Israeli forces detained 17-year-old Palestinian teenager Mohammad in solitary confinement for 35 days in total for interrogation purposes. In this video, he describes his experience at the hands of the Israeli military and shares the lasting effects his time in solitary confinement have had on his mental health.
Covid-19 vaccine propaganda is everywhere, and particularly shrill in the sanctified NHS. Reluctant care workers are given a chance to see the error of their thinking, through a teaching session attended with compliant colleagues. Take for example the webinar Vaccination Myth Busting Session for Care Staff, used for NHS and other health and social care staff in Hertfordshire.
The slides begin with results of an Ipsos MORI poll, which asked ‘how convincing are arguments for taking a coronavirus vaccine?’ Of the several items, ‘to protect other people from catching the coronavirus’ and ‘because it will reduce my risk of catching the coronavirus’ got 77% and 76% support respectively. This use of a public opinion poll is manipulative, enabling the educators to make a point without recourse to scientific evidence. In fact, the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission. As Peter Doshi explained in the British Medical Journal, trials could only measure mild symptoms, because hospitalisations and deaths were too few for statistical significance.
Also scoring 77% was ‘because vaccines have been very successful against other diseases’. This may be true, but would you agree to take an experimental pill because drugs work for other diseases? Trust in medicine is being exploited. While 66% agreed with the statement ‘because I trust scientists and other medical experts if they say I should take it’, there was also 45% support for following the advice of pharmaceutical companies, and 39% on government recommendation. This is troublingly naïve.
The next slide is on the World Health Organisation’s steps in vaccine development. No mention is made of the need for long-term safety assessment in the trial stages, as would normally be required. Instead, this is left to post-marketing surveillance. Yet the danger of insufficient time for testing was shown by the thalidomide scandal.
The purpose of vaccines is herd immunity, a state that is only reached ‘when most people in a community are vaccinated against a disease’. Naturalistic herd immunity has been conveniently forgotten. According to the slides, ‘vaccines train your immune system using a harmless form of the virus’. Fact check: false. The mRNA type, described in the slides as ‘genetic vaccines’, instructs cells to produce spike proteins. The adenovirus vector type does not use SARS-CoV-2 either, as the virus has never been properly isolated.
‘Single dose is not single dose’ is the illogical title of the next slide. Although there is ‘high efficacy after first dose’, the second dose gives more lasting protection. However, there is clearly not much confidence in immunisation because the webinar instructs staff to ‘behave as if everyone you meet outside your home is infected and you are too’. The status of sick until proven healthy, apparently, persists for the double-jabbed.
Thus everyone should wear face coverings I guess that ‘2 layers min, preferably three’ means the thickness of cloth rather than the number of masks, although Tony Fauci was telling people earlier this year to wear two masks. As with the vaccines, masking is presented as part of a package. Amusingly, a block of Swiss cheese analogises the various interventions: all slices are riddled with holes, but no hole goes through the entire block. None of these are optional: ‘if you want to get out of lockdown, your only real option is compliance’.
The threatening tone continues with the assertion that unvaccinated people will cause new variants to arise, and ‘vaccine escape’. Reference is made to the ‘Green Book’, which makes almost no exceptions to the vaccine regime. Based on advice from the British School for Allergy and Clinical Immunology, anyone who had an anaphylactic shock after a previous jab should be given the Astra Zeneca vaccine rather than Pfizer, and should have half an hour of monitoring afterwards.
The slides were produced before the authorities gave the green light for jabbing pregnant women, but there is little caution: expectant mothers ‘should be reassured that the vaccine does not contain live SARS-CoV-2 virus, and therefore cannot cause COVID-19 infection in her or in her baby’. So that’s all right then. The impact on fertility cannot be known, but the webinar glibly states: ‘current guidance is that the vaccination is safe for women of childbearing age’.
Lastly, the session considers side effects. It is accepted that all drugs can cause adverse reactions in some people. However, the covid-19 vaccine is not a treatment but an experimental intervention on the healthy. Thus the risk-benefit ratio is different from a medicine used to treat illness. The teaching session describes the common side effects of ‘a painful arm, feeling tired, headache, general aches and mild flu-like symptoms’, which disappear over a few days.
Then comes a leap of faith: ‘these symptoms are a sign that your body is building immunity’. Such information may explain why people experiencing adverse reactions say ‘at least I know it’s working’. But the reality is that many vaccine recipients feel very poorly after the jab, as known to healthcare providers due to the high level of staff sickness.
It is unethical and against the principles of the Hippocratic Oath to tell people that adverse reactions are normal. But this seems to be the message of the vaccine regime. A Guardian article this week advised people who are suffering nasty side effects: ‘don’t think of this as a bad sign – it’s exactly what’s expected from an effective but imperfect jab’. In this Orwellian newspeak, harm is safe.
The most egregious economy of truth in this teaching session is on the most serious adverse reaction of all – death. By the time that the slides were produced (27th January), millions of Britons had been jabbed. But this bold claim is made:
‘Nobody has died following having the vaccine in the UK or anywhere else in the world’.
In January covid-19 mortality surged, a pattern seen in most other countries after vaccine rollout. The likely reason is weakened immunity for two or three weeks after the jab. In the frail elderly, recovery of the immune system takes longer, exposing them to infection in the winter peak. This correlation is not proven, but numerous care homes had a spate of covid deaths after all residents were jabbed.
The blood clotting problem was also well known, with several reports of people dying shortly after vaccination. Again, causation has not been fully determined (although belatedly the authorities have added cardiovascular risks to the vaccine marketing information). But why have a Yellow Card system if reported adverse reactions are simply ignored?
The producers and presenters of this misinformation should be held to account. As the ‘no jab, no job’ mandate looms, it is time for professional practitioners to speak out. Indeed, their code of conduct demands they do so.
I HAD the pleasure of interviewing Dr Robert Malone, an industrial scientist and the authoritative voice on mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) technology since he invented it when he was a graduate student at the Salk Institute in 1988.
US-based Dr Malone is not a conspiracy theorist and he’s not an anti-vaxxer. He’s spent the past three decades building vaccines and vaccine technology.
He has more than 20 years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as in governmental and non-governmental organisations.
The fact that he is now being ‘ghosted’ for speaking about the adverse effects of the mRNA vaccines reflects the dark era of censorship that we’ve been experiencing for far too long.
Even my interview with him was pulled off YouTube in the space of just three hours. Fortunately, I posted it on alternative video-sharing platforms, such as Rumble and BitChute.
Here are some of the highlights he revealed in the interview. Firstly, Dr Malone stated: ‘In the Security and Exchange Commission filings for both Pfizer and Moderna, there’s explicit statements that acknowledge that these are gene therapy-based (vaccines) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) perceives them as such.’
He brilliantly explained the science behind the vaccines by using the metaphor of an industrial robot used to build cars. The RNA in this metaphor is the code that a hacker is inserting into the bit stream to make these robots (your cells) make something they would not have otherwise made. In this case, it’s the spike protein that’s recognised by the immune system triggering a response.
‘In a conventional vaccine you can precisely calculate how much protein goes into your shoulder because it’s fixed and predictable, but in the case of these genetic vaccines you can’t,’ he warned.
‘You can’t calculate how long it produces this protein and how much protein it makes and exactly what cells in your body the protein goes into. Conventional vaccines go around your cell, but for these gene therapy-based vaccines the target is your cell.’
When I asked whether he thought the UK (which was the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine on December 2, 2020) rushed through their approval of it, Dr Malone quickly responded: ‘I wouldn’t say maybe, I would say they did. You can’t take a process that normally takes a decade and push it down into nine months and not cut corners.’
He explained that regulatory agencies such as America’s FDA and Britain’s MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) have different safety check lists for vaccines and gene therapies. Typically, genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity studies are not done with vaccines, but are done with gene therapy products.
Dr Malone revealed that in the face of the crisis, apparently there was a global consensus with these regulatory agencies that they were going to suspend their gene therapy checklist, or if they were done, they were not done in a ‘vigorous’ way. He said this was the biggest mistake of the regulatory agencies.
Children are at very low risk of hospitalisation and death from Covid-19, Dr Malone confirmed. In their age group, the risks overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits from the vaccine.
The risks are the cardiotoxicity events (pericarditis and myocarditis) being recorded in the adverse event databases coming out of Israel, Norway and the Netherlands, to name but a few.
Given that the MHRA and FDA have approved the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds and have been actively encouraging the use of it across multiple age groups, Dr Malone likened this application to the situation where ‘if you give a three-year-old a hammer, everything becomes a nail’.
He talked intently on bioethics and whether it’s ethical to encourage the young (including children) who are currently healthy to take on the responsibility of being exposed to the risks associated with the vaccines in order to protect the vulnerable (the elderly and those with a compromised immune status).
For him, the answer was a categorical, no – it’s not ethical. When I asked him why there’s such a push to get children vaccinated, he answered: ‘A cynic might mention the financial compensation at stake.’
He raised more alarm bells by suggesting there’s bias in the data stating there’s no effect of the vaccine on pregnant women, causing spontaneous abortion. In fact, many of the women in those studies were in the third trimester, where the risk of miscarriage is much lower.
Dr Malone said if you took out the third trimester data and reanalysed it, just looking at those women in the first and second trimester, then the risk of spontaneous abortion jumps to above 50 per cent.
The topic of censorship was raised, as at the time of the interview the doctor had been ‘erased’ from LinkedIn and his full interview with Brett Weinstein and Steve Kirsch had been removed from YouTube.
One of the reasons LinkedIn gave him was because he mentioned that a chairman on the board at Reuters had links to Pfizer.
Dr Malone stressed that Reuters is a member of the Trusted News Initiative, led by the BBC, which was first formed to combat the spread of misinformation during the US presidential election, but now its attention is on combating vaccine misinformation.
Its other members include AFP, CBC/Radio-Canada, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, the Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft , Twitter, and the Wall Street Journal.
Dr Malone warned that ‘the only version of scientific truth that’s allowed to be discussed are those truths endorsed by large bureaucratic public health agencies’. He was very concerned about ‘this integration between Big Tech, government and biopharma’.
On a final note, he raised the insidious question of whether ‘there is a group of people that could be exploiting this window for their own purposes, whether it’s financial, political or power.’ That, he said, would be ‘a huge travesty’.
“Only the vaccinated died” That is the lesson from the ‘Spanish Flu’ pandemic of 1918 which killed more people than died from bombs and bullets throughout the entire First World War (1914-18).
Many lies and half truths have been spun about the deadly pandemic of 1918 which killed over 50 million. However, as recently as 2008 Dr Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the US President during the COVID19 pandemic, admitted that bacterial pneumonia, not a flu virus, was responsible. As Fauci and his co-authors concluded:
“the majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria.” [1]
The Unmasked buried the Masked during the Spanish Flu Pandemic 1918
Watch this informative video and realise that history as told to us, is a Big Lie. For generations we have been merely the disposable pawns of a self-serving elite.
Fort Riley in Kansas, not Spain, was the where the deadly 1918 pandemic began after an experimental vaccine was given to soldiers about to leave for Europe to fight in the trenches. Soldiers and the civilian population were told they needed the vaccine because of the likely spread of disease from the sodden, filthy trenches where the soldiers spent most of their war.
The parallels between then and now are frightening. The source of the 1918 vaccine was the Rockefeller Institute and the outcome of mass death was the likely intended consequence because, then as now, a globalist elite are preoccupied with ‘culling the herd’ of humanity due to their avowed eugenicist beliefs that people are a plague on this planet – ‘their’ earth, not ours.
If the 1918 pandemic was truly an influenza virus then it would have killed the elderly and weak first. But, in fact, it was more deadly among the young and healthy and those who had been vaccinated!
The Rockefeller Foundation Funded the Eugenics Movement in America
Did you know the Rockefellers are staunch eugenicists?
“In 1975, CONGRESSMAN LARRY P. MCDONALD, said the following words about the Rockefellers; “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control… Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.”
The Rockefeller Foundation’s Legacy Of Funding Eugenics
According to Edwin Black of Cleveland Jewish News, “More than 27 [to be exact, by 1936, 35] states joined the shameful, decades-long utopian campaign to medically engineer racial supremacy.”
“Their eventual goal was to eliminate as much as 90% of the population from the reproductive future of America.””[2]
Those prophetic words from Congressman McDonald from 1975 should sound a chilling warning to us all today.
By a process of “shedding” the vaccinated infected the unvaccinated to cause the most deaths from 1918-1920. This is entirely what appears to be occurring today with the COVID19 experimental ‘vaccines.’ Coincidentally (or not!) the head medical expert then was Frederick Gates working to implement the Rockefeller vaccine plan. Today, it is billionaire, Bill Gates implementing the latest Rockefeller vaccine plan. Are you worried yet?
About John O’SullivanJohn is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘.
A new poll on the public’s views of Covid restrictions has been doing the rounds this week, and the results may come as a shock to many. They find that, of the people surveyed, 40% wished to continue with masks permanently, 26% were in favour of shutting casinos and clubs forever, and an astonishing 19% were in favour of a permanent 10pm curfew. Has Britain become a nation of authoritarians?
NEW: @ipsosmori polling for The Economist shows some Brits support anti-covid restrictions *permanently*, regardless of covid risk. Inc:
We’ve seen results like this before. Over the last 16 months, poll after poll has shown high levels of public approval for lockdowns and restrictions, which feels hard to square with the scenes of people emphatically celebrating the England victory on the streets this week.
That may be because, as a new study shows, the polling data is not all that it seems. Examining public attitudes towards restrictions, researchers at the Royal Society asked a sample of the public about their opinions on lockdown, twice over a 6 month period, first in June 2020, then again in December. Beyond standard questions about approval for lockdown and restrictions, they dug a little deeper, and asked participants what their views were on topics such as the side effects and trade-offs of restrictions, how they judged the threat of covid, and whether they felt this threat was mostly an individual threat, or a societal threat.
As anticipated, participants were in favour of lockdowns and almost all restrictions suggested. But when they were asked about their feelings about side effects (e.g. depression, obesity and abuse) of these policies, the picture changed. In fact, a majority of people appreciated that there were significant side effects and were generally unsure if the trade-offs were worthwhile. Essentially, a picture of ambivalence emerged.
There were some other interesting findings: public assessment of the risk of Covid was generally not related to individual threat, but to the threat to society as a whole. The fact that lockdown was considered necessary by the Government itself increased perception of the threat Covid posed to society. This in turn fed into public approval of lockdowns, essentially making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The researchers also found that this applied to support for restrictions. Due to the “apparent moralisation” (just this week, a WHO member accused the Government of “moral emptiness” for loosening restrictions) of the issue, there was more support for tighter measures. This then fed into participants’ responses, who in wishing to give socially acceptable answers, voiced support for restrictions.
It would therefore seem that public attitudes towards restrictions are far more complex than the headlines and polls suggest. Public feelings on restrictions are nuanced, and multifaceted — as one would expect, given the benefits, risks and huge trade-offs. Distilling complex issues into soundbites and simple figures only muddies the water further. So next time you see a poll claiming that nearly one-fifth of the population supports a permanent curfew, treat it with a heavy dose of scepticism. Journalists and politicians, that applies to you too.
Amy Jones is an anonymous doctor working in the NHS, who has a background in Philosophy & Bioethics.
John McAfee’s wife claims that Spanish authorities are engaged in a “cover-up” of the software tycoon’s death by withholding information.
McAfee was found dead in his Barcelona jail cell last month after a Spanish court ruled that he would be extradited to the U.S., where he faced the rest of his life in jail for tax evasion.
Widower Janice McAfee continues to insist that foul play could have been involved, tweeting that authorities are dragging their feet on releasing information.
“There has been no since (sic) of urgency from the various Spanish authorities involved in the investigation into John’s death and there is clearly a cover up happening here concerning the events surrounding his death,” wrote McAfee.
“We have not received the death certificate, the official autopsy report or the official report from the prison,” she added. “I understand that things take time but the lack of cooperation from the Spanish authorities only confirms our suspicions that they have something to hide.”
Both Janice McAfee and the tycoon’s lawyer previously claimed there was no indication McAfee was suicidal before he allegedly took his own life.
McAfee repeatedly insisted in tweets and public statements that he was not planning on killing himself, asserting that he was “whacked” if that happened.
He also claimed on several occasions that he had gathered over 31 terabytes of data implicating deep state and CIA officials in criminal activity.
No longer associated with Wikipedia as it now operates, its co-founder Larry Sanger called its original “neutral point of view” (NPOV) dead in a 2020 op-ed, explaining:
Its unacceptable new policy “endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what (Wiki) call(s) “false balance.”
The notion drove a stake through the heart of truth and full disclosure on all issues, especially on most important cutting-edge ones.
One of many political examples is Wiki material on Trump — a figure I sharply criticized for legitimate reasons, not invented ones.
One-sidedly bashing him, Wiki excludes supporting views, Sanger explained.
In stark contrast, “glowing Hillary” material extols the unprosecuted war goddess, racketeer, perjurer — a member of the notorious Clinton crime family with husband Bill and daughter Chelsea.
Sanger stressed the importance of neutrality, saying the following:
It’s vital on all things “political and many other topics because we want to be left free to make up our own minds” based on unfiltered facts, adding:
“Reference, news, and educational resources aimed at laying out a subject in general should give us the tools we need to rationally decide what we want to think.”
“Only those who want to force the minds of others can be opposed to neutrality.”
Corrupted by abandonment of neutrality bias, Wiki failed the test.
It falsely calls alternative medicine information based on science “pseudoscience (sic),” saying:
“Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility (sic) and is untested (sic), untestable (sic) or proven ineffective (sic).”
The above claim turned scientific truth-telling on its head in support of anti-science.
It’s notably true on all things related to flu/covid.
State-sponsored/media and Wiki-supported Big Lies and mass deception back the mother of all scams — genocide on an unparalleled scale. More on this topic below.
Sanger called for Wiki “to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV” in favor state-approved bias and suppression of what’s most important for everyone to know, adding:
“Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change.”
“They live in a fantasy world of their own making.”
What’s needed is “an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network, such as I proposed with the Encyclosphere” — free from bias and suppression of contrary views and dissent from the official fabricated narrative.
Days earlier, Sanger called Wiki “more one-sided than ever,” saying:
There’s “a crucial difference between propaganda and information that supports individual deliberation. The difference is neutrality.”
“So does Wikipedia meet its own ideals of neutrality? Hardly!
It fails dismally on all issues mattering most.
It defied reality by calling toxic flu/covid jabs “95%” effective (sic) — while slamming science-based views otherwise as “misinformation.”
It calls legitimate concern about their hazardous side effects “overblown.”
“(I)nformation from the many skeptical physicians and medical researchers” explaining otherwise is suppressed, said Sanger, adding:
Wiki “openly repudiates neutrality…”
Its “editors embrace their biases sometimes so fervently that their articles emerge more as propaganda than as reference material.”
Operating as “a kind of thought police,” unbiased truth and full disclosure is banned on its pages.
The official narrative message is featured exclusively on all issues mattering most.
A Final Comment
On Tuesday, Joseph Mercola reported that “Wikipedia scrub(bed) inventor of mRNA… technology (Robert Malone’s) scientific contributions” in response to its mass-jabbing dangers he explained on a YouTube posted podcast, now deleted.
He expressed concern “about government not being transparent about risks, and that people are being coerced into taking these experimental injections, which violates bioethics laws,” Mercola explained, adding:
Through mid-June, his “contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page.”
They’re now deleted, along with his other scientific accomplishments.
Mercola explained that officially reported deaths from flu/covid jabs — the tip of an exponentially greater total — exceed numbers from “more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years…”
They’re “about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine…”
Flu/covid jab drugs were designed to harm health, not protect and preserve it as falsely claimed by US/Western dark forces, their press agent media and Wikipedia.
1. COVID-19 vaccination is voluntary research. The COVID-19 public vaccination program operated by the CDC and the FDA is a clinical investigation and under no circumstance can any person receive pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal on their free choice of participation. Violation of this principle of autonomy by any entity constitutes reckless endangerment with a reasonable expectation of causing personal injury resulting in damages.
2. COVID-19 vaccines do not work well enough. The current COVID-19 vaccines are not sufficiently protective against contracting COVID-19 to support its use beyond the current voluntary participation in the CDC sponsored program. A total of 10,262 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections had been reported from 46 U.S. states and territories as of April 30, 2021. Among these cases, 6,446 (63%) occurred in females, and the median patient age was 58 years (interquartile range = 40–74 years). Based on preliminary data, 2,725 (27%) vaccine breakthrough infections were asymptomatic, 995 (10%) patients were known to be hospitalized, and 160 (2%) patients died. Among the 995 hospitalized patients, 289 (29%) were asymptomatic or hospitalized for a reason unrelated to COVID-19. The median age of patients who died was 82 years (interquartile range = 71–89 years); 28 (18%) decedents were asymptomatic or died from a cause unrelated to COVID-19. Sequence data were available from 555 (5%) reported cases, 356 (64%) of which were identified as SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including B.1.1.7 (199; 56%), B.1.429 (88; 25%), B.1.427 (28; 8%), P.1 (28; 8%), and B.1.351 (13; 4%). None of these variants are encoded in the RNA or DNA of the current COVID-19 vaccines. In response to these numerous reports, the CDC announced on May 1, 2021, that community breakthrough cases would no longer be reported to the public and only those vaccine failure cases requiring hospitalization will be reported, presumably on the CDC website.
3. COVID-19 vaccines have a dangerous mechanism of action. The Pfizer, Moderna, and JNJ vaccines are considered “genetic vaccines” or vaccines produced from gene therapy molecular platforms.[i][ii] They have a injurious mechanism of action in that they all cause the body to make an uncontrolled quantity of the pathogenic spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is unlike all other vaccines where there is a set amount of antigen or live-attenuated virus. This means for the Pfizer, Moderna, and JNJ vaccines it is not predictable among patients who will produce more or less of the spike protein. The spike protein itself has been demonstrated to injure vital organs such as the brain, heart, lungs, as well as damage blood vessels and directly cause blood clots. Additionally, because these vaccines infect cells within these organs, the generation of spike protein within heart and brain cells in particular, causes the body’s own immune system to attack these organs.
4. There is a burgeoning number of cases of myocarditis or heart inflammation among individuals below age 30 years.[iii] The Centers for Disease Control has held emergency meetings on this issue and the medical community is responding to the crisis and the US FDA has issued a warning on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for myocarditis.[iv] It is known that myocarditis causes injury to heart muscle cells and may result in permanent heart damage leading to heart failure, arrhythmias, and cardiac death. Because this risk is not predictable and the early reports may represent just the tip of the iceberg, no individual under age 30 under any set of circumstances should feel any obliged to take this risk with the current genetic vaccines particular the Pfizer and Moderna products.
5. The US FDA has given an update on the JNJ vaccine concerning the risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in women ages 18-48 associated with low platelet counts.[v] Because this risk is not predictable no woman under age 48 under any set of circumstances should feel at all obliged to take this risk with the JNJ vaccine.
6. COVID-19 vaccines are generating record safety reports. In 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Systems (“VAERS”) was established as a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S. licensed vaccines.[vi] VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to voluntarily send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is useful in detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. The total safety reports in VAERS all vaccines per year up to 2019 was 16,320. The total safety reports in VAERS for COVID Vaccines alone through June 25, 2021 is 411,931.[vii]
7. People are dying and being hospitalized in record numbers in the days after COVID-19 vaccination. Based on VAERS as of June 25, 2021, there were 6,985 COVID-19 vaccine deaths reported and over 23,257 hospitalizations reported for the COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, JNJ). By comparison, from 1999, until December 31, 2019, VAERS received 3167 death reports (158 per year) adult death reports for all vaccines combined. Thus, the COVID-19 mass vaccination is associated with at least 39-fold increase annualized vaccine deaths reported to VAERS. COVID-19 vaccine adverse events account for 98% of all vaccine-related AEs from Dec 2020 through present in VAERS.
8. The safety profile is unknown and there is a reasonable expectation for harm for the following groups at all age ranges: COVID-19 recovered, suspected COVID-19 recovered, women of childbearing potential, children, persons with one or more chronic diseases.
9. Any personal choice or protected health information concerning the COVID-19 vaccine and its complications is confidential and anonymous according to federal law, otherwise, you will be subject to additional federal fines and penalties for violation of protected health information laws and statutes.
In conclusion, the investigational, genetic COVID-19 vaccines are not safe for general use and cannot be deployed indiscriminately unless proven otherwise. Please cease and desist pressure/harassment/mandates for COVID-19 vaccination.
References
[i] To KKW, Cho WCS. An overview of rational design of mRNA-based therapeutics and vaccines. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2021 May 31. doi: 10.1080/17460441.2021.1935859. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34058918.
[ii] Doerfler W. Adenoviral Vector DNA- and SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccines: Possible Integration into the Human Genome – Are Adenoviral Genes Expressed in Vector-based Vaccines? Virus Res. 2021 Jun 1;302:198466. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198466. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34087261; PMCID: PMC8168329.
[iii] Abu Mouch S, Roguin A, Hellou E, Ishai A, Shoshan U, Mahamid L, Zoabi M, Aisman M, Goldschmid N, Berar Yanay N. Myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Vaccine. 2021 Jun 29;39(29):3790-3793. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.05.087. Epub 2021 May 28. PMID: 34092429; PMCID: PMC8162819.
Historians declare that the American empire began with the Spanish-American war in 1898. It really began decades earlier when the US Navy formed the East India Squadron in 1835 that grew into of the Asiatic Squadron in 1868. American warships deployed to Asia to intimidate and attack whoever interfered with American business interests. This force also established American colonies in China, Hawaii, and Samoa before the Spanish-American war.
A new study out of England quantifies just how tiny the risk of death from coronavirus is for children. Two in a million — that is the number of children under the age of 18 killed by coronavirus in England over 12 months according to the study by scientists at University College London, and the Universities of York, Bristol, and Liverpool.
A report at the BBC regarding the study also notes that, of the total of 25 children the study found to have died from coronavirus, “[a]round 15 had life-limiting or underlying conditions, including 13 living with complex neuro-disabilities.” The BBC report further notes that the study found a relatively small number of children experienced severe illness from coronavirus, with only about 250 children in all of England having been placed in intensive care related to coronavirus.
The study results confirm, and put some numbers to, what was known since the early days of governments across the world placing extreme restrictions on children in the name of countering coronavirus: Coronavirus poses nearly zero risk of death or serious injury for children. Indeed, the risks are quite minimal for healthy non-elderly individuals as well.
Though this low risk to children was known, governments persisted in imposing restrictions on children month after month, including mask and “social distancing” mandates (pseudoscience-based mandates never demonstrated to reduce the spread of coronavirus for people of any age), school and other closings, gathering prohibitions, and lockdowns.
Given the small risk to children from coronavirus, it is particularly abominable to upturn their lives in the name of protecting them from coronavirus. Also abominable is pushing that children nearly impervious to coronavirus be given experimental shots that carry known — and likely unknown as well given the rushed process of bringing the shots into production — serious risks.
While governments should respect the right of individuals of all ages to live their lives as they choose no matter the risk of coronavirus, governments’ bossing around of children in the name of advancing “public health” does not even have the slightest connection to reality. It is pure destructive behavior pursued under obviously farcical pretext.
Imagine a massive nuclear exchange between the United States and China. That obviously would not be a pretty sight for the people of either nation. As the mushroom clouds arose over both nations, imagine thinking to yourself: “All this because of a socialist road.”
According to an article in the London Daily Mail, the governments of China and Montenegro entered into an agreement in which China agreed to build a road for Montenegro that would extend to the Serbian capital of Belgrade. The road is only partially built and is now being called the “road to nowhere.”
China financed the road with a $1 billion loan to Montenegro. The first installment on the loan is due this month. But there is a good chance that Montenegro, “whose debt has soared to more than double its GDP,” will have to default.
The loan agreement entitles China to seize land within Montenegro, so long as it isn’t owned by the military or used for diplomatic purposes.
What does all this have to do with a nuclear war between the United States and China?
If Montenegro defaults and, for whatever reason, refuses to permit China to seize its collateral, China might well invade the country to enforce its loan agreement.
What does that have to do with the United States?
In 2017, Montenegro became a member of NATO. Under NATO’s membership rules, NATO members, including the United States, are bound to come to the defense of other NATO members in the event that a non-NATO nation attacks them.
I can’t help but wonder how many Americans realize that they have had their lives and fortunes pledged to the defense of Montenegro. For that matter, the same holds true with respect to all the other members of NATO, which are as follows: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, and United Kingdom.
What’s amazing is how this process works. No one came to Congress and asked whether the American people were willing to sign a treaty with Montenegro that committed American lives and fortunes to the defense of Montenegro in some future war. My hunch is that if that had happened, enough Americans would have risen up to successfully oppose such a treaty.
Instead, all that had to be done was to have NATO bureaucrats approve Montenegro as a new NATO member. No approval of the American people was needed at all. The lives and fortunes of the American people are determined by bureaucrats in Brussels, Belgium, where NATO headquarters are located.
This is nuts! As recently as 2020, NATO bureaucrats agreed to admit North Macedonia into the organization. North Macedonia? Where the heck is North Macedonia?
Why do the American people continue to go along with this junk? Do they have such low regard for their own lives and fortunes that they are willing to subject themselves, their families, and their money to the whims of faraway foreign bureaucrats? Or do they just feel too helpless to stand up and say no? Or is their passivity just part of the overall deference-to-authority mindset that is inculcated into Americans in public (i.e., government) schools?
Let’s assume that there was no NATO and that China then attacked Montenegro to enforce its road loan agreement. How many Americans would travel to Montenegro to give their lives in the defense of Montenegro?
Answer: None! Not one single American, including the most ardent interventionists and anti-communists and including every member of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, would go to Montenegro to defend the country,
Why should the United States be part of an organization in which foreign bureaucrats are deciding when and under what conditions the American people are going to war? Why shouldn’t Americans be free to decide which wars to enter on an individual war-by-war basis?
Our nation’s Founding Fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, warned against these types of “entangling alliances.” Today’s Americans would be wise to heed their words and withdraw the United States from NATO, that old Cold War dinosaur, before it’s too late.
By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | July 8, 2021
Gene research companies tend to come and go. They start out banging and popping like fireworks in the sky, and then they fade out—selling themselves to larger outfits who’ve hired better liars…
Once upon a time, it sounded easy. Start with a disease, find the gene responsible for the disease, and correct the problem.
Then, researchers wondered, was disease the result of one gene or a group of genes acting together?
Either way, the proof would be in devising cures for diseases using gene therapy. “Not yet, but soon…”
And regardless, the major need was: money. Lots and lots of money.
This need required good PR people. “We have to pump up the idea that we’re on the edge of tremendous breakthroughs. We’re always on that edge…”
This hype also needed to obscure the fact that there wasn’t (and isn’t) ANY gene cure for ANY disease. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
