Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israeli agency told to quit operations in Russia as ties hit new low

Press TV – July 6, 2022

The Russian Justice Ministry has asked an Israeli agency to wind down its operations in Russia as the two sides’ ties hit a remarkable new low.

The Jerusalem Post reported the development on Tuesday, citing the “Jewish Agency,” which purportedly handles the affairs of the Jewish people on the Russian soil.

“The order was given in a letter received from the Russian Justice Ministry earlier this week. Officials in the Jewish Agency confirmed that the letter was received,” the report said.

The agency, it added, was trying to coordinate a response in consultation with the Israeli regime’s foreign ministry and Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet’s office.

‘Dramatic order’

The paper described the order handed to the agency as “dramatic.”

It cited a “senior diplomatic official” as making the following remarks concerning the order and Tel Aviv’s potential response to the move.

“Russia is saying the Jewish Agency illegally collected info about Russian citizens… We will bring up the Jewish Agency [with Russian authorities] and address it in an organized way. It will be taken care of at the embassy level.”

“We don’t totally understand the reasoning,” the source claimed.

The daily also said cessation of the agency’s operations in Russia would mean that the Jews would no longer be able to “escape” the country and make their way to the occupied territories.

Relations between Russia and the Israeli regime have gone through dire straits on several occasions since 2018.

The ties were hit with what observers rate as a major crisis in September 2018, when a Russian Il-20 military plane was mistakenly shot down by Syrian air defenses when it was preparing to land in Russia’s Hmeimim airbase in Latakia Province in northwestern Syria. The Syrian S-200 missile defense system was responding to a wave of strikes by four Israeli warplanes.

Moscow blames Tel Aviv for the incident, which killed all the 15 people on board the plane, saying the Israeli warplanes had deliberately “created a dangerous situation” that led to the crash. The Russian military also said the ill-fated plane was used as a cover by the Israeli air force, and that Moscow reserved the right to give a due response.

Tensions flared again between the two sides over the Israeli regime’s recurrent airstrikes against Syria last month after the regime targeted the Damascus International Airport. Russia subsequently summoned the Israeli ambassador to the country, expressing “serious concern” over the strikes that targeted the civilian facility.

And in May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler had Jewish origins, triggering strong reactions from Tel Aviv. The Israeli foreign ministry said Lavrov’s comments were “ghastly,” and stated that it had summoned Russian Ambassador to Tel Aviv Anatoly Viktorov for “a tough talk” over the statements.

The Russo-Israeli ties have also been suffering as a result of Tel Aviv’s siding with the West over Ukraine, where Russia has been engaged in a special military operation since February, as well as the occupying regime’s agreement with the European Union to supply natural gas as an alternative to Russian energy imports.

July 6, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Russia responds to reports Turkey detained its ship

Samizdat | July 6, 2022

Moscow has denied reports of Turkish customs seizing or arresting a Russian dry-cargo ship carrying grain near Karasu Port, as Ukrainian officials have claimed.

During a briefing on Wednesday, the deputy director of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Aleksey Zaitsev, stated that the vessel, the Zhibek Zholy, was merely going through all the standard procedures before entering a port.

“According to Russia’s embassy in Turkey, the ship is currently in the roadstead of the port of Karasu and is undergoing standard procedures, including sanitary control,” Zaitsev stated. He further explained that based on the results of these inspections, the Turkish authorities will make a decision on whether or not to let the ship enter the port. Zaitsev noted that no matter the decision, there is absolutely no talk about detention or arrest of the vessel.

The ship’s crew members have also denied being arrested or detained by Turkish officials. Speaking to TASS on Tuesday, one member stated that none of the standard detention procedures have been carried out against the vessel, adding that it is at anchor due to bad weather.

“During a detention procedure, the ship is usually brought into the port under guard, meaning that it should specifically be done under the jurisdiction of Turkey’s guards if something really did happen. No arrest was made. The ship is simply at anchor due to weather conditions. A surveyor arrived on the ship, checked the cargo. This always happens,” the crew member explained.

Ukraine’s ambassador to Turkey, Vasily Bodnar, claimed on July 3 that Turkish customs, at the behest of Kiev, had arrested a Russian cargo ship allegedly carrying “stolen” Ukrainian grain.

According to Reuters, which cited unnamed Ukrainian officials, the Zhibek Zholy, which was traveling to the Turkish port of Karasu from the Russian-held Azov Sea port of Berdiansk, was allegedly loaded with around 4,500 tons of grain.

The outlet also reported that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office had previously sent a letter to Turkey’s Justice Ministry in late June insisting that the Zkibek Zholy had been involved in the “illegal export of Ukrainian grain,” and allegedly had 7,000 tons of cargo on board. Ukraine reportedly asked Turkey to inspect the vessel and seize samples of grain for forensic examination to determine its origin.

Neither Turkish customs officials nor the authorities in Ankara have given any official comments on the situation regarding the ship so far.

Grain exports by sea from Ukraine, a major producer, were undermined by the ongoing conflict in the country. Kiev has previously accused Russia of “stealing” its grain – which Moscow has denied.

Western nations have accused Russia of blocking the ports. Moscow has repeatedly stated it would guarantee safe passage for the grain shipments if Kiev clears its ports of mines. Ukraine has accused Russian forces of mining the Black Sea ports. Russia suggested exporting the grain through the Russian-controlled ports of Berdiansk and Mariupol.

July 6, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Norway-Russia Tensions Escalate Over Sanctions Impacting Arctic Islands

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | July 6, 2022

The latest point of confrontation between NATO and Russia is the Svalbard archipelago, located midway between Norway and the North Pole. Moscow claims Oslo is restricting trade with the island’s hundreds of Russian residents. A top member of the Russian legislature is now calling for Moscow to leave its agreement with Oslo that resolved the territorial dispute over the far-northern archipelago.

During a discussion about Norway restricting trade to the islands in the Russian Duma, the body’s speaker, Vyacheslav Volodin, requested the head of the chamber’s international affairs committee to look into “denouncing” the treaty. The agreement was signed in 2010.

In June, a shipment of goods to a Russian-operated mining colony on Svalbard was turned back. Moscow claimed the move by Oslo deprived the miners of needed food and medicine. “Norwegian authorities are trying to leave Russian miners without food, which is inherently immoral. This violates human rights and the principles of humanism,” said Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev.

Konstantin went on to claim that Norway’s blocking of shipments violated international agreements. Oslo disputed the accusations saying it had not broken treaties and was legally enforcing sanctions. The shipment was “stopped on the basis of the sanctions that prohibit Russian road transport companies from transporting goods on Norwegian territory,” Norway’s Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt said.

Huitfeldt noted there were potential options to allow the Kremlin to supply the miners without violating sanctions. The Russian Foreign Ministry promised Moscow would take “retaliatory measures” in response, though did not elaborate on what that might entail.

July 6, 2022 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Ukraine suffers appropriation of Western humanitarian and military aid

Samizdat | July 6, 2022

Ukraine’s Financial Investigations Service says it has uncovered numerous cases where humanitarian and even military aid provided by the West has been appropriated and sold at a profit inside the country.

Appearing on the TV news channel Ukraina 24 on Tuesday, the head of the investigative body, Vadim Melnik, lamented that “even goods destined for the military are being realized for money,” adding that his subordinates had “ascertained such facts.”

The official went on to reveal that the service had launched around ten criminal probes in connection with the sale of humanitarian or military aid.

According to Melnik, the true number of such cases is likely higher, as other Ukrainian law enforcement branches are also uncovering such crimes.

“We need to set clear control algorithms of both arrival, distribution as well as the use of aid, which our international partners are giving us today,” the head of the Financial Investigations Service argued.

Previously, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s office had reported multiple cases of misuse of Western humanitarian and military aid.

Last month, RT spoke with an American volunteer, Andy Huynh, who had fought for Ukraine before surrendering to Russian forces.

He claimed, among other things, that the “commanders were very corrupt and troops were very ill-prepared and supplied” in the ‘International Legion’ he had served in.

Another US volunteer told journalists back in May that corruption was rampant in units made up of foreign fighters, “with basic equipment going missing.”

“There’ll be weapons with no ammo, or no body armor or medical kit,” he explained.

July 6, 2022 Posted by | Corruption | | Leave a comment

Brazilian mercenaries die in Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz | July 6, 2022

Two Brazilians were killed in Ukraine in the first week of July after a Russian drone operation in Kharkiv. In all, three Brazilian mercenaries have died in Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian special military operation on February 24th. In the South American country, the mainstrem media has a strong pro-Western ideological orientation, which is why it encourages “volunteers” to go to Eastern Europe. In their speech, the media outlets claim that it is “easy” to fight against Russians because Kiev is supposedly “winning” the conflict. However, upon arriving in Ukraine, the foreign mercenaries are faced with a different and much harsher reality.

Between the night of July 1 and the morning of July 2 Brazilian mercenaries Douglas Rodrigues Búrigo and Thalita do Valle died after a Russian attack in Khakiv. Douglas was a former soldier of the Brazilian Army and had been fighting in Ukraine since May. Thalita was a model, lawyer, and professional sniper, who had previously worked as a military volunteer and propaganda agent for the Kurdish women’s battalions in the Middle East. Apparently, she died of asphyxiation while trying to flee her accommodation in the face of a drone attack, while Douglas was reportedly hit by shrapnel from mortar shells on the outside.

In June, another Brazilian had already died in Ukraine. André Hack Bahi was fatally shot during Russian bombing raids in Severodonetsk. Bahi was a former fighter in the French Legion and had already participated in some missions in Africa, but he was not able to survive the intense reality of the fighting in Ukraine. It is also necessary to mention that not all the dead have been properly identified yet, which leads one to believe that there may be more Brazilians among the dead in Ukraine, since there is ample participation of mercenaries from the South American country in the region.

There is still no official report by the authorities indicating the precise number of Brazilian citizens who are fighting for Kiev’s side in the conflict, but the number is certainly greater than what was expected from a neutral country with good relations with Russia. Even Brazilian parliamentarians fought in favor of Kiev, such as former deputy Artur do Val, who had a quick and scandalous performance in Ukraine, where he committed acts of sexual harassment against Ukrainian women. It is also known that over the last eight years several Brazilians have tried to join the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary troops to fight in Donbass, having been rejected due to the anti-Latin racism of these groups. Now these same militants are finding their way into the Ukrainian positions due to Kiev’s policy of accepting all foreign volunteers.

But it is absolutely impossible to analyze the situation without criticizing the destabilizing role that the Brazilian local media has played in its coverage of the events in Ukraine. Pro-Western media outlets report the conflict fallaciously, pointing to a non-existent “Ukrainian victory” and “ease” in fighting Moscow’s forces, portraying voluntary combat as a kind of “hunting safari” against Russians. Obviously, when the “volunteers” (almost all of them being paid private soldiers linked to mercenary companies) arrive on the battlefield, they are faced with situations very different from those reported by the journalists who encourage volunteering.

Agencies also have tried to publicize an image of “heroism” when talking about Brazilians fighting in Ukraine, ignoring important issues, such as the fact that they are cooperating with neo-Nazi militants and supporting a government that practices genocidal policies against the Russian population. Since the beginning of the Russian operation, Brazilian media agencies and Brazilian branches of foreign agencies have praised the “heroism” of the mercenaries who would be “helping to fight the invasion”, which also serves as propaganda and incentive for volunteering.

Brazilian media is not acting alone, but following the agenda imposed by the great world media agencies, which have increasingly bet on the narrative of “Ukrainian victory” as a way to raise the morale of the troops and justify the irresponsible military aid that the Western countries are sending to Kiev.

Private security companies hired to help Kiev are the ones that profit most from the propagation of this fallacious narrative among the public opinion, as they manage to convince an increasing number of volunteers to go and fight in Ukraine. In fact, some of these volunteers are not designated for direct combat but remain in safe places taking photos and videos to publish on the internet, reproducing propaganda to encourage more men to go – always trying to convince that combats are “easy” and “safe”, so that more people enlist in the mercenary companies. The result is that of the deluded enlisted men only a few are directed to propaganda, while others die on the battlefield.

Obviously, for Western countries and for private companies, investing in this type of propaganda is strategic and profitable, but not for Brazil. As a member of the BRICS, not participating in anti-Russia sanctions and being Moscow’s partner in several areas, the Brazilian government should act more incisively to monitor the destabilizing role that its media agencies are playing, seeking to prevent foreign narratives from taking Brazilians to die on the battlefield. Furthermore, it is not at all beneficial to Brasilia’s international image that the country is known for having a large number of citizens volunteering to fight alongside neo-Nazi battalions.

It is important to remember that mercenaries and “volunteers are not considered prisoners of war, but common criminals, which means that Brazilian citizens can be tried by courts in the liberated parts of Ukraine if they are captured. This type of situation will certainly generate diplomatic discomfort and, as Brazil and Russia are members of the BRICS, this is not a favorable condition for either side.

The best thing for the Brazilian government to do is to ban its citizens from volunteering in wars that do not concern the national interest of Brazil.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

July 6, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Russia says it destroyed US HIMARS rocket launchers dubbed ‘powerful tools’ by Kiev

Samizdat | July 6, 2022

Russian forces destroyed two US-made rocket launchers in Donbass, the defense ministry said on Wednesday.

The US provided Kiev with eight High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and ammunition since the beginning of the Russian military offensive in Ukraine, according to a Pentagon fact sheet published on Tuesday.

“In the area of the settlement of Malotaranovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic, high-precision air-launched missiles destroyed two US-made HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems and two ammunition depots for them,” the Russian military said in a statement.

At the end of June, the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) said that an М142 HIMARS had been used by Ukrainian forces in Donbass, the first time that local authorities reported the US-supplied systems had been used in combat.

Prior to that, the chief of Ukraine’s General Staff, Valery Zaluzhny, posted a video, purporting to show pro-Kiev forces operating the long-range rocket system.

On June 23, Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexey Reznikov welcomed the arrival of HIMARS and expressed gratitude to his “American colleague and friend Lloyd Austin (the Pentagon chief) for these powerful tools.”

“Summer will be hot for Russian occupiers. And the last one for some of them,” he wrote on Twitter.

Russia has constantly warned the US and its allies against providing Ukraine with weapons saying that it would only lead to the prolongation of the conflict and the creation of long-term problems.

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Tuesday that some of the foreign weapons intended for Ukraine were spreading throughout the Middle East and are turning up on the black market.

July 6, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

US should pay compensation if Covid-19 claim confirmed – Russia

Samizdat | July 6, 2022

The US may owe the world huge compensation for the damage caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the Russian State Duma, said on Wednesday. He cited remarks made by the chair of The Lancet commission on the disease, who suggested the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have originated from an American research program.

Speaking in Madrid last month, economist Jeffrey Sachs called the current situation “a mess” and blamed diminishing American leadership for it, identifying the pandemic as one of the US failures. He said he was convinced that the virus “came out of US lab biotechnology” as opposed to evolving naturally, citing his experience with the authoritative British medical magazine.

Volodin asserted that the US government would not comment on Sachs’ remarks because President Joe Biden is “afraid that the world will know the truth about the true culprit of the pandemic.”

He added that the suffering of millions of people who contracted the virus, including the many who passed away, and the economic crisis caused by the pandemic were the US’ responsibility. “The US must compensate the damage to all nations affected,” he demanded.

The Russian official added that the US should “stop and declassify” its “military bioweapons research,” referring to the chain of biolabs scattered across the world that receive funding from the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The US says they are used to detect emerging pathogens, but some countries, including Russia and China, believe they may be used for clandestine military research.

Sachs himself called his remark “provocative” and lamented that the theory “is not being investigated, not in the United States, not anywhere,” despite evidence that warrants such a probe. “They don’t want to look underneath the rug too much,” he said.

The theory that Covid-19 started as a leak from a Chinese lab in Wuhan was popularized by the US government under President Donald Trump, who stated that Beijing should pay compensation for its supposed guilt. The Chinese government and Trump’s political opponents at home angrily rejected the idea. Major US tech companies even suppressed the lab leak theory as “disinformation” on their online platforms.

The censorship was reversed under President Joe Biden’s administration, which accused Beijing of failing to subject its microbiology research to international scrutiny. The outbreak was first detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan, which hosts a top biosecurity lab that has extensive records of doing research funded by American grants.

The World Health Organization conducted a probe into the origins of Covid-19 and concluded last February that the virus most likely came from an animal host.

July 6, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

In 2019, Pharma spent a lot of time and money to get vaccine mandates imposed. Why?

Did they know COVID was coming?

By Meryl Nass, MD | July 5, 2022

I gave the following testimony to the legislature of New Brunswick, Canada, in August 2019 to explain why they were suddenly being asked to impose vaccine mandates. It is chock full of useful information about this subject that few people know. Enjoy.

Why are legislatures imposing vaccine mandates now? My testimony to the New Brunswick, Canada legislature on August 27, 2019

… I am a veteran of the vaccine war in the US, and today I feel compelled to speak about what I saw in that war.  Legislators were forced to change their votes to revoke vaccine exemptions and rescind the historic right to consent to medical procedures. The vaccine war is a dirty war, in which platitudes about protecting the most vulnerable are invoked by the same pharmaceutical companies that paid $2.7 billion in criminal penalties in the US between 2012 and 2015. The vaccine industry generates enormous profits (estimated 10-40%), benefits from a government-guaranteed market, and receives almost total liability protection.  No other industry can rival these benefits.  And this industry’s rapacious desire to grow and guarantee its Canadian market is the reason we are here today.

Let me add context to this discussion by noting that in 2014, the NY Times said it cost $2200 to fully vaccinate one child. At that price, it cost $163 billion dollars to fully vaccinate every US child.

May I apologize at the outset for using mostly US data? I provide Canadian and New Brunswick information when available.

1. Pharma’s Pilgrimage to New Brunswick

Since March 2019, representatives of the three largest vaccine manufacturers in North America:  GSK, Merck and Sanofi, have made their way to New Brunswick to meet with ministers, public servants and lawmakers. This is not coincidental. Pharmaceutical companies are colluding to expand on legislative victories gained in the US. Using a media storm over measles, censorship of numerous vaccine-related websites, new support for mandates from professional organizations that have benefitted from industry largesse, and deals with Democratic party leaders, the right to religious and philosophic vaccine exemptions has been voted away by legislatures in California, New York and Maine.  In the recent case of New York, the Speaker of the NY Assembly was caught on videotape directing a committee member to change his vote in order for the mandate legislation to move forward.

This was not an idle pilgrimage to one of Canada’s smallest provinces. For Pharma it is the gateway to all of Canada.

The vaccine industry in 2019 is at a crossroads.

On the one hand, the vaccine business is booming. Several vaccines have been newly licensed, a robust industry-FDA revolving door has been established, and the children of North America are receiving more vaccines than ever before. Merck, for example, reported increased sales in the second quarter of 2019 for Gardasil HPV vaccine of 46% (to over $3 billion US annually) compared to last year, and increased sales of 58% for its MMRV (measles, mumps, rubella and varicella) vaccine. These are Merck’s 3d and 4th biggest sellers.  This year’s US measles outbreak (about 1200 cases) and media-driven fears of contagion contributed to vaccine uptake.

On the other hand, the industry does not want to shoulder the considerable expense of developing, testing and licensing new vaccines–over 100 of which are in development–without a government guarantee that they will be purchased.
Vaccines are being developed for everything from acne to cancers.

Vaccine mandates guarantee a vaccine market, now and in the future. Mandates put in place today will enforce the uptake of vaccines on the currently required list, plus other vaccines yet to be added.

Industry Challenges

In 2019, the vaccine industry faces threatening legal challenges:

a) An expert witness for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in the 2007 omnibus vaccine autism case (affecting the outcome for thousands of cases of alleged vaccine injury leading to autism), neurology professor Andrew Zimmerman, MD recently filed an affidavit stating that his expert testimony was altered by DOJ lawyers–that he told them that in certain cases, autism can be a consequence of vaccination. The case for which Prof. Zimmerman’s testimony was allegedly changed resulted in a denial of benefits for thousands of families with autistic children.  It also led to a negative conclusion in the US Vaccine Court, for all future cases, that autism might be a consequence of vaccination. Potentially thousands of denied cases will need to be re-litigated.

b) Gardasil, a Merck vaccine used to prevent HPV infections and putatively cancer, is facing lawsuits around the world for neurologic injuries and deaths. The Japanese government rescinded its recommendation for Gardasil due to the widespread side effects reported.  Recall that Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, MMR, varicella and other vaccines, hid the lethal side effects of Vioxx for nearly five years, paying out $4.85 billion US dollars to settle 27,000 injury claims. FDA scientist David Graham, MD estimated that 39,000 to 61,000 excess deaths occurred due to Vioxx.

c) Danish physician and anthropologist Peter Aaby, and the group he leads, have been studying vaccines in Africa for 40 years. After completing hundreds of vaccine studies, they have concluded that the DPT vaccine increases infant mortality, by 100% or more, in African infants. His group notes, “All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.”  You may be interested in his eye-opening talk at a recent Symposium on Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen.

The Best Defense is a Good Offense

Facing these challenges, in 2019 the vaccine industry seized its opportunity from a prolonged US measles outbreak. A flawless PR campaign conducted for the industry helped ram through legislation for enforced vaccine mandates in the US, and now the industry is repeating the strategy in Canada.

In the wake of the 2015 Disneyland measles epidemic, coupled with millions of dollars in lobbying fees and direct donations to legislators, California’s legislators voted to end non-medical vaccine exemptions. And this month, they passed a bill that restricted the granting of medical exemptions.

One of the unforeseen consequences of California’s vaccine mandate was the wholesale withdrawal of children from public schools. California’s Department of Public Health reported that the number of homeschooled, unvaccinated kindergartners soared from 2,000 to nearly 7,000 between 2016 and 2018, following California’s vaccine mandate.

Is New Brunswick, Canada prepared for a significant reduction in the number of children who attend public school?

2. You have been assured that “Vaccines are safe and effective.” 

It has a reassuring ring, but conveys nothing. In fact, each vaccine is very different from every other. Generally, we know something (but not enough) about the benefit, but only a little about the harms of different vaccines. According to the Institute of Medicine, “The process of anticipating, detecting, and quantifying the risks of rare adverse events following immunization presents an enormous challenge.” Like drugs, each is appropriately used when the benefit outweighs the risk. Because vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent disease, they should be even safer than drugs.

The initial effectiveness of the different childhood vaccines ranges from about 40% to 93%. Immunity then wanes over time.

Here is a big problem at the heart of vaccine safety assessment: adverse event information is cloaked in secrecy, withheld from physicians and the public by public health agencies. Undesirable results are massaged or falsified until they appear acceptable. Because this is hard to believe, I will give you 3 important examples of CDC’s data manipulation.

1. Thomas Verstraeten was a young physician on a CDC fellowship who in 1999 studied the statistical relationship between cumulative amounts of thimerosal (mercury) infants received from vaccines and neurological illnesses. His results–including that children exposed to the highest levels of mercury from vaccines after birth had 7 times the level of autism as children not exposed–were so disturbing that CDC convened a private meeting of vaccine experts to discuss and manage them. No reporters or members of the public were permitted, but a copy of the meeting transcript was leaked. (I have provided you with an unpublished abstract obtained by FOIA showing some of Verstraeten’s data before it was massaged to remove the effect of mercury. His published 2003 paper says, “No consistent significant associations were found between thimerosal (mercury) containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.” I also gave you a letter from physician Congressman Bill Weldon to Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the CDC about this data manipulation. The issue is unresolved. Merck was later found to have misled the public about when it removed thimerosal from infant vaccines.

2.  Dr. William Thompson admitted that his group of CDC scientists was directed to destroy data in their study that linked early MMR vaccination in black males to increased rates of autism. The group met in a conference room, and put all data showing this effect into a garbage can. Thompson secretly retained a copy, and made it available to Congressman Bill Posey. The published paper denied any autism connection. Congressman Posey has called for an investigation, but none has occurred. The movie Vaxxed is about this matter.

3. Poul Thorson was a physician, CDC employee and later CDC contractor who both manipulated Danish data to remove the adverse effects of thimerosal (50% mercury), and stole funds from the CDC. Thorson is currently on the Department of Health and Human Services’ list of fugitives from justice.

Despite strong evidence of scientific misconduct in these 3 CDC cases, the papers published in top medical journals with these manipulated data have never been retracted from the medical literature.  Instead, they provide foundational support for the safety of the MMR vaccine and for the safety of mercury in vaccines. The fraudulent papers pollute the medical literature, making it impossible to discern the true adverse effects of vaccines.

Since 1995, when Congress chartered the CDC Foundation, over $800 million dollars has been donated to CDC through this Foundation vehicle. Health Canada, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis and other vaccine companies donate to the CDC Foundation, sometimes to sponsor programs that increase sales. Former CDC Director Gerberding became the President of Merck Vaccines after leaving CDC. Financial conflicts of interest at CDC with respect to vaccine safety have long been documented.

Vaccine safety science

It is very difficult to link an adverse reaction to a vaccination unless it occurs soon afterward.  In general, late adverse reactions are only identified as caused by vaccines if they occur many times more often than expected.

The National Academy of Sciences was chartered by Congress in 1863 to provide expert advice to government. Congress requested the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine to conduct a series of vaccine safety studies to inform vaccine policy.

In 2011, the US National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine examined the evidence for vaccine causality for 8 vaccines and 158 possible adverse effect-vaccine combinations. In the vast majority (85%) of cases, in the language used by the Academy, “the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.” The science remains unsettled.

President Harvey Fineberg of the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine wrote, in the US National Vaccine Plan 2013 Annual Report: (pages 44-45)

“While few health problems are clearly associated with vaccines and some putative associations can be rejected based on evidence, in the majority of cases evidence was inadequate to accept or to reject a causal relationship… Confidence in vaccine safety requires more than surveillance and reporting in real time. In light of the paucity of strong conclusions about possible vaccine side effects, continued and selective investment in epidemiologic and other investigations into the risks of immunization will be necessary… About the best one can do is to estimate, based on the evidence, the probability that the frequency of an adverse event is less than a specified, low level. This may be enough for the physician who weighs the public health and personal health benefit against a very low risk, but not enough to satisfy a wary parent.

Continued, candid, and open communication is also an essential ingredient to a successful vaccine safety regime. This means more than the experts explaining the benefits and risks to parents and families. It means listening carefully to the anxieties and doubts, staying true to the strength of evidence without exaggeration or misrepresentation, and reporting fully and fairly on scientifically sound investigations into possible adverse events.

By 2019 the winds had changed at the Academy of Medicine. A new President, Victor Dzau, himself and some of his advisory panelists tainted with undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, dismissed the concerns of his predecessor about lack of vaccine safety evidence, signing a brief whitewash:  “Our work has validated that the science is clear–vaccines are extremely safe.”

We now know that the National Academies of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine has received millions of dollars from drug companies that have interest in its work. Merckhas given between $5 and $10 million dollars; AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and United Therapeutics have each given between $1 and $5 million.

Understanding of the adverse effects due to single vaccines, combinations of vaccines, or the number of vaccines remains murky.

Canadian physicians examined the health of babies after their 12 and 18 month vaccinations. They found an excess emergency room visit for one in every 168 babies vaccinated at 12 months with the MMR vaccine, occurring between one and two weeks later. They concluded, There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12 and 18 month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented.”

1300 cases of narcolepsy were caused by the 2009 swine flu Pandemrix vaccine. This particular side effect was able to be linked to the vaccine because millions of people were vaccinated simultaneously, the narcolepsy that developed was severe and required intense medical attention, the rate of narcolepsy was 10-16 times higher than expected, and vaccine oversight had been increased to evaluate new pandemic vaccines. Canadians received a virtually identical vaccine (Arepanrix) but it was manufactured in a different facility, and by chance alone the Canadian version did not cause narcolepsy.

3. Is New Brunswick undergoing a crisis of vaccine-preventable disease?

The answer is no. And if there was a crisis, Bill 39 would not wait to go into effect until 2021.

Measles. As of August 3, Canada had 84 cases of measles in 2019, and no measles deaths since 2014. Surprisingly, given the media hoopla over measles, only three Americans have died from measles in the last 20 years. The last US child death occurred in 2003, in a 14 year old after a bone marrow transplant.
In a 2011 measles epidemic in Quebec, where over 95% of the population was vaccinated, 50% of those developing measles had received 2 doses of measles vaccine. After the Disneyland measles epidemic, it was found that 73 cases of measles (38% of those typed by CDC) were due to viruses from the measles vaccine.

Pertussis. Canada averages one death from whooping cough per year. There are many cases, most going undiagnosed and unreported. Some estimate a million US cases of whooping cough yearly. This is because vaccine protection wanes rapidlyMore than 80% of whooping cough cases occurred in fully vaccinated children in a recent study.

Diphtheria. There is one case of diphtheria every two years in the US.

Mumps. Canada reported 180 mumps cases yearly from 2011-2013. Mumps outbreaks are a result of waning of vaccine-induced immunity. “Data from outbreak studies showed that the odds of developing mumps increased by 10 to 27% with each year post-vaccination.”

Rubella. All recent US rubella cases were infected in other countries.

Polio. There is no polio in Canada. The last wild (natural) polio case in Canada occurred in 1977. There have been 3 reported cases in the US since 2005, all from vaccine strains of polio.  Worldwide, there are more new polio cases due to vaccine strains that became virulent than there are due to wild polio viruses. Last year, vaccine-derived viruses paralyzed 105 children worldwide; the wild virus just 33.

Vaccines containing live viruses, such as the MMR, Varicella, and oral polio can infect, harm and very rarely kill the recipient, especially if the child has an unknown immune deficiency. There are extensive warnings on the MMR vaccine information sheet which I have provided you, about who should not receive the vaccine.

UPDATE: On August 15, 2019 CDC changed most of its Vaccine Information Statements (which must be provided to parents before vaccines are given, according to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) eliminating many of the warnings associated with each vaccine. The MMR Vaccine Information Statement no longer says, “Some People Should Not Get this Vaccine.” The purpose for the changes appears to be to restrict the indications for medical exemptions, and create a federal standard to be applied by states that pass legislation like California’s.
Although it is not usually acknowledged, vaccination is not a one-size-fits-all procedure.  According to the Mayo Clinic, “Human antibody response to measles vaccine is highly variable in the population.” Females have more adverse reactions than males. Gender and race influence the response. As does heredity.

Families that have experienced a serious vaccine reaction are right to be concerned about additional vaccinations and the safety of sibling vaccination, for their family is probably at higher than average risk of a reaction. What goes unreported is that many unvaccinated children are themselves a vulnerable group, and should not be vaccinated. However, there are no existing standards for doctors to use to determine the risk of vaccination to most children.  So medical exemptions have been improvised, and are generally hard to come by.

4.  Herd Immunity is undermined by high rates of vaccine failures

The Quebec measles epidemic I mentioned demonstrates that even a vaccination rate over 95% didn’t prevent a large measles outbreak. Herd immunity rates are based on statistical modelling, and are only projections.  The reason that 50% of measles cases occurred in vaccinated children is primary or secondary vaccine failure. Primary vaccine failure means the vaccine never produced immunity, while secondary failure means the immunity was lost over time.

For most vaccines, primary and secondary failures go unnoticed, because children are not being exposed to most of these infections. The infections children do get exposed to are pertussis and influenza, and then vaccine failure is obvious–because most cases of pertussis and many of influenza occur in fully vaccinated children.

5.  Do unvaccinated children put immunocompromised children at risk?

The fact is that immunocompromised children are not dying from vaccine preventable diseases, and few are getting them, with the exceptions of influenza, pertussis and varicella–because vaccines for these 3 infections provide limited immunity.

Fewer than one American dies yearly from measles, mumps, rubella, polio, or diphtheria. On average, one Canadian dies from whooping cough (pertussis). Ten Canadian children die from influenza. One American child dies yearly from varicella (chickenpox).

You are looking at 11 child deaths per year in Canada. Would vaccinating every child fully against whooping cough, varicella and influenza prevent these deaths? Remember, most whooping cough and varicella patients are fully vaccinated. And while the immunity generated in young children from flu shots varies yearly, it is usually less than 50%.

Herd immunity cannot be achieved for whooping cough or influenza because neither vaccine is adequate. Pertussis vaccine immunity wanes so quickly that little protection is left after 3-4 years.  Transmission to others can occur before you realize you have influenza or pertussis. Even if 100% of Canadians were vaccinated, these diseases would continue to circulate within the vaccinated and the unvaccinated population.

Varicella cannot be eradicated both because the vaccine is not optimal (85% efficacy), waning occurs, and because the virus stays in your body permanently after vaccination or infection. Most immunocompromised children who develop varicella infections do so from virus already resident in their bodies. The claim that vaccine exemptions put immunocompromised children at risk was invented by PR firms, with no evidence behind it. In fact, immunocompromised children are at more risk from the shedding of live viruses in vaccines by other children who were recently vaccinated.

6.  Sufficient population immunity appears to exist

While vaccination rates reported in New Brunswick are low, non-medical exemption rates are also low:  2%. The likeliest explanation for lack of epidemics despite low recorded vaccination rates is inadequate recordkeeping.

In Maine, with similar demographics, vaccination rates for each of the required vaccines is about 95%. Exemption rates vary by vaccine. Only 1% of US children receive no vaccines. Up to 25% receive some, but not every available vaccine.

7.  Should we be concerned about vaccine quality and origin?

Vaccines are biologics. According to the FDA, “Most biologics are complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized.” Translation: vaccines contain unknown substances, unknown even to the FDA and Public Health Agency of Canada. This makes them challenging to regulate. The FDA relies on vaccine manufacturers to provide accurate data about each step in the manufacturing process. When a problem occurs during manufacturing, the FDA expects to be told and expects the manufacturer to recall affected lots of vaccine when necessary. I have provided you information on 5 vaccine recalls or other issues in Canada since 2012.

https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2018/66674a-eng.php

https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/15083a-eng.php

https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/15001a-eng.php

https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/15834a-eng.php

https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/15096a-eng.php

The quality of manufactured drugs has been diminishing. Over 80% of the drugs sold in the US are manufactured overseas, mostly in India and China.

The FDA usually redacts information about the locations where vaccine ingredients are manufactured. I am under the impression that at present, US vaccine products are made in Europe and North America.

However, the World Health Organization has a system for approving (or “prequalifying”) vaccines made in underdeveloped countries for sale internationally–generally to other underdeveloped countries.

Large multinational pharmaceutical companies, such as Sanofi, which has vaccine manufacturing facilities in both India and China, are manufacturing vaccines in underdeveloped nations.  China and India each have over 20 vaccine manufacturers. It is probably only a matter of time before vaccines manufactured in countries known for inadequate government monitoring of pharmaceuticals are being used in Canada and the US.

China experienced vaccine scandals in 2016 and in  2018:

“In July, China experienced its “worst public health crisis in years” as stated by South China Morning Post. Chinese vaccine maker Changsheng Biotechnology was found to have fabricated production and inspection records and to have arbitrarily changed process parameters and equipment during its production of freeze-dried human rabies vaccines. Furthermore, substandard diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccines produced by Changsheng Biotechnology were administered to 215,184 Chinese children; and 400,520 substandard DPT vaccines produced by Wuhan Institute of Biological Products were sold in Hebei and Chongqing. On July 25, China’s drug regulator launched an investigation into all vaccine producers across the country. Fifteen people from Changsheng Biotechnology, including the chairman, have been detained by Chinese authorities. This latest vaccine scandal follows on from a series of fake and substandard food and drugs issues in China. As a result, many parents have lost faith in the vaccine system.”

8.  Influenza, and the Fluad vaccine

Influenza is a disease that affects from 3-20% of the population yearly. There were 6515 reported influenza deaths in the US in 2017, during the decade’s worst outbreak. CDC uses mathematical models to estimate influenza deaths, and the estimates include deaths from other heart and lung conditions, in people who had influenza. These estimates usually range from 30-50,000 deaths yearly, related to influenza. Ninety percent of influenza deaths occur in those over age 65. While most people over 65 receive annual flu vaccines in the US, this age group is less likely to develop immunity from the vaccine, compared to younger people. Overall, flu vaccine effectiveness averages about 40%, according to the CDC.

Each year, influenza vaccines are newly made to contain the dominant strains predicted for that season.  Because of the need to make different products each year, and make them rapidly available for each flu season, they are not tested to the same extent as other vaccines. Clinical trials to test for safety are not required for yearly changes to flu vaccines.  Effectiveness trials are impossible to do prior to mass use. Yearly flu vaccines are “grandfathered in,” although they are checked for manufacturing defects.

In 2009, a GSK vaccine for pandemic flu caused 1300 cases of narcolepsy in Europe, mainly in adolescents and young adults. The European Medicines Agency failed to warn the public of this problem in a timely manner, leading to extended use of the problematic vaccine.

Possible reasons this occurred include the revolving door between vaccine manufacturers and regulators, the abbreviated safety testing of flu vaccines, and the liability protection given to manufacturers by governments. The episode provides a warning that regulators’ first priority may not always be the public’s welfare.

The response of elders to flu vaccines is particularly poor. Two strategies are being tried to enhance vaccine immunity in this age group. The first involves using higher concentrations of antigens in the vaccines. The second involves using novel adjuvants, which are substances that provide increased stimulation to the immune system. Potentially this can improve immunity, but it might increase inflammation and autoimmune illnesses.

The Fluad vaccine is the only influenza vaccine in Canada and the US to contain a novel, immune-boosting adjuvant. The adjuvant is called MF59 C1. Originally produced by an Italian company, the adjuvant-containing flu vaccine was licensed for elders only, in Italy, in 1997. It was not licensed in the US until 2015, for elders only, presumably because they were less likely to experience complications from the vaccine’s additional immune stimulation. I have been unable to find unbiased literature on the MF59 adjuvant or the Fluad vaccine, as all the research has been sponsored by its manufacturers (Sclavo, then Chiron, then Novartis, and now Sequirus).

Fluad was licensed for elders in Canada in 2011. The government of Ontario’s fact sheet on the vaccine makes clear that by 2016 it was still not known whether the excess immune stimulation it provides actually improved protection against the flu:

“How well does the Fluad® vaccine protect against influenza? Influenza vaccines may decrease hospitalizations and deaths among elderly individuals. According to the product monograph, Fluad® produces a higher immune response in elderly individuals when compared to other influenza vaccines without an adjuvant. The higher immune response may indicate that Fluad® works better than unadjuvanted vaccines, although this is not known for certain.”

Nor is it known how safe the adjuvanted vaccine is. It causes about 15% more local reactions than nonadjuvanted flu vaccines, but we don’t know if it causes more serious, or later onset, adverse reactions.

FluWatch reports that 10 Canadian children died from flu last season, 8 aged 2-4 years old. Nine children died the prior season. Canada and the US recommend yearly flu vaccines for all eligible children aged over 6 months, while most of Europe does not recommend flu vaccine for healthy children. Very young children generate a poor immune response to current influenza vaccines. But few die from the disease.

Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunizations reviewed the literature on the use of the Fluad, MF59-adjuvanted vaccines in infants and young children in 2015. From their report’s Executive Summary:

“Severe reactions are rare, but several of the reviewed studies were too small to detect clinically significant but rare adverse events. In particular, the safety information is limited for ATIV (adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines) in children with immunodeficiencies and other chronic illnesses… There are insufficient data to assess whether ATIV (adjuvanted flu vaccine) is more effective than UTIV (unadjuvanted flu vaccine) or LAIV (live attenuated flu vaccine) in practice or to make an informed risk-benefit analysis.”

The reviewers also noted that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) failed to license the vaccine for European children in 2012. The EMA report found a number of problems with the single pivotal clinical trial of Fluad in children. Furthermore, the EMA report states, “The current application, although related to a product developed more than 15 years ago and authorized for use in the elderly, includes only one study addressing clinical vaccine efficacy.” The report concludes, “The overall benefit-risk balance of Fluad Paediatric is negative.”

Despite a) the lack of evidence of benefit, b) limited and c) unreliable safety information, d) rejection in Europe, and e) no evidence of any other country using it for children, f) let alone use in infants–in 2015 the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) licensed Fluad pediatric for use in infants and babies aged 6 months to 2 years. 

It seems that Canada’s youngest children have been selected to serve as the unwitting guinea pigs in a massive immune stimulation experiment of this novel-adjuvanted vaccine.

What was the PHAC thinking? Will Canadian children serve as experimental subjects, without their parents’ knowledge, for additional vaccines selected for them by their public health agency?

If vaccine exemptions are removed, how can they be protected from public health officials whose primary allegiance may not be to the public?

Public health officials use the mass media, medical professionals and the levers of government to encourage, exhort and cajole vaccinations. Their conduct with the Fluad pediatric vaccine has shown they must not be given the power to compel.

July 6, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Two and 3-year-old kids with seizures is “the new normal”

I’m getting multiple reports from nurse friends about 2 and 3 year-olds having seizures. It is only happening to vaccinated kids, and symptoms start 2 to 5 days after the COVID jab.

By Steve Kirsch | July 4, 2022

Doctors are mystified by a rash of seizures, rashes, etc. happening to 2 and 3-year-old kids.

The only thing these kids have in common is that they were given the COVID vaccine just days earlier (two to five days earlier).

The doctors cannot figure out what is causing the seizures (since it couldn’t be the vaccine since those are safe and effective). The medical staff is not permitted to talk about the cases to the press or on social media or they will be fired.

One nurse posted something to the effect of “how is this legal????” I had to paraphrase to protect the poster.

This is why you are hearing these reports from me. They can’t fire me.

There is nothing on the mainstream media about this since the nurses and doctors aren’t allowed to talk about it.

This will all come out some day, but for now, everyone is keeping quiet about it and the doctors are instructed to convince the parents that it isn’t vaccine related and that they are the only ones having the problem.

Because that’s how science works.

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Financial Times Censors Criticism of Vaccine Article

BY TOBY YOUNG | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JULY 5, 2022

Earlier today, the Financial Times removed a comment from a reader calling himself ‘Mykonos Mike’ underneath an article about why COVID-19 infection and vaccination are only partially effective – and, in some cases, completely ineffective after a certain period of time has passed – when it comes to reducing a person’s likelihood of becoming re-infected, infecting others, and ending up with a severe bout of the disease. The reason given for removing the comment, in spite of the fact that it was the most liked and commented on, was “violating our community guidelines”, although, needless to say, no more detail was provided.

In light of this, we thought it was only right to republish Mykonos Mike’s comment in full.

Is this the long winded drivel to explain how people who have taken four doses of a 95% effective vaccine can get infected multiple times? The science in the pandemic has been so wrong it entered fairy tale wonderland story telling level, almost from the beginning. This is volume 15 of series four of the story. I’ll provide a spoiler – nobody cares anymore. And the decisions made in relation to this virus were ineffective and have created massive social and economic problems that will last decades. Time to start calling it as it is FT, the media are hugely complicit in this nonsense. Governments, scientists, health authorities and pharmaceutical companies need to answer very direct questions.

You can read the FT article Mike is commenting on here. Here’s an excerpt.

A surge in COVID-19 hospital admissions driven by the BA.5 subvariant of Omicron, accompanied by the inability of vaccines to prevent reinfection, has prompted health policymakers to rethink their approach to boosters.

U.S. regulators last week recommended changing the design of vaccines to produce a new booster targeting Omicron — the first change to the make-up of shots since their introduction in late 2020. Research into immune imprinting, whereby exposure to the virus via either infection or vaccination determines an individual’s level of protection, is now driving the debate over the make-up of COVID-19 vaccines.

Immunologists say that, more than two years into the coronavirus pandemic, people have acquired very different types of immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, depending on which strain or combination of strains they have been exposed to — leading to big differences in COVID-19 outcomes between individuals and countries.

“The effect is more nuanced than ‘more times you have it, less protection you get’,” said Professor Danny Altmann of Imperial College London, who is investigating the phenomenon with colleagues. “It’s more helpful to consider it as progressive fine-tuning of a huge repertoire. Sometimes this will be beneficial for the next wave, sometimes not.” …

A study of 700 U.K. healthcare workers by the Imperial team, published last month in the journal Science, found that Omicron infection had little or no beneficial effect of boosting any part of the immune system — antibodies, B-cells or T-cells — among people who had been imprinted with earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The Daily Sceptic has addressed the claims being made about this study and the supposed loss of natural immunity with Omicron here.

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Will Pfizer Be Charged for Mislabeling Vaccine Side Effects?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 5, 2022

As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to release Pfizer’s clinical trial documentation,1 we’re finding more and more evidence that very little has been done on the up-and-up, and the COVID jab trials may be among the most fraudulent in medical history.

Can All Serious Adverse Effects Be Written Off?

Importantly, Pfizer classified almost all severe adverse events that occurred during its Phase 3 trials as unrelated to the injection. As reported by The Defender, June 21, 2022:2

“The latest release by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents reveals numerous instances of participants who sustained severe adverse events during Phase 3 trials. Some of these participants withdrew from the trials, some were dropped and some died.

The 80,000-page document cache includes an extensive set of Case Report Forms (CRFs) from Pfizer Phase 3 trials conducted at various locations in the U.S., in addition to other documentation pertaining to participants in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine trials in the U.S. and worldwide …

The CRFs included in this month’s documents contain often vague explanations of the specific symptoms experienced by the trial participants. They also reveal a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events (SAEs) — as being ‘not related’ to the vaccine.”

The Defender article includes 11 examples3 of trial participants who experienced severe adverse effects that were classified as “unrelated” to the experimental gene transfer technology they’d received just days or weeks earlier.

A 2,566-page document4 catalogues the serious adverse events and six deaths that occurred during the trial. These events were all classified as “toxicity level 4,” which is the most serious, yet none of them were deemed related to the injection.

This simply isn’t believable. It’s completely unrealistic, especially when serious events occur in multiple participants. A handful of examples of Level 4 adverse events listed in this document — all of which were written off as “not related” to the mRNA injection — include:5

  • Acute respiratory failure
  • Cardiac arrest
  • Brain abscess
  • Adrenal carcinoma (adrenal cancer)
  • Chronic myeloid leukemia (blood and bone marrow cancer)

The six deaths reported were listed as being caused by arteriosclerosis, cardiac arrest, hemorrhagic stroke and myocardial infarction.6 Many participants also dropped out or were excluded from the trial due to serious side effects involving the heart, cardiovascular system, cancer, stroke, hemorrhage and neurological impacts.

Examples of Level 3 Adverse Events

Most Level 3 adverse events were also dismissed as unrelated to the shot. As reported by The Defender, only a “small number” were listed as being related to the injection. Examples of Level 3 side effects include:7

  • Deafness/hearing loss
  • Tachycardia (disruption of the normal electrical impulses that control your heart rate — the very problem that underlies most cases of “sudden adult death syndrome” or SADS)
  • Ventricular arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm that makes the lower chambers twitch rather than pump — another underlying cause of SADS)
  • Neutropenia (low neutrophil level in your blood; neutrophils are a type of white blood cell made by your bone marrow that fight infections by destroying viruses and bacteria)
  • Vertigo

45% Experienced One or More Adverse Events

Another document8 that raises suspicions of bias is one admitting that “40% to 45% of participants who received BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 across age groups and across dose levels reported one or more AEs [adverse events] from Dose 1 through 28 days (i.e., 1 month) after Dose 2.”

BNT162b2 was the candidate injection that went on to receive Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. Among those who got the highest dose (30 micrograms) of BNT162b2, 50% of younger participants 25% in the older age group reported one or more adverse events.

The most common adverse events were nervous system disorders, followed by musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders. Yet despite high rates of side effects across dose levels, this document also insists that “most AEs were considered by the investigator as not related to study intervention.”

During the open-label period of the study, 12,006 participants were followed for a minimum of six months, and among those, 28.8% reported at least one adverse event at some point during that follow-up, and 2.1% reported one or more severe adverse events.

Incidence Rate in Treatment Group FAR Higher Than Placebo

As reported by The Defender :9

“The review provides data for participants from dose 3 … to the data cutoff date. The severe adverse event incidence rate (IR) was 6.0 per 100 PY (patient-years), with specific conditions reported including pulmonary embolisms, thrombosis, urticaria, a cerebrovascular accident and COVID-19 pneumonia.

Here, the review adds that the IR for original placebo participants who had at least 1 life-threatening AE from Dose 3 to the data cutoff date was 0.5 per 100 PY.

Only one such life-threatening event, an instance of anaphylactoid reaction, was considered to be related to the vaccination. Other life-threatening, serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, gastrointestinal necrosis, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism …

Notably, according to the review, ‘all … events of facial paralysis were considered by the investigator as related to study intervention.” [Editor’s note: these specifically refer to events that occurred during the open-label follow-up period when BNT162b2 Dose 3 or Dose 4 was offered to both placebo and initial treatment groups.]

Young Children Have Extremely Low Risk of Death From COVID

In the end, we all know what happened. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Pfizer concluded the shot was safe and effective for everyone and the FDA went along with it. The vaccine manufacturers and the FDA have decided it isn’t even worth invoking the precautionary principle for the very youngest of children, which is nothing short of reprehensible, criminal maleficence.

In mid-June 2022, against strong objections from physicians, scientists and researchers, the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — unanimously agreed to grant EUA to both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children.10,11

Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old, while Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,12 an estimated 75% of American children ages birth to 11 already have some level of immunity, having been exposed to one of the several variants that have come into circulation over the past two-plus years.

This immunity level alone makes EUA for COVID shots questionable. CDC data also prove young children have a very low risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, which makes the EUAs even more questionable.

Data13 published in mid-March 2022 suggest babies and young children under the age of 4 have had a peak hospitalization rate for COVID of 14.5 per 100,000. That peak occurred after Omicron became predominant. The hospitalization rate for the Delta variant in this age group was 2.9 per 100,000.

In all, since March 2020, a total of 2,562 infants and young children (6 months to 4 years) have been hospitalized WITH COVID. Of those, 2,068 had COVID listed as the primary reason for admission (84.7% of the total), and only 624 required ICU admission.

The median length of hospital stay was 1.5 days (range: one to three days). Of the 2,562 children with suspected COVID infection, 16 of them (0.6%) died in the hospital. Death certificate data push that number a bit higher. The Vaccine Reaction notes,14 “According to death certificate data,15 202 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 among children 6 months to 4 years of age through May 11, 2022.”

While any death is tragic, it’s worth noting that 923 (35.8%) of the children hospitalized with suspected COVID also had one or more underlying medical conditions.16 We don’t know for sure, but it’s quite possible that those who died with a COVID diagnosis actually died from whatever underlying condition was present or had brought them to the hospital in the first place.

What I’m trying to say is that 16 to 202 deaths over two-plus years aren’t cause for panic, and that’s true even if COVID was the primary cause of those deaths. The likelihood of your child getting injured by the mRNA shot is undoubtedly significantly greater than their risk of dying from COVID.

Jab More Likely to Put You in the Hospital Than Keep You Out

The same is true for adults, by the way. A June 2022 analysis17,18 of Pfizer and Moderna trial data found the shots are more likely to put you in the hospital than keep you out of it. As reported by The Daily Sceptic :19

“A new paper20 by BMJ Editor Dr. Peter Doshi and colleagues has analyzed data from the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccine trials and found that the vaccines are more likely to put you in hospital with a serious adverse event than keep you out by protecting you from COVID.

The pre-print (not yet peer-reviewed) focuses on serious adverse events highlighted in a WHO-endorsed ‘priority list21 of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines.’ The authors evaluated these serious adverse events of special interest as observed in ‘phase III randomized trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ …

Dr. Doshi and colleagues found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna …

When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with a risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated … The authors note that this level of increased risk post-vaccine is greater than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, which was 2.3 per 10,000 participants for Pfizer and 6.4 per 10,000 for Moderna.

This means that on this measure, the Pfizer vaccine results in a net increase in serious adverse events of 7.8 per 10,000 vaccinated and the Moderna vaccine of 8.7 per 10,000 vaccinated.”

Doshi’s team wasn’t the first to reanalyze Pfizer’s trial data. The Canadian COVID Care Alliance has also published a clear and easy-to-read summary22 of the Pfizer trial results, and the many questions raised by it. As noted by Dr. Robert Malone:23

“The bottom line is that the Pfizer Phase 3 trial which was used by NIAID [the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], FDA and CDC to justify the emergency use authorization is pretty much a junk clinical trial which was inappropriately halted long before it even got close to meeting the intended follow up period, did not provide a sufficiently long follow up analysis of vaccination-associated adverse events, and in which the control group was intentionally eliminated.

This resulted in basically erasing any opportunity to ever get to the bottom of what the major true risks of the Pfizer mRNA inoculations were. In terms of more minor risks, the study was not powered (not big enough) to evaluate those.”

FDA and CDC Have Neglected Important Duties

Doshi and his coauthors also note the FDA also watered down results by including “thousands of additional participants with very little follow-up, of which the large majority had only received one dose.”

They then further diluted the appearance of risk by counting only the number of people affected rather than counting the total number of individual adverse events. This makes a big difference, as twice as many people in the treatment group reported multiple serious adverse events, as compared to the placebo group.

The FDA and CDC have both also failed to produce promised follow-up investigations. In July 2021, now a full year ago, the FDA said it would investigate four “potential adverse events of interest following Pfizer vaccination,” namely pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia and disseminated intravascular coagulation, but to date, no update has been issued.

Similarly, in early 2021, the CDC published a protocol on how to use proportional reporting ratios to detect signals in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but no study or report showing what that protocol might have found has ever been published.

As it turns out, the CDC hasn’t been looking for safety signals in VAERS — not with the proportional ratios protocol or any other. So, while they’ve publicly claimed they haven’t seen any signals of concern, the reason they haven’t seen any signals is very simple: They never looked at the data!24

That’s how ridiculous things are now. When a drug company or health agency claims they haven’t found a problem, you actually have to ask them, “where, when, how and how often did you look?” But of course, virtually no one would ever ask such questions because they would assume these agencies are competent, which of course is a false assumption.

Their Fraudulent Behavior Could Be Their Undoing

As you probably know, the makers of the COVID shots are indemnified against legal liability for any injuries and all deaths stemming from their products. No one is able to sue them for damages.

The only way to hold them responsible is to prove they’ve committed fraud. This would remove their liability immunity. As detailed at the beginning of the article, their consciously choosing to miscategorize adverse events during the initial trials and concealing the harms should be a slam dunk to convict them of fraud.

But there is also another fact they concealed: There’s evidence showing they knew the mRNA doesn’t stay in the injection site but, rather, distributes throughout the body,25 and this too could be a smoking gun that proves fraud. If convicted of fraud, Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen would likely face liabilities in the trillions of dollars in damages.

When I exposed Merck’s Vioxx scandal in 1999 in this newsletter, before they even released their drug on the market, I thought that was huge. Their drug killed more than 60,000 people, and they could have been liable for $25 billion in damages, but their clever lawyers reduced it to $5 billion.

Well, that catastrophe is a drop in the bucket compared to the COVID scam, which has likely killed between 600,000 and 750,000 Americans, disabled as many as 5 million, and injured an estimated 30 million Americans in one way or another.26,27 That’s just the estimated toll in the U.S., so you can imagine what the global numbers might be. It’s a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. A June 2022 survey by Steve Kirsch also found:28

  • 6.6% of COVID jabbed respondents suffered heart injury (about 10 million Americans, based on the national vaccination rate)
  • 6.3% had to be hospitalized for their side effects (another 10 million Americans)
  • 9.2% of those who took the jab had to seek medical help for their injury, which translated over the whole country would be about 18 million doctor’s visits
  • People who got the shot were more likely to die from COVID than the unvaccinated
  • 2.63% of the responders had lost someone in their household to COVID infection, and 2.03% had lost someone in their household to the COVID jab

Expect Depopulation

Whether intentional or not, mounting evidence now indicates the COVID-19 injections will result in depopulation through premature death and adverse effects on fertility in women and men alike. I’ve previously discussed the risk of pregnancy loss and infertility in women who get the shot, as the mRNA has an affinity for accumulating in the ovaries29 (as well as the adrenals, liver and bone marrow).

Research30,31 from Israel now also reveals the shot deteriorates sperm count and sperm motility in men for about three months. Considering the multidose mRNA shots are recommended at three-month intervals, you can see how this can really decimate a man’s prospects of fathering a child.

Fertility has been on a steady decline for decades in most parts of the world,32 but the worldwide COVID jab campaign may massively speed that up. Germany recently released data showing a 10% decline in birth rate during the first quarter of 2022.33

Other countries are also seeing a drop in birth rate, nine months after the start of the mass vaccination campaign against COVID. Between January and April 2022, Switzerland’s birth rate was 15% lower than expected, the U.K.’s was down by 10% and Taiwan’s was down 20%.34

What punishment could possibly be appropriate for company heads and health agency leaders responsible for causing massive depopulation worldwide through products that were based on fraudulent science and fictional claims? I doubt if there’s enough money in the world to set that right.

Future Trials To Be Skipped Altogether

As if matters weren’t already beyond horrible, the FDA is considering allowing manufacturers to reformulate their COVID injections in perpetuity without conducting any additional clinical trials!35 In other words, they’d allow drug companies to change the mRNA and/or other ingredients without any safety or efficacy testing whatsoever. As reported by Toby Rogers, Ph.D., in a June 27, 2022, article in The Defender :36

“FDA released a briefing document37 in connection with this scheme to end science as we know it in connection with future COVID-19 shots … The briefing document is 18 pages of text, 1.5 line spacing, with just 19 references — 9 of which are pre-prints or from the CDC’s in-house newsletter Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) which means they are not peer-reviewed.

Any true believer in The Narrative(TM) could have written this in a few hours. To base the entire future of COVID-19 shots on this glorified undergrad term paper is madness …

The core argument of the briefing document is hilarious (or rather, it would be hilarious if it was not a plan to permanently institutionalize genocide and hide the evidence). In several places the FDA argues (colloquialisms mine):

1. These COVID-19 shots work great … Boosters too, total home run, the Israelis even have 10-weeks of data showing that they might help old people. What more evidence could you want?

2. Okay, well, it depends on what you mean by ‘work.’ These shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death, even though that’s why we licensed them. Any protection wears off fairly quickly, but It’s Not Our Fault(TM) because This Wily Virus(TM) mutates too fast and no one told us that it would ever mutate.

3. So these shots must be reformulated but we cannot possibly ask Lord Pharma to do proper clinical trials ever again because we already know that these shots work great (see point #1)!”

In short, the FDA argues that since there are time constraints, evaluation of effectiveness must rely on “measures other than actual health outcomes.” In other words, whether the shots actually lower your risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death will have no bearing.

The only measure they’ll take into account is whether or not the jab triggers a rise in antibody levels, which has never been proven to be beneficial. If anything, the increase in COVID antibodies actually increases your risk of infection. This also means that as long as antibody levels are through the roof, the death rate could be just about anything, because it’s not part of the safety equation.

Faith in Magic Has Officially Replaced Science

As noted by Rogers,38 “The ‘Future Framework’ is a plan to base the entire COVID-19 vaccine program on magical thinking rather than science.” Indeed, Dr. Deborah Birx recently confirmed that the whole vaccine push has been based in faith in magic.39

June 23, 2022, Birx answered questions from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked whether the government was lying or guessing when they stated that vaccinated individuals couldn’t catch or spread COVID. At first, she claimed she didn’t know, but when pressed, she replied, “I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way.”40

So, the government issued mandates and made unequivocal, absolute statements that were not allowed to be questioned because they HOPED the shots would work a certain way — all while insisting they were the ones following and trusting the science and anyone who questioned their logic was a dangerous nut job. Let that sink in. Hope is literally the diametrical opposite of science.

It’s an Insiders’ Plot

As explained by Rogers, the same old players are behind this brazen attempt to eliminate the need for clinical trials: CDC staffers, academics who are in the pockets of Bill Gates and the NIAID, the drug companies themselves and the World Health Organization. Rogers writes:41

“I did not understand until just yesterday (as I started to write this article) that this entire ‘Future Framework’ is actually coming from the WHO. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the biggest voluntary contributor to the WHO. So Gates is likely directing the play.

Gates requires that WHO use the McKinsey consulting firm so this is probably a McKinsey operation (and McKinsey also works for Pharma so this is a huge conflict of interest). As Naomi Wolf points out, the involvement of the WHO also raises troubling questions about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party over this process.

As far back as January, the WHO/Gates/McKinsey junta realized that these shots were terrible and so they decided to use that as an opportunity to seize even more power and control.

The WHO set up a Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC) to implement these Orwellian ‘Future Frameworks’ across the developed world to lower manufacturing costs for Pharma and avoid bothersome health data that might hurt profits. All the messaging we have seen from the FDA and leaked to the press was initially developed and released by TAG-CO-VAC.”

No doubt, we live in unprecedented, precarious times. Logic, reason, science and sanity itself has been tossed aside by those who claim the right to make decisions for all mankind. If the FDA goes forward with this “Future Framework” scheme, the only safe assumption is that COVID shots will become more and more dangerous.

Worse, we can expect other vaccines and drugs to be allowed on the market without clinical trials as well. It truly could change the science of medicine as we know it.

Of course the WHO also wants to seize control over health care worldwide, which would eliminate medical rights everywhere. It’s a nightmare scenario with no end in sight as of yet. All we can do is continue to push back, to inform ourselves, to speak out, share facts and data, and refuse to comply with unscientific recommendations based on little more than hope in fabricated conclusions.

Sources and References

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Internet Searches for “death after vaccine” Increased After Covid Injection Roll-out

By Ryan Matters | New Brave World | July 3, 2022

Google is the largest and most used search engine in the world with a desktop market share of over 85%!

Data from Google Trends shows a marked increase in people searching for “death after vaccine” immediately after Covid-19 injections were rolled out around the world.

Google Trends provides insights into the popularity of certain search terms within a given timeframe and locality. According to Google:

Google Trends provides access to a largely unfiltered sample of actual search requests made to Google. It’s anonymized (no one is personally identified), categorized (determining the topic for a search query) and aggregated (grouped together). This allows us to display interest in a particular topic from around the globe or down to city-level geography.

The Covid-19 injection roll out began in January 2021 (with trials being run for months before). Data from Google Trends suggests that searches for terms such as “death after vaccine”, “vaccine chest pains”, “vaccine side effects”, “vaccine pain” and “vaccine vomiting” increased at almost the exact same time.

An increase in searches for the term “death after vaccine” could be interpreted as being due to people looking specifically for that kind of data. However, it could also be due to people knowing someone who died shortly after getting injected and looking for more information.

VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) provides further corroboration for this hypothesis. The reporting system has received almost 30,000 reports of death following Covid injections since December 14, 2020. (And it is important to keep in mind that vaccine adverse events are not required to be reported. In fact, they are criminally underreported, and many physicians are uneducated on how to use the platform).

According to a recent article on Children’s Health Defense:

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,314,594 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 29,162 deaths and 241,226 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 24, 2022.

Noteworthy is that “death after vaccine” wasn’t the only term that saw an increase in searches. So did “vaccine chest pains”, “vaccine side effects”, “vaccine pain” and “vaccine vomiting”.

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment