visitors to facilities will no longer be able to enter hospitals or retirement care homes – without a COVID-19 vaccine, or a negative COVID-19 test. The announcement began with the following text:


As of Wednesday, August 11, a health order from the state of California requires hospital visitors to provide proof they’re fully vaccinated or had a negative COVID-19 test taken within 72 hours in order to enter our hospitals to visit/accompany a patient.
  • This policy includes partners or support persons for laboring patients. Please plan accordingly if you’re expecting a baby.
  • While the order includes ICU and emergency departments, limited exceptions are allowed for visits related to end-of-life, guardians accompanying minors or those support persons determined to be essential to facilitating care.
  • Please note that rapid testing for COVID-19 will not be available onsite at our facilities. Find acceptable proof of vaccination options and find out where you can get tested.
  • Review our updated hospital visitor policy for more information


Thank you to News From Underground for this tip.

The claims made by state health officers are simply breathtaking – in the sense that their statements do not correspond at all with the reality, even according to widely known official data.

In order to give the impression that the state is still in the grips of a ‘pandemic,’ it is relying on fabricated ‘case’ numbers gleaned from corrupted false positive test data from non-diagnostic PCR test. Even so, it’s still struggling to show significant ‘infection’ numbers:

California is currently experiencing the fastest increase in COVID-19 cases during the entire pandemic with 18.3 new cases per 100,000 people per day, with case rates increasing ninefold within two months.

By pursing completely arbitrary, non science-based policies, the state appears to following in the footsteps Australia’s failing “Zero COVID” policy.

State officials then go on to claim California is now under viral siege from an uncontrollable and “possibly” more deadly ‘Delta Variant’:

The Delta variant, which is very highly contagious and possibly more virulent, is currently the most common variant causing new infections in California.

The fabrications continue with the government making the now widely discredited false claim that “Unvaccinated persons are more likely to get infected and spread the virus” (official data from IsraelIceland and numerous other regions clearly show that the vaccinated are actually driving the alleged outbreaks), a commonly repeated canard disseminated by the Biden Administration and mainstream media outlets:

Unvaccinated persons are more likely to get infected and spread the virus, which is transmitted through the air. Most current hospitalizations and deaths are among unvaccinated persons.

So at present, the only real epidemic appears to be an epidemic of medical misinformation’ being promulgated by government itself.

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Biden’s America is back – to Somalia

By Uriel Araujo | August 16, 2021

On July 20, the US carried out an airstrike in Somalia against al Shabaab militants – the first one in Somalia under President Joe Biden. It struck again on July 23 and August 1. Last week, it was reported Biden seeks to host a “Summit for Democracy”. According to a White House statement, this will include civil society figures and political leaders to galvanize initiatives “against authoritarianism”, “corruption”, and also “promoting respect for human rights”.

These two topics are somehow connected. During the cold war, the US espoused the rhetoric of being the “leader of the free world”, although the record shows it backed some of the most ruthless dictators and promoted coup d’etats worldwide. To this day, most of the US “humanitarian interventions” have brought chaos and destabilization, and its attempts at “nation building” have been major humanitarian disasters. One only needs to look at Libya and Iraq or even Afghanistan – and yet Washington insists on being the only player that can deliver stability to Somalia in its counter-terrorism effort.

Amid the narrative wars, this is the one the US has always pushed: they are the champions of freedom, democracy, and now, in Biden’s parlance, human rights. This is the stuff American wars are made of, if we are to believe it – and there usually is a great battle for democracy somewhere. One could in fact argue that Trump was the first US President (since at least Carter) not to lead its own large and long military campaign.

While the Chinese presence in Africa is widely discussed, the US has maintained a kind of “invisible” presence in the African continent for a while, with a network of US special forces and private contractors – and this includes a covert war on the Al-Qaeda connected al-Shabab jihadist organization in Somalia: since 2007, thousands of people have been killed there by US drones and this includes civilians.

Trump removed most of the American troops from Somalia in the final days of his term, relocating them to nearby countries to remotely assist Somali forces against al-Shabab. This move was criticized by some American experts that argued Biden should redeploy the troops back to Somalia, and the Defense Department has been considering doing precisely that, according to a June 29 US Air Force Magazine piece. This is ironic, considering that the troops removal was completed less than 7 months ago, and considering that Biden has just withdrawn troops from Afghanistan – this also makes one wonder how long will it take before discussions about bringing troops back to Afghanistan begin.

In a January piece – published in the US FPRI website –  former US Ambassador to Somalia Stephen M. Schwartz argues that the US “hasty exit” from Somalia would open “the door to a greater role for the People’s Republic of China”. According to him, the fight against al-Shabaab is a “classic counter-terrorism” effort, at a time when Washington’s attention is turning to great power competition with Beijing and Moscow. After all, Somalia, he argues, is “more” than al-Shabaab.

Somalia itself is part of the so-called Horn of Africa, a region that historically has been at crossroads and remains one of immense geopolitical importance: one of the main global trade routes lies off its coast and connects the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and to the Mediterranean region and Europe through the Suez Canal.

It is well known Beijing currently seeks to employ its Belt and Road Initiative to enhance its position as the main investor in Africa. This can be clearly seen in the case of a small but strategic Horn of Africa country, namely, Djibouti – where Beijing also has its own permanent military base.

While Chinese military presence in the region and in the continent cannot rival American presence, China remains the largest investor in Africa and has been so for the last 10 years, according to a report by the Swiss-African Business Circle. For the 2010-2019 period, it has created an average of 18,562 jobs in Africa, while the US has created an average of 12,106. Moreover, according to Deborah Brautigam (Director of the China Africa Research Initiative), Beijing has been building long-term relationships in the continent, while Washington’s approach has a short-term time horizon.

There is yet another issue: Africa has been largely neglected by the US foreign policy – and Biden has not been an exception.

For example, in February 2021, the G5 Sahel held its N’Djamena meeting. While Russian deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov stayed three days in Burkina Faso (prior to the summit), and French President Emmanuel Macron spoke by video conference, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken merely  sent a pre-recorded five-minutes talk and dispatched no official in his place. In April, Niger celebrated, for the first time, a peaceful transfer of power between elected presidents, and neither President Biden nor Blinken sent a delegation.

Meanwhile, both China and Russia have maintained good diplomatic relations with many African countries since at least the Cold War period, when both powers supported several African independence struggles.

Apparently, for the US, having a presence in Africa is all about bombing insurgent groups with drones, maintaining military bases and special forces in covert undeclared wars, while insisting on its rhetoric of human rights and democracy.  If the US wishes to compete with China and Russia for geopolitical influence on the Horn of Africa (as well as on the whole continent), it will need to improve its diplomacy.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment


August 16, 2021

Dr. Yeadeon warns of the dangers of new mRNA technology.

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 7 Comments