Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) releases detailed footage of its confrontation late last month against an American act of piracy targeting an Iranian fuel shipment.
The incident took place on October 25, but news and footage of which were released on Wednesday.
During the episode, American forces confiscated the tanker that was carrying a cargo of Iranian oil in the strategic Sea of Oman, transferring its consignment of crude to another vessel.
The IRGC then staged a maritime operation against the second vessel, landing its helicopters on its deck and navigating the ship towards Iranian waters.
The footage depicts the incident in great detail, first showing the IRGC Navy’s intelligence command and intelligence gathering network detecting the vessel laden with the stolen crude.
The IRGC Navy is subsequently seen dispatching its rapid reaction units to the area to seize back the cargo.
The commandos then engage in a heliborne operation, which features their aircraft landing on the second vessel, the forces disembarking, and their recapturing the stolen consignment.
The IRGC Navy’s drone units, speedboats, and other vessels are, meanwhile, seen assisting the operation.
USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) and USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112), two American destroyers, are then seen approaching second tanker to prevent its recapture, but are warned away by the IRGC Navy.
The footage relayed from the operation, meanwhile, depicts the involved American vessels and their crew in striking detail.
A statement issued by the IRGC’s public relations office, said after the heliborne operation by the IRGC, the US forces started pursuing the second vessel using several helicopters and warships. They, however, stopped short of capturing it.
The US forces then dispatched more warships to block the vessel that was carrying the stolen crude. “The Americans [though] decided against continuing the operation and left the area after understanding the brave and ardent fighters of the IRGC Navy’s readiness and resolve for confronting whatever adventurism and threat against the interests of the Iranian nation,” the statement added.
Thanking the Corps for the successful operation, Iran’s Oil Minister Javad Owji said “Iran’s enemies” had resorted to the act of piracy after realizing that the Islamic Republic was determined to export its fuel, despite the United States’ sanctions targeting the country. – Video
THE eminent biologist Lord Robert Winston recently reminded viewers of BBC’s Question Time that ‘you cannot change your sex. Your sex actually is there in every single cell in the body. You have chromosomal sex, you have genetic sex, you have hormonal sex, you have all sorts of psychological brain sex, they’re all different’.
The most vulnerable victims of the trans lobby’s bullying ideological agenda however are not the feminist academics, nor even the female athletes who are now forced to compete against the opposite and far more powerful sex.
They are not even the women in prisons who have to fend off male rapists in their midst, terrible though their situation is and their fear must be.
The most vulnerable are the unacknowledged victims of this ever more determined lobby. They are the children who are systematically groomed to believe they can be the opposite sex.
The trans lobby will tell you that this decision-making is driven by the child. But given the endless funding for propaganda, the persistent drip of modern sex education and zeal of certain child psychiatrists, it is hardly children who are leading the way.
Today, from the earliest ages the normal development of an understanding of sex differences is prevented. Children are given books such as Are you a boy or are you a girl? which teach them not to assume that anyone has a particular sex.
They are further confused with lessons on the gender unicorn which deny biological sex facts.
Along with concepts such as ‘gender expression’, ‘gender identity’ and ‘assigned sex’, serious attempts are being made by some educationalists and trans lobbyists to stop the idea (indeed the fact) that we are born as boys or girls from ever taking root.
It is the most vulnerable of children – those who for whatever reason do not adhere to rigid gender stereotypes – who are too often singled out for special gender treatment; they are ‘affirmed’ as not being their sex.
Being ‘affirmed’ means that this child will instead be told that they are indeed the opposite sex and will be treated as such. The child’s peer group and all his or her trusted adults will be encouraged, or even compelled, to engage in this myth.
Affirmation is but the first step in the process of social transition which sets the child on a path which is likely to involve them in medicalisation for the rest of their lives.
The biggest threat (from the trans ideologists’ point of view) to this process is the onset of puberty. If a child has been told by trusted adults that he (or she) is actually the opposite sex, it could be confusing if significant changes happening to his body led to the conclusion that he had been lied to, or that his trusted adults were wrong.
To avoid this, lobbyists have campaigned for puberty-blocking drugs to be given earlier, at the first onset of puberty. In fact, children are often encouraged to ‘transition’ in the interlude between primary and secondary school, so that no one will ever know they are ‘trans’.
A female cannot move into womanhood if she hasn’t been able to go through puberty as a girl. This is what Keira Bell was condemned to. Keira is the brave young woman who had treatment at the NHS-run Tavistock child gender clinic in Devon and brought a successful judicial review against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation, sadly since overturned by the Appeal Court.
She has explained how this process worked: ‘The idea was that this would give me a “pause” to think about whether I wanted to continue to a further gender transition.
‘This so-called pause put me into what felt like menopause with hot flushes, night sweats and brain fog. All this made it more difficult to think clearly about what I should do.
This shocking process has been allowed to carry on because we’ve been told that if we didn’t allow it, these young people would kill themselves.
But study after study shows that gender dysphoria is much more likely to be a consequence than a cause of psychological problems – problems that the process of transition may entrench or worsen. In fact, the relationship is the other way around.
A recent study of gender dysphoric children showed that almost 90 per cent had comorbid (simultaneous) health diagnoses and other indicators of psychological distress. (The precise figure is 88.6 per cent – see top of page 80).
Sixty-five per cent of gender dysphoric children suffered from anxiety. Sixty-two per cent suffered from depression. More than 33 per cent had behavioural disorders. The presence of autism was another cause for concern.
This is not a new discovery, but has been found repeatedly in studies. It has just been conveniently ignored. The family stories told by these children and their parents often reveal the source of their mental health disorders. Adverse childhood experiences had been very much part of their lives.
Sixty-six per cent had experienced family conflict, 66 per cent parental mental illness; 60 per cent had lost an important figure via separation, and bullying had been common for 54 per cent. Thirty-nine per cent experienced maltreatment(p.71).
We may be tempted to lay the blame at the feet of these families who, despite measurably high levels of dysfunction and conflict, appear to have no awareness that their problems could be impacting on the child as well as themselves.
Instead, what appears to happen is that the child’s gender dysphoria provides a handy explanation for all the stresses and strains which the family or individual may be feeling, and even better from their point of view, a medical solution through which these problems can be resolved.
Keira Bell explains it thus: ‘When I was seen at the Tavistock Clinic, I had so many issues that it was comforting to think I really had only one that needed solving: I was a male in a female body.’
But the blame does not really lie with these families. Often they were from disadvantaged groups in society, living under considerable financial and social stress. Their biggest crime is perhaps a lack of common sense. Far more culpable are the media, the well-funded lobby groups and the clinicians who’ve recklessly applied this fashionable theory.
Anthony Zenkus, expert in sexual, family and trauma violence. Makes his expert analysis on Democrat, Vice-President, Joe Biden and his disturbing frequent behavior on children and people.
Would the doctrine of the “Original Antigenic Sin” (OAS) play a heavy role in the existing COVID vaccine strategy — due to the sub-optimal, non-sterilizing, imperfect COVID-19 vaccine?
Experts agree we should never have tried to vaccinate our way out of a pandemic while in a pandemic.
According to the OAS by Dr. Thomas Francis, the initial priming of the immune system (initial exposure to the virus, either in the wild or via a vaccine) gets ‘fixed’ for life. If the initial priming of the immune system is sub-optimal and biased, then that sub-optimal initial priming can effectively derange and bias the immune response long-term, which would guide all future immunological responses.
We should have known that this initial priming, if deranged and wrong, would severely stagger and hobble our immune response for the rest of our lives.
And so, are we setting up our populations — and dangerously, our children — for disaster? With this imperfect and sub-optimal immune priming using COVID vaccines that do not stop infection or transmission in the first place?
The COVID-19 vaccines being administered in the U.S. only reduce symptoms, thus allowing the host to stay alive (an evolutionary future it did not have) while remaining capable of transmitting.
Evidence shows vaccinated persons are indeed susceptible to infection, and as alarmingly, carry as high a viral load as the unvaccinated.
Are we about to rob our children of their most precious gift — a robust, durable, potent natural innate immunity with these imperfect leaky vaccines — an immunity that has always protected them and helps reduce the infectious pressure and helps contribute to population herd immunity? With vaccines that have been shown to be harmful?
I argue we could potentially kill many children with these vaccines because we simply have not done the proper safety tests and studies for the proper duration of follow-up, so as to “exclude harms.”
If we have not conducted the proper studies, how could we justify the safety of these vaccines for our children? To do so is dangerous and reckless, as it deceives the public and parents. It is illogical and irresponsible, and without any credible basis.
We do not know what will happen to our healthy children long-term. This is potentially catastrophic if COVID mass vaccination is allowed in our children.
These public health officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — including Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky — have made no valid case as to why our children warrant these vaccines.
Yet they are seeking to vaccinate healthy children with near statistical zero risk — with only the opportunity for harm and no opportunity for benefit.
In addition to the OAS, Read et al also provided us a roadmap to these vaccine and immune system challenges, in their treatise on Marek’s disease in chickens.
In their seminal 2015 PLOS paper, the authors argued some vaccines may boost and enhance the fitness of more virulent strains. They asked a simple question: Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens?
We say “yes!” This can be explained by natural selection which selects out or culls pathogen strains/variants that are so lethal or “hot” they could kill their hosts if they survive and, thus, inadvertently, kill themselves.
Marek’s disease effect and vaccination may well be at play here with COVID vaccines — moderating symptoms while not stopping infection or transmission, thus posing a danger to the unvaccinated and vaccinated.
We — or at least the virologists and immunologists and vaccine developers — should also have understood the COVID vaccines would drive antibodies against the spike glycoprotein only, while our natural-exposure infection immune response will be broad, robust, durable, long-term — providing immunity against the spike (S) protein, the membrane protein, the nucleocapsid (N) protein, and all the epitopes on the viral ball and all conserved parts of the virus.
No COVID vaccine immunity could be equal to or better than naturally acquired immunity. This should have never even been in question. Assertions otherwise by the CDC, NIH, NIAID or vaccine developers are outright falsehoods and means to deceive the public.
We should have known we could never achieve “zero COVID” as this is a mutable respiratory pathogen. This means, similar to flu and cold viruses, COVID mutates often.
This is what viruses do. They exist to replicate, and the replicating process of their genetic material is unstable and imperfect. Because there are errors in the replication of the genetic material, there will always be mutations.
For example, the original SARS-CoV-2 was the Wuhan strain — now it is the Delta variant. The vaccine for the original strain cannot hit the mutated spike, as the mutations occur on the spike. That’s why we have the immune escape.
So no matter what vaccine you make, you will not be able to vaccinate for the right strain or variant at any time, as the virus would have mutated by the time we vaccinate.
You can never get ahead of a mutating virus with a vaccine.
This is especially true given COVID has an animal reservoir. The virus lives stably in the bat population. Unless we kill off all the bats — and their intermediate hosts, which include civet cats and raccoon dogs and camels — we will always have a “reservoir” for the virus, in animals. Infected animals can in turn infect humans who get close to or interact with them.
This is a very different pathogen and approach than the one taken with smallpox, which did not have an animal reservoir — we only had to remove smallpox from the human population, we didn’t need to worry about it spilling over from other species.
According to Dr. Robert Malone, “The idea that if you have a workplace where everybody’s vaccinated, you’re not going to have virus spread is totally false … a total lie … the vaccinated are actually the “super-spreaders” that everyone was told about in the beginning of the pandemic.”
Malone further states, “if the government isn’t going to disclose what the [vaccine] risks are, and they’re not going to disclose what’s really going on because they think that you can’t handle the news … this is called the noble lie.”
Are we closer to understanding now that vaccinating for COVID under tremendous infectious and vaccine pressure (and ecological pressure) would drive immune escape? That this strategy is indeed a recipe for disaster?
Could COVID-19 vaccines be enhancing the evolution of variants/mutants that are more infectious and capable of spreading much faster and with greater lethality?
Are these COVID-19 vaccines sub-optimally priming the immune system for long-term skewed deranged responding?
Could the use of ‘imperfect’ sub-optimal vaccines enhance the progression of variants that place unvaccinated persons at elevated evolutionary risk of very severe illness, including death? Our children? Is this Marek 2.0?
Where are the safeguards when the proper studies were not done by the vaccine developers, and where is the FDA as the top regulator, in protecting the health and well-being of our children?
Dr. Janet Woodcock, as the head of the FDA, where are you in this? You could not be informed by the science, for there is none to support this grossly reckless and absurd push to vaccinate children.
What is going on here? This certainly is not “about the science.”
I challenge any public health official to sit down with me and my scientific colleagues and explain your science. Debate us. Show us what you are looking at to arrive at these very dangerous statements and decisions.
We may end up killing many children with these vaccines. In fact, not ‘we’, ‘you’ — Fauci and Walensky and Dr. Francis Collins — may end up killing many of our children.
Please stop this insanity, step back and focus on the vulnerable and elderly where there is risk. Leave the children alone!
“If the CDC, NIH, FDA (Walensky, Fauci, Collins, Marks, Woodcock), vaccine developers and all involved in these COVID vaccines, all the television medical experts, all who are absolved thanks to liability protection, if you feel so strongly that these are safe for our children, then do the right thing: Take liability protection off the table. Stand by the vaccine’s safety. Put some skin in the game — for as we speak, only our healthy children are carrying risk and I fear it could be potentially catastrophic for them.
Dr. Alexander is considered a global expert on COVID-19 generally and in some areas highly expertised. Dr. Alexander holds masters level study at York University Canada, a masters in epidemiology at University of Toronto, a masters in evidence-based medicine at Oxford and a doctorate in evidence-based medicine and research methods from McMaster University in Canada.
Increasingly, politicians and medical bureaucrats are entranced by a bizarre pandemic ideology. Like most ideologies, it remains oblivious to evidence and argument, holding that the risk of severe outcomes from Corona infection is far more evenly distributed across the population than it is; and allowing only universal solutions, such as quarantining and vaccinating entire populations. These obtuse views, which just won’t go away, are at the root of our failed and destructive policies. For 20 months now, this pandemic ideology has blinded everyone in charge to the possibility of shielding the vulnerable, leveraging seasonal patterns in infection, and leaving the kids alone. The stratified nature of Corona risk is the key to unravelling the pandemic, and it’s the one thing nobody will recognise.
Success in the pandemic has come to be defined by a series of vague, poorly differentiated statistics, including above all Corona infections, hospitalisations and deaths, and now vaccination rates. In their exclusive focus on these numbers, the press propagate constantly the myth that this is all there is to know about Corona. This impoverished discussion drives bureaucrats and politicians to seek solutions for one vague meaningless metric (Corona ICU admissions) in another vague meaningless metric (vaccination rates). In this way their policies are constructed in a rhetorical world that has very little to do with what is actually happening.
Every day our understanding of what the vaccines can do becomes clearer. It’s not nothing, but it’s much less than we were promised.
Some of our best evidence so far comes from this Swedish retrospective cohort study, which tracks outcomes in 1,684,958 individuals (matched vaccinated and unvaccinated pairs) from 12 January to 4 October 2021. It has been around the block, with an especially good analysis by El Gato Malo, so there’s no point in anything more than a brief review here.
Above all, they find that the vaccines provide temporary protection against infection:
Unfortunately, this protection likely falls below zero – into the zone of negative efficacy – after 7 to 9 months. This is one of multiple lines of evidence confirming that the vaccinated, sooner or later, achieve higher rates of infection than the unvaccinated. According to me, even early vaccine efficacy is likely overstated in studies like these. Probably the vaccinated are always highly vulnerable to infection, but they’re not tested as rigorously and at first their symptoms are so mild as to be nearly unnoticeable. SARS-2 nevertheless lurks among them, mostly undetected, until vaccine protection against overt disease dissipates.
This would explain what happened in Iceland over the summer: A bunch of freshly vaccinated Icelanders went on holiday in the UK, where they promptly picked up SARS-2 and brought the latest Delta update back home with them. In the following weeks, energetic Icelandic testing uncovered rates of infection almost as high in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated – and this well before we would’ve expected the vaccines to have faded.
The Swedish study finds that efficacy against severe disease last longer, but also decays substantially in much the same way:
After the 240-day mark, protection against severe outcome is not even at 30%. The decay is most rapid among men, the old and frail, and those with comorbidities – precisely those subpopulations already at greatest risk of severe disease.
So those are the benefits, but as in everything there are also costs – and here they turn out to be substantial.
We’ve already touched on one: The vaccines appear to induce negative efficacy against infection. This probably arises from a combination of minimally symptomatic super-spreading among the vaccinated, the selective pressure that vaccine-elicited antibodies place upon the virus, and the narrow immunity against an obsolete arrangement of the spike protein that the vaccines confer. For a period of several weeks after dose 1 (and likely dose 3), they also make the vaccinated more susceptible to infection, and mass vaccination campaigns have induced case spikes across many countries.
By now it is also clear that the vaccines cause a range of adverse reactions. The best documented is myocarditis in young men, a side effect observed most frequently after dose 2 of the mRNA vaccines. We probably won’t know the true rate of vaccine-induced myocarditis for many years. From excess mortality in younger cohorts and many anecdotal media reports, we can surmise that it is much more common than anybody will admit.
It does not take a Ph.D. in public health to extract a sensible vaccination policy from all this:
1. There is just no question that vaccinating low-risk cohorts (including the recovered) is not only pointless, but also dangerous. These aren’t the people who end up in the hospital dying of Corona anyway. And because the vaccinated sooner or later end up drivingtransmission, there is only downside and no upside here.
2. All the vaccines are good for, is reducing the likelihood of severe disease among the old and the vulnerable. It follows that only the old and the vulnerable should be vaccinated.
3. In these groups, carefully timed annual vaccinations, like flu shots, might well provide good protection at the height of the winter coronavirus season and limit mortality. Even here, though, you’d have to proceed carefully, to avoid causing case spikes in the newly vaccinated during that brief period where their vulnerability to infection is heightened.
Of course, this is the opposite of what our pandemic ideology permits. Instead, almost all of our governments deploy the vaccines in the most reckless and counterproductive ways possible.
These are exactly the kinds of crackpot universalist solutions that have failed for the past twenty months, and that will do nothing to unburden our healthcare facilities, and very likely end up swamping them with unnecessary patients.
If booster doses are a good idea for anyone – and it’s far from clear they are – it’s frail nursing home residents, most of whose vaccinations are now well past their expiration date, and who are once again beginning to die of SARS-2 just as they did last fall. Vaccinating children and triple vaccinating low-risk adults won’t prevent nursing home deaths, and it will do very little to keep our hospitals “safe,” because the vaccines don’t reduce spread and these people rarely end up in hospital. What is worse, ever newer pushes to vaccinate all hospital personnel and nursing home staff threaten to introduce vaccinated super-spreaders into these sensitive environments. Söder will continue to pound the table demanding ever harsher restrictions for the unvaccinated and more vaccine doses for the already-vaccinated, all while deaths and hospitalisations continue to climb.
Ultimately, the great problem with our vaccine policies, as with our lockdowns, arises from the fact that they don’t work. Because lockdowns and vaccination campaigns are powerless to remove the conditions that brought them about, you can never stop locking down, and you can never stop vaccinating – even as your policies turn out to do worse than nothing.
In my previousarticles I have highlighted how the Government and most of the media are concealing certain facts, altering previously established protocols or manipulating data that has the effect of deceiving the public. I try not to dwell on why. Whatever the reason there is something that needs to be addressed.
Every form of medical treatment has an element of risk and any new development in healthcare is to some degree experimental. Time will and does tell how successful and how risky a particular form of therapy is. The Covid vaccination strategy would be no different in that respect. Yet Government and media have, in their headlong, panic-stricken way resisted all attempts of cautious, sceptical and truly ethical scientific scrutiny. They fail to recognise any form of experimentation, any increased risk profile associated with a novel medical procedure or how time and trialling (of which the public are those undergoing the trials) help establish the safety of a particular procedure.
All this in the day of ‘defensive medicine‘ – a term sometimes used to describe a way of preventing patients from successfully suing their practitioners. But defensive medicine or dentistry can also protect the public if used genuinely for that specific purpose. All you need to do is practise fully informed consent where you are honest with your patient and explain the pros and cons clearly and freely in a way that doesn’t help steer the patient into a decision that is biased, for example by scaring the patient into electing no treatment or falsely reassuring the patient into accepting it. All that has gone out of the window with Covid. Similar safeguards are required for customers of pension and mortgage providers and gambling platforms for example – ‘your capital is at risk’, ‘the value of your investment is at risk’ etc. All these things are done to prevent the harms and scandals that are in the history books.
So by abandoning the safeguards and principles that had successfully been established pre-Covid, what would happen if things turned out not to be what the patient (the majority of the public in this case) were led to believe? What if the treatment they underwent proved to be more harmful than beneficial? This may not be the case with respect to the Covid vaccine, but what if it was?
How could the Government, healthcare profession and media ever come round to admitting possible culpability? What temptation might there be for all these interested parties, who have acted almost in complete unison, to try and avoid the possibility of being exposed for any wrongdoing? They would have so much to lose. They would be disgraced. They would be (rightly) sued. They would lose all trust and credibility. Could such possible malpractice put too high a price on any form of compunction and admission? Have all parties gone down a road that has no exit? Might they never let a form of confession or admission of liability occur? And how?
There needs to be much more public discussion on these questions. It’s the only way in future to protect the public because we have to face the reality that it is time that will and does tell the truth.
OUR drugs watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), have sent out the most extraordinary press release ten months into the Covid-19 vaccination campaign. They have decided it is now prudent to use social media to encourage those who have suffered serious or life-changing adverse events to report them to the MHRA’s Yellow Card scheme.
The scheme has been such a well-kept secret since the beginning of the vaccination rollout that many GPs and hospital doctors have never heard of it and virtually none of the public knows what it is. Hospital staff who want to report an adverse reaction (ADR) often find the site blocked from hospital computers. According to an NHS managerial source, who wishes to remain anonymous: ‘We have clinical colleagues who have sent videos showing that the Yellow Card website is BLOCKED from within some hospital sites . . . deliberately so that they cannot report.’
Meanwhile, the press release’s headline is clear. It says: ‘Every report counts: support the Yellow Card scheme by reporting suspected side effects.
‘People who suspect they have may have [sic] experienced a side effect from a medicine or vaccine are being encouraged to report it as part of the global #MedSafetyWeek campaign from 1-7 November 2021.
‘The social media campaign calls upon healthcare professionals, national immunisations programme staff, as well as patients, their carers and families, to report suspected side effects.
‘Healthcare professionals prescribing, dispensing or administering medicines or vaccines are encouraged to discuss side effects with their patients and to be vigilant for new or rare suspected side effects.’
The campaign is backed by healthcare regulators in 60 countries.
Yellow Card is a self-reporting system which informs the MHRA whether something is amiss with a new drug. It is funded largely by Big Pharma and has been accused of allowing the fox to guard the hen house, or to use another metaphor, to mark its own homework. Ministers often dismiss the reports as coincidental because little or no investigation is done into them. The site does not show the age of the person involved or the timeframe of reactions, so it is impossible to know whether the reaction was noticed within 12, 24, 48 hours or one to two weeks after vaccination.
These omissions in data collection mean that basic conclusions about safety cannot be drawn. We know from VAERS, the American system, that most deaths occur within 48 hours of vaccination, which should be a huge red flag. Those details are not available in the weekly summaries the MHRA produce. Therefore, the public and healthcare workers cannot rely on the system to reveal the real incidents of mortality and morbidity.
Earlier this year, this is how the MHRA responded to an inquiry as to the number of vaccine reports they received: ‘We estimate that 10 per cent of all drug reactions are reported to the Yellow Card.’
Asked how they evaluated the few reports they did receive, they said: ‘We apply statistical techniques that can tell us if we are seeing more events than we would expect to see, based on what is known about background rates of illness in the absence of vaccination. This aims to account for factors such as coincidental illness. We also look at the clinical characteristics to see if new patterns of illness are emerging that could indicate a new safety concern.’
It took a Freedom of Information request to discover that reported death rates in the UK per million doses are approximately 28 times higher for Covid-19 vaccines than for influenza vaccines. This does not support MHRA statements that the number of suspected adverse drug reactions is not unusual for an immunisation programme of this scale.
When the injured report an ADR such as the autoimmune disorder Guillain-Barré syndrome, when the immune system damages nerves causing weakness and sometimes paralysis, or vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) characterised by blood clots and low platelets, they receive an acknowledgement but not much else. None of the seven we spoke to who reported injuries after being injected with Oxford/AstraZeneca’s batch PV46671 has had any meaningful follow up.
One of the seven, BBC food broadcaster Jules Serkin, 63, from Canterbury, reported her serious adverse reaction in May, two months after receiving the AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine. Since the jab, she’s had constant headaches, tested positive for blood clots, and had problems with her eyesight and pains in her legs and sinuses. Her symptoms have worsened over time and no help has been offered to her or to her GP by either the MHRA or AZ. She said: ‘I have not heard back from the MHRA. My doctor submitted a report to AstraZeneca in September but we have heard nothing since.
‘I’m bouncing from pillar to post trying to find help.’
It is vital that the MHRA see as many reports as possible to get a realistic overview.
Men’s sexual and reproductive data is particularly under-reported, even by the alternative media.
In September, Trinidadian-born singer Nicki Minaj tried to raise awareness and was ridiculed for a Twitter post that her 2million followers sent viral. It said her cousin’s friend was jilted at the altar by his fiancée because the Covid-19 vaccine had made his testicles swell. #BallGate turned into quite a drama with the White House inviting Nicki to a meeting aimed at neutralising her views and to ‘talk to one of our many doctors to answer questions about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines’. Meanwhile, the MHRA have quietly been receiving reports of swollen testicles plus erection and ejaculation disorders.
Their data also show other disturbing reports affecting men’s sexual health.
Out of the 49.6million people injected the average rate of overall reporting rate for all vaccines combined is 1-in-131 people impacted.
Total fatalities – 1,738; Pfizer – 576, AstraZeneca – 1,111, Moderna – 20, Unspecified – 31
Men’s sexual/reproductive health specific data
Infections including epididymitis (swelling in one or both testicles), orchitis (inflammation of the testes) and prostate (gland located between penis and bladder)
• Pfizer = 13
• AZ = 13
• Moderna = 2
Penis injury or contusion (blood builds up under the skin and penis may become swollen and badly bruised)
• Pfizer = 1
• AZ = 4
Neoplasms (excessive tissue growth) including prostate, male breast, penile and testicular cancers
• Pfizer = 4
• AZ = 12
Erection and ejaculation disorders
• Pfizer = 78
• AZ = 135
• Moderna = 19
Penile, scrotal and prostate disorders
• Pfizer = 61
• AZ = 88
• Moderna = 9
Sperm and testicular disorders
• Pfizer = 72
• AZ = 180
• Moderna = 16
Gynaecomastia (swelling in men’s breasts)
• Pfizer = 3
• AZ = 9
The last word should go to Mick Foy, Head of Pharmacovigilance Strategy at the MHRA, who says: ‘The most important part of our work is making sure the vaccines and medicines you and your family take are effective and acceptably safe. This campaign comes at a crucial time when millions of people in the UK are vaccinated against COVID-19 but is equally applicable to all vaccines and medicines.
‘Yellow Card scheme reports play a key role in helping the MHRA monitor the safe use of all medicines and vaccines to protect public health through effective regulation.’
European witch hunts of the 15th to 17th centuries targeted witches that were thought to be responsible for epidemics and crop failures related to declining temperatures of the Little Ice Age. A belief that evil humans were negatively affecting the climate and weather patterns was the “consensus” opinion of that time. How eerily similar is that notion to the the current oft-repeated mantra that Man’s actions are controlling the climate and leading to catastrophic consequences?
The first extensive European witch hunts coincided with plunging temperatures as the continent transitioned away from the beneficial warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (850 to 1250 AD). Increasing cold that began in the 13th century ushered in nearly five centuries of advancing mountain glaciers and prolonged periods of rainy or cool weather. This time of naturally-driven climate change was accompanied by crop failure, hunger, rising prices, epidemics and mass depopulation.
Large systematic witch hunts began in the 1430s and were advanced later in the century by an Alsatian Dominican friar and papal Inquisitor named Heinrich Kramer. At Kramer’s urging, Pope Innocence VIII issued an encyclical enshrining the persecution and eradication of weather-changing witches through this papal edict. The worst of the Inquisition’s abuses and later systemic witch hunts were, in part, empowered by this decree.
This initial period of cooler temperatures and failing crops continued through the first couple of decades of the 16th century, when a slight warming was accompanied by improvements in harvests. Clearly, the pogrom against the weather-changing witches had been successful!
Unfortunately for the people of the Late Middle Ages, the forty years or so of slight warming gave ground to a more severe bout of cooling. The summer of 1560 brought a return of coldness and wetness that led to severe decline in harvest, crop failure and increases in infant mortality and epidemics. Bear in mind that this was an agrarian subsistence culture, nearly totally dependent on the yearly harvest to survive. One bad harvest could be tolerated, but back-to-back failures would cause horrific consequences, and indeed they did.
Of course, the people’s misfortunes were attributed to weather-changing witches who had triggered the death-dealing weather, most often in the form of cold, rain, frost and devastating hailstorms. Horrific atrocities were alleged of the witches, including Franconian witches who “confessed” to flying through the air to spread an ointment made of children’s fat in order to cause a killing frost. Across the continent of Europe, from the 15th to the 17th centuries there were likely many tens of thousands of supposed witches burnt at the stake, many of these old women living without husbands on the margins of society.
The worst of the witch hunts occurred during the bitter cold from 1560 to about 1680. The frenzy of killing culminated in the killing of 63 witches in the German territory of Wiesensteig in the year 1563 alone. Across Europe, though, the numbers of witches continued to increase and peaked at more than 500 per year in the mid-1600s. Most were burned at the stake; others were hung.
The end of the witch hunts and killings tie closely to the beginning of our current warming trend at the close of the 17th century. That warming trend started more than 300 years ago and continues in fits and starts to this day.
In the Late Middle Ages, a large segment of the population actually believed that evil people could negatively affect the climate. It appears that we haven’t learned the lessons of the 16th century and the dangers of stirring unfounded fears concerning changes to our climate. Perhaps in the not too distant future we will have the benefit of hindsight and realize that people like Al Gore and Dr. Michael Mann were the Heinrich Kramers of the early 21st century, trying to convince us all that we can control the uncontrollable — the natural cycles of the Sun and Earth that are operating today, just as they have for many millions of years.
On the 65th anniversary of Israel’s brutal massacre on the village of Kafr Qasem, where 48 Palestinians were gunned down by border police, the colonial entity has still failed to formally acknowledge its responsibility for the killings. A bill presented at the Knesset by Arab Israeli MKs was once again voted down. The bill would have required educational instruction in Israeli schools about the massacre, as well as the publication of any classified documents.
The Kafr Qasem massacre is an example of Israel’s premeditated ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. On the same day it attacked the Suez Canal, along with its French and British allies, a curfew was placed on eight Palestinian villages and communicated late, to ensure that Palestinians travelling back home from work would be out after the time restriction. The massacre is one example of Israel’s ongoing Nakba, and one that targeted Palestinians in Israel. Through re-enactment of terror reminiscent of the Nakba, Israel was aiming at further Palestinian dispossession.
It was only 25 days after the massacre that the international community became knowledgeable of the killings, through a press release by Tawfik Toubi, which explained the gruesome massacres in detail. “In some cases, the police stomped on the heads of the dead and sunk their bayonets in the bodies of the women,” an excerpt from the press release included in Samia Halaby’s book, Drawing the Kafr Qasem Massacres, reads.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog attended this year’s memorial. His presence was an example of Israel’s hypocrisy when it comes to Palestinian history as a result of colonial violence. Asking for “forgiveness”, Herzog stated, “For it is clear to all of us: the killing and injury of innocents are absolutely forbidden. They must remain beyond all political arguments!”
But Israel has never made the distinction of the innocent. All Palestinians are a target, since each Palestinian stands in the way of Israel’s colonial expansion. In the case of Kafr Qasem, however, Israel is not averse to making a distinction between this massacre and other previous bouts of ethnic cleansing. Why should Palestinians “forgive” Israel for the Kafr Qasem massacres when the colonial enterprise is failing to institutionalise its culpability? Furthermore, why ask forgiveness for Kafr Qasem and not for the earlier massacres which paved the way for Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing?
Herzog’s words attempted to steer clear of what he called “political argument”. At the commemoration, he declared, “This is our opportunity, as a human society, to empower what we have in common as citizens and as neighbours.”
There is no equality between what Herzog calls citizens and neighbours without decolonisation. The Israeli president spoke from a privileged position to Palestinians who have lost family members, knowing that the perpetrators faced only a charade of justice. The convicted officials responsible for the murders were released from prison by 1960, by means of reduced sentences or pardons, meaning that the Israeli justice system failed to recognise the severity of the crime and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Speaking about the massacres politically as well as in terms of criminal culpability is necessary to ensure that the Palestinian narrative emerges. It is well documented that Israel’s existence is rooted in massacres and Palestinians’ dispossession.
With Kafr Qasem, as well as with other massacres, Israel needs to set the record straight – it is a perpetrator, with intent, and with an entire political structure that has supported its ethnic cleansing for decades. There should be no dissociating from political accountability merely to ensure that Palestinian memory remains distinct from the history which Zionist colonisation perpetrated since the Nakba.
One myth found in history books is that the United States was surprised by Chinese intervention in the Korean war. This was no surprise because China warned that it would intervene if American forces moved north of the 38th parallel. War with China was sought by General Douglas MacArthur who wanted an excuse to overthrow its new communist government. He assumed that American airpower could demolish Chinese armies while Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces landed from Taiwan and marched to Beijing. However, the Chinese army proved far better than expected in Korea and stymied MacArthur’s secret plan. American President Harry Truman ended this plot by firing General MacArthur.
“When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.”
So warned Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in his address to the UN General Assembly on September 22, 2020. He was referring to the consequences for East Asia of a conflict between the US and China.
Fast forward to October 2, 2021, about one year later, and the first patch of grass has been stomped on by the U.S. elephant, trudging stealthily about, far from home in the South China Sea. On that day the nuclear-powered attack submarine, the USS Connecticut, suffered serious damage in an undersea incident which the U.S. Navy ascribed to a collision with an undersea object.
After sustaining damage, the submarine apparently surfaced close to the Paracel Islands which lie only 150 nautical miles from China’s Yulin submarine base in Hainan Province.
The Connecticut is one of only three Seawolf class of submarines, which are assumed to be on spying missions. But they can be equipped with Intermediate Range (1250-2500 km) Tomahawk cruise missiles which can be armed with nuclear warheads. It is claimed that they are not so equipped at present because the Navy’s “policy decisions” have “phased out” their nuclear role, according to the hawkish Center For Strategic and International Studies.
When a US nuclear submarine with such capabilities has a collision capable of killing U.S. sailors and spilling radioactive materials in the South China Sea, it should be front page news on every outlet in the U.S. This has not been the case – far from it. For example, to this day (October 30), nearly a month after the collision, the New York Times, the closest approximation to a mouthpiece for the American foreign policy elite, has carried no major story on the incident, and in fact no story at all so far as I and several daily readers can find. This news is apparently not fit to print in the Times. (A notable exception to this conformity and one worth consulting has been Craig Hooper of Forbes.)
A blackout of this kind will come as no surprise to those who have covered the plight of Julian Assange or the US invasion of Syria or the barely hidden hand of the United States in various regime change operations, to cite a few examples
The U.S. media has followed the narrative of the U.S. Navy which waited until October 7 to acknowledge the incident, with the following extraordinarily curt press release (I have edited it with strike-outs and italicized substitutions to make its meaning clear.):
The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN 22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific regionin the South China Sea near or inside Chinese territorial waters. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority The crew is being held incommunicado for an indefinite period. There are no life threatening injuries. This allows the extent of injuries to the crew to be kept secret.
The submarine remains in a safe and stable conditionhidden from public view to conceal the damage and its cause. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operationalare in a condition that is being hidden from the public until cosmetic repairs can be done to conceal the damage. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed: is also being concealed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance will not allow an independent inspection or investigation. The incident will be investigated cover-up will continue.
Tan Kefei, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense although not so terse, had much the same to say as my edited version above, as reported in China’s Global Times:
It took the US Navy five days after the accident took place to make a short and unclear statement. Such an irresponsible approach, cover-up (and) lack of transparency … can easily lead to misunderstandings and misjudgments. China and the neighboring countries in the South China Sea have to question the truth of the incident and the intentions behind it.
But Tan went further and echoed the sentiment of President Duterte;
This incident also shows that the recent establishment of a trilateral security partnership between the US, UK and Australia (AUKUS) to carry out nuclear submarine cooperation has brought a huge risk of nuclear proliferation, seriously violated the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, undermined the construction of a nuclear-free zone in Southeast Asia, and brought severe challenges to regional peace and security.
“We believe that the actions of the US will affect the safety of navigation in the South China Sea, arouse serious concerns and unrest among the countries in the region, and pose a serious threat and a major risk to regional peace and stability.
The crash of the USS Connecticut goes beyond the potential for harmful radioactive leakage into the South China Sea, with potential damage to the surrounding nations including the fishing grounds of importance to the economy. If the US continues to ramp up confrontation far from its home in the South China Sea, then a zone of conflict could spread to include all of East Asia. Will this in any way benefit the region? Does the region want to be turned into the same wreckage that the Middle East and North Africa are now after decades of US crusading for “democracy and liberty” there via bombs, sanctions and regime change operations? That would be a tragic turn for the world’s most economically dynamic region. Do the people of the region not realize this? If not, the USS Connecticut should be a wake-up call.
But the people of the US should also think carefully about what is happening. Perhaps the foreign policy elite of the US think it can revisit the U.S. strategy in WWII with devastation visited upon Eurasia leaving the US as the only industrial power standing above the wreckage. Such are the benefits of an island nation. But in the age of intercontinental weapons, could the US homeland expect to escape unscathed from such a conflict as it did in WWII? The knot is being tied, as Krushchev wrote to Kennedy at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and if it is tied too tightly, then no one will be able to untie it. The US is tying the knot far from its home this time half way around the world. It should not tie that knot too tight.
What happens when you fail in your attempts to create a vaccine for “Covid-19” and then realize you’ve just missed out on a billion-dollar profit-making opportunity?
You hurriedly develop a new drug, rush it through a clinical trial (which you yourself design to ensure good results), and then announce it to the world as the Covid cure we’ve all been waiting for, except no one’s been waiting for it because Covid isn’t any more deadly than the flu, and can be treated by easy-to-procure, inexpensive means (if it exists at all).
But governments are too stupid to know that and you own most of the corrupt politicians making the decisions, so who cares? As long as they’re willing to invest in your new concoction, it doesn’t even have to be necessary, or safe, or effective, or ethical…
Yes, I’m talking about “Molnupiravir”, Merck’s latest poison being promoted as an effective treatment against covid-19 (hang on, I thought that’s what the vaccines were for?).
This unapproved (yes, unapproved) drug costs $700 per course and the US government has just agreed to buy 1.7m courses. That’s a 1.2 BILLION dollar investment.
The deal is part of the Biden administration’s pledge to “respond to the health needs of the public”, but, in actuality, it’s simply a money-siphoning operation, with the American public coming off second best.
Molnupiravir is being sold to the public as the next big breakthrough in Covid-19 treatment off the back of what appears to be a SINGLE study, which was never even completed. Furthermore, the study was conducted by Merck (the makers of the drug), who chose not to disclose any adverse events. If that isn’t suspicious enough, the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Media press releases are apparently the new standard when it comes to evaluating medical treatments. After all, why would you wait for independent confirmation of your results or objective peer-review when you can get paid journalists, without a shred of medical expertise, to convince the public that they need your new drug?
If government scientists with integrity were in charge of assessing Molnupiravir, not bribed pharma shills, they may be alarmed at the lack of testing or the failure to disclose adverse events, they may even notice that vitamin D has had FAR superior results in combating “Covid-19”. In fact, one study, published in the highly respected and influential Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, found that vitamin D reduced mortality among severe covid-19 patients by 79%.
Compare that to the alleged 50% reduction offered by Molnupiravir for “mild-to-moderately ill” patients. Not to mention the difference in cost. As stated earlier, Molnupiravir runs at $700 per course, while vitamin D costs a fraction of that (probably less than $10!).
Furthermore, while Merck chose not to disclose adverse reactions, years worth of reliable data shows that vitamin D supplementation is extremely safe. And not only is taking vitamin D safe, but it also has a wealth of benefits for a variety of conditions including depression, anxiety, pain, inflammation, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and more.
As was obvious from the very beginning of the “pandemic” when nutritional medicine experts were slandered in the press for recommending “lethal” doses of vitamins, world health has been hijacked by the profit-hungry, empathy-dead, toxic cartel of Big Pharma “medicine”, and our governments have been in bed with them all along.
Furthermore, this has been going on longer than most people think. In fact, more than a decade earlier, governments were locking in billion-dollar deals to buy stockpiles of “Tamiflu”, an equally useless influenza drug that was later found to have no effect on reducing hospitalizations, deaths or complications from influenza.
In fact, Tamiflu was subsequently found to cause a raft of serious adverse reactions including delirium, panic attacks and even hallucinations. The “milder” side effects include nausea and vomiting.
In 2020, an unsealed whistleblower lawsuit revealed that drug company Hoffman-La Roche, the maker of Tamiflu, misrepresented clinical studies and made false claims regarding the effectiveness of the drug to treat influenza. In a 2020 article, Nasdaq quotes attorney Mark Lanier as saying that:
As alleged in the complaint – Tamiflu does not do what Roche promised… Roche hid this fact for many years by selectively citing its studies and suppressing the data about Tamiflu. The company utilized lobbyists, key opinion leaders and ghostwriters to promote Tamiflu with a deceptive promise to governments fearful of an influenza pandemic.”
Nonetheless, the medicine remains on the World Health Organization’s “essential medicines” list. The US and UK governments spent $1.3 billion and $703 million respectively buying “strategic reserves” of Tamiflu in preparation for a global flu pandemic.
At the time, the media (which had not yet totally sold out to Mr. Global) condemned the investments as a waste of money.
Governments made these outlandish investments off the back of “incomplete” data, which is exactly what has occurred with the latest deal to procure Merck’s Molnupiravir. And I’ll bet that when more data comes out, it will be found, once again, that governments wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.
Bribed politicians would rather deepen their pockets than institute sensible health policies or invest money into procuring and promoting vitamin D, which would not only save lives but help to improve mental health in a woefully deficient population ravaged by anxiety and depression.
As functional medicine expert, Dr. Alex Vasquez states in his latest blog,
… viral infections and the fear and ignorance around them have become a great way for drug companies to sell worthless drugs to their bribed politicians. If we spent that money on heath-promotion rather than fear-promotion, we’d be freer, stronger, healthier, and we’d emancipate ourselves from the mental slavery of fear, ignorance, and dependence.”
Furthermore, the importance of sunlight cannot be overstated, for apart from being our principal source of Vitamin D, it also induces the production of several powerful antiviral metabolites that aid the body in fighting off illness.
This article would not be complete without at least mentioning some of the corrupt dealings, legal cases and blatant crimes that Merck has been involved in over the years. The most egregious of these offenses, and one of the largest scandals in medical history, was the company’s promotion of its anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx.
During its height, Vioxx was earning Merck $2 billion in revenue per year and estimations have found that around 25 million patients were prescribed the drug. In September 2004, Merck was forced to recall Vioxx on account of it being shown to cause adverse cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and stroke.
Merck was slammed with a massive class-action lawsuit that was eventually settled for $4.85 billion in 2007. Not only did Merck cover up data suggesting its drug was dangerous, they illegally promoted it as an “off-label” treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, without any indication of its effectiveness.
According to the testimony of Dr. David Graham, the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, Vioxx caused 55,000 premature deaths from heart attacks and stroke.
Even years after taking the medication, patients often still experience problems, indicating that Vioxx may have killed far more people than the conservative estimate made by Dr. Graham, who, after all, works for the FDA, the organization that was responsible for assessing the drug’s safety.
In fact, after analysing US national mortality data starting from the year Vioxx was released up to the year it was withdrawn, Ron Unz, [former] publisher of The American Conservative, came to the startling conclusion that Vioxx may have been responsible for up to 500,000 deaths, mostly in the elderly (age 65+) population.
After the scandal, Merck hired the services of PR company, Burson-Marstellar (whose past campaigns include covering up genocide in Nigeria, fighting health authorities on the issue of second-hand cigarette smoke, and playing down Apple’s abuse of Chinese factory workers), to help clean up its public image and assert them as an “ethical player in the healthcare arena”.
And it seems to have worked, for here we are, 15 years later with another worthless – and possibly quite dangerous – Merck drug being promoted around the world as a treatment for “Covid-19”. Predictably, the UK government has now expressed interest in Molnupiravir, with many more countries expected to follow suit.
But Merck’s criminal history stretches further back than 1999 when Vioxx hit the shelves, for, as early as the 1960s, Merck faced controversy regarding its arthritis medication, Indocin. Although the drug had been approved by the FDA, it was later revealed that the medication had not been adequately tested for efficacy or side effects.
Less than a decade later, Merck’s drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), alleged to prevent miscarriages, was found to be carcinogenic, causing cases of cervical cancer and other gynaecological disorders. And last (but certainly not least), in 2007, Merck’s cholesterol drug, “Zetia” was shown to cause liver disease, a risk that was known to Merck who intentionally concealed the damning trial results.
For those who think the media are simply biased towards pharmaceutical drugs, this is a naive assumption. Behind the headline-making newspapers, magazines and television programs is a coordinated socio-political power vortex seeded in Big Pharma/Big Money corruption.
Medical journals are inherently biased towards publishing pro-drug articles. These then serve as advertisements for the pharmaceutical industry which pays millions of dollars for journal reprints.
Mainstream media outlets such as newspapers, magazines, TV shows and online publications then republish the pro-drug information, much to the delight of the pharmaceutical industry.
Medical science and mainstream media then become a pro-drug echo chamber for biased, Big Pharma propaganda.
Drug companies increase their sales, gaining profits and building influence to the point where they have more power than governments.
Pharmaceutical companies infiltrate medical education, media, and health policy; they pay “researchers” to publish and teach information favourable to the pharmaceutical paradigm.
Governments then write policies and make investments that favour drug companies rather than the citizens of that country.
At the time of writing, Molnupiravir has not yet been FDA approved. However, Merck has asked the FDA to grant “emergency” approval on account of the drug’s alleged effectiveness. Considering the decisions made by the FDA thus far, along with the fact that funding from pharmaceutical companies like Merck makes up 75% of the FDA’s drug review budget, what do you think the chances are of Molnupiravir’s approval being granted?
And would you trust a doctor who prescribed it to you?
“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” is the fourth vaccine-related documentary by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. It tells the story of an intentional infertility vaccine program conducted on African women, without their knowledge or consent.
While it’s been brushed off as a loony conspiracy theory for years, there’s compelling evidence showing it did, in fact, happen, and there’s nothing to prevent it from happening again. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Of course, the people’s misfortunes were attributed to weather-changing witches who had triggered the death-dealing weather, most often in the form of cold, rain, frost and devastating hailstorms. Horrific atrocities were alleged of the witches, including Franconian witches who “confessed” to flying through the air to spread an ointment made of children’s fat in order to cause a killing frost. Across the continent of Europe, from the 15th to the 17th centuries there were likely many tens of thousands of supposed witches burnt at the stake, many of these old women living without husbands on the margins of society.
Aletho News
Aletho News 