If you have a child, know someone who has a child or care about children the next few minutes are probably the most important of your life.
In the UK, the Government is rolling out covid-19 jabs to children, despite the fact that evidence suggests that the jab is more likely to do serious harm to a child than covid-19 itself. Not much research has been done but it is known, for example, that the covid jab is up to six times as deadly to boys as covid-19.
That’s an appalling risk-benefit fail.
I’ve been studying drug side effects for over half a century and until 18 months ago I was reckoned to be one of the world’s leading experts on drug companies and adverse events. I used to be invited to speak to doctors and nurses and other health professionals. Since March 2020, of course, the Government agents who control pages on Wikipedia and Google officially downgraded me to a discredited conspiracy theorist.
However, as I have said before, I am confident that more children are likely to be killed or seriously injured by the jab than would be killed or seriously injured by the disease. Even the official Government experts now, rather belatedly, agree with my long-held view that covid-19 will get weaker and weaker – something I said over a year ago.
In my honest view, any doctor, teacher or health worker promoting the covid jab to children should be arrested for attempted murder. I believe that any doctor, teacher or health worker not thoroughly explaining that the jab is experimental and then providing a full list of the potential hazards is in breach of the Nuremburg protocol and will go to prison. Actually, I doubt if more than one in ten thousand doctors, teachers or health workers promoting the covid jab understand that they’re pushing an experimental jab. Those who want to know the side effects should watch my video dated 8th December 2020 entitled Covid-19 Vaccine – Possible Side Effects. They should then watch my video dated 2nd February 2021 and entitled `Doctors and Nurses Giving the Covid-19 Vaccine will be tried as War Criminals’. Both videos are available on Brand New Tube.
Some schools are hurrying through these jabs. What’s the reason for the haste? Anxiety lest too many parents discover the facts? I can think of no honest reason for all the hurry. It seems to me that they are weaponising children to kill old people. The genocide continues.
Please share this video – or the transcript – with everyone who still has functioning brain tissue. This is another crucial video.
Now, it isn’t just the covid jab. Things are getting worse.
There are plans to give children a nasal flu vaccine as well as the covid jab.
The nasal vaccine proposed for children will, according to information I’ve received from a disreputable organisation called the National Health Service, be a live flu vaccine. With a live attenuated flu virus in it. An attenuated virus is merely one that’s weaker than usual. It’s still live. Because viruses mutate there is no guarantee that the viruses used won’t revert to an infectious version.
The official NHS leaflet is very reassuring. It says those who have the nasal spray for flu may develop a runny or blocked nose, headache, general tiredness and some loss of appetite.
However, I’m rather more sceptical. The side effects with the nasal vaccine are potentially horrific – and include neurological and behavioural problems.
The British National Formulary, published by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence says that side effects with the nasal spray flu vaccine include nasal complaints, nose bleeds, facial oedema, and Guillain-Barre syndrome which is a rapid onset of muscle weakness and which can be fatal in about 7.5% of those who develop it. Complications of Guillain-Barre syndrome include breathing difficulties, heart problems and blood pressure problems. Those who recover can take years to get better.
The NHS presumably forgot to mention that. Or maybe they couldn’t get the information on their leaflet.
However, the official NHS leaflet promoting the flu vaccine to children (the official NHS leaflet I’ve seen seems directed at children not parents) suggests that children should keep away from those with damaged immune systems for two weeks. I don’t know why they say two weeks. That figure probably came out of the same broken down computer that told the Government that social distancing meant staying six feet away from everyone else. That was always a figure plucked out of the air. A more sensible figure would have been 30 feet but that would have made it difficult to have Biden and Fauci or Whitty and Valance in the same room.
Just how skilful children will be at assessing the immune systems of those around them is unknown. But now that children aged 12 are assumed to be able to make decisions about the long-term safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines without being given information by the person at the other end of the needle it is reasonable to assume that the Government believes that children will be able to make a rigorous assessment of the immune systems of other family members.
You can imagine the teacher, can’t you?
`Today, children, instead of writing an essay about what you did in your summer holidays, I want you to write a paper on how the nasal flu spray may interact with the experimental mRNA jab, with particular reference to those individuals with compromised immune systems. And then, children, explain how the Government will blame the extra deaths on covid-19. You have twenty minutes to complete your essay.’
How safe will the attenuated nasal spray for the flu be this year – especially when many doctors argue that eighteen months of lockdowns, masks and social distancing mean that millions of immune systems may have been weakened?
I couldn’t tell you that. I don’t think anyone else could either. It’s probably safer than lying down on a railway track when you can see the train coming. But not as safe as NOT having the stuff sprayed up your nose.
And how effective will the flu spray be?
Well, it’s worth remembering that in 2016 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in the US pulled a nasal flu vaccine because it was only 3% effective. The CDC stated that no protective benefit could be measured and that the vaccine had not been statistically effective for three years running. Still, that’s a fact. And governments and doctors and the media don’t approve of facts.
And how safe is it to give the nasal flu vaccine to children who are being given a covid-19 jab within a few days?
Good question.
No one knows the answer, of course.
It’s another experiment.
Now you know more about the flu spray than the school will tell you. And you and your child can make a better informed decision.
Oh, and there are also rumours that the HPV vaccines will be given at the same time.
Just for the record, the National Vaccine Information Centre in the US reports 591 deaths from this vaccine. There were 25 deaths of children aged 9 to 12 and 101 deaths of children aged 12 to 17. Those are the American government’s figures. Remember, less than 1% of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS so the real figure will be much higher.
How safe will it be to give that at or around the same time as the covid jab or the nasal flu vaccine?
Good question.
No one on earth could tell you the answer to that either. Not for another year or two anyway: children are now officially no more than guinea pigs.
So, to summarise.
At a time when millions are being given experimental jabs which do things to the body as a whole and probably to the immune system in particular and which no one yet understands (because the whole thing is, after all, officially an experiment) the authorities in the UK are planning to give a live attenuated nasal flu vaccine to children at roughly the same as they’ve giving them the covid-19 jab. Not even Dr Whitty or Dr Fauci could argue with me when I say that the nasal flu vaccine, being only weakened and not killed, may then result in someone with a poor immune system being infected and dying. There goes Granny and Grandpa. And I believe children will also be in danger.
Oh, and again it is now known that the lockdowns, lack of sunshine and so on will have also affected the immune systems of millions – making them more vulnerable to infection.
Oh, and as I have mentioned, remember that in some places they are also giving the HPV vaccine at roughly the same time, to some age groups, though no one has tested to see if that might interact with everything else over the coming months and years. Or, indeed, whether all these injections will sit comfortably with all the other injections routinely given to children. No one’s bothered to find out.
Oh, and millions will find it difficult to keep warm this coming winter because the nutty virtue signalling pseudoscientists who believe in global warming have forced through policies which will result in energy prices soaring into the stratosphere. And this will make millions more vulnerable to infection.
Oh, and I almost forgot, as I pointed out in a video in July 2020, over a year ago, Pfizer, maker of one of the covid-19 jabs was previously fined £84.2 million for overcharging the NHS by 2,600% and in the US the company was hit with a $2.3 billion fine for mis-promoting medicines and paying kickbacks to doctors. The last time I exposed Pfizer’s track record, sometime last year, the company was up near the top of a list of the most fraudulent companies in the United States. And yet the Government, the media and tens of thousands of doctors and celebrities want to trust them with your life. After all they do make absolutely hugely obscene amounts of money. Genocide has always been immensely profitable. They will blame the extra deaths on covid-19 – an excuse for more jabs.
Of course, don’t think badly just of Pfizer. Most of the other drug companies are just as rotten. If they made cars, socks or toasters no one would buy anything from any of them. But who cares what is in the drugs that doctors want to inject into your child’s body?
Incidentally, am I the only one to find it odd that pregnant women won’t smoke, drink or eat soft cheese but they’ll happily accept an experimental injection when no one knows just what it will do to them or their unborn baby? It’s an experiment.
Finally, Government ministers and advisors claim they are following the science and that I am a discredited conspiracy theorist.
Well, I’d rather be demonised as a discredited conspiracy theorist than work for, represent, or promote any government anywhere in the world in any capacity.
Governments are promoting fear, and moving faster and faster to reach their aim. This a propaganda war – managed with the help of the mainstream media. The next week or two are vital.
It’s time to get angry. Join Vernon’s army. All you have to do be a member is to do something every day. Tell someone the truth. Send a video or an article or a free book from vernoncoleman.org. Do something every day. I won’t know if you have, but you will.
Vernon Coleman’s book explaining how we got here and where the evil cabal is taking us is called Endgame. It’s available as a paperback and an eBook.
Senator Rand Paul berated Joe Biden’s Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra Thursday, accusing him of ignoring science and displaying authoritarianism by denying Americans the right to take their own medical decisions.
The Senator specifically addressed the government’s refusal to accept that natural immunity to COVID is as effective, and probably more effective, than current vaccines, as well as Becerra’s own description of those who have pointed out this fact as ‘flat earthers’.
Paul charged Becerra with “insulting the millions of Americans, including NBA star Johnathan Isaac who’ve had COVID and recovered.”
Referring to a recent Israeli study that found vaccinated people are up to seven times more likely to get COVID-19 than those who have natural immunity, Paul told Becerra that Americans should be allowed to take a “Look at a study with 2.5 million people and say ‘you know what? Looks like my immunity is as good as the vaccine’ or not.
“Maybe in a free country, I ought to be able to make that decision,” Paul urged.
“Instead, you’ve chosen to travel the country calling people like Johnathan Isaac, and others, myself included, flat-earthers,” the Senator continued, adding “We find that very insulting. It goes against the science.”
Paul then asked Becerra if he was a qualified medical doctor, knowing that he isn’t.
“So you’re not a medical doctor. Do you have a science degree?” Paul further questioned, knowing that Becerra doesn’t.
“You alone are on high and you’ve made these decisions, a lawyer with no scientific background, no medical degree…this is an arrogance coupled with an authoritarianism that is unseemly and un-American,” Paul blasted.
“You sir, are the one ignoring the science. The vast preponderance of scientific studies, dozens and dozens, show robust, long-lasting immunity after infection,” the Senator further charged, demanding that Becerra should apologise for being dishonest.
Watch:
At the beginning of the video Paul warns that YouTube will likely pull it down and censor him again for daring to stray from the government narrative. The Senator noted that the footage is also up on Rumble, and will remain there.
A listener writes in with a straightforward (but important) question: why do I use the term “scamdemic”? Here’s my (equally important and meticulously documented) answer!
This video from the Front Line doctors White Coat Summit was published in mid-August. In it, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole succinctly outlines many of the health challenges associated with the experimental genetic therapy injection program. He asks, after thousands of people have died from the injection, where are the autopsies to investigate this investigational program?
In July 2021, the U.S. military published a study in JAMA Cardiology 1 in which they asked the question if myocarditis was a possible adverse event following a jab with mRNA COVID-19 injection. They identified 23 men who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 4 days of getting the shot. They determined that there was a diagnosis of myocarditis after “vaccination in the absence of other identified causes.”2
And yet, despite finding myocarditis in previously healthy individuals following the shot, the writers only recommended vigilance. The heart problems in 23 military men who had signed up to protect the citizens of the U.S., “should not diminish overall confidence in vaccinations during the current pandemic.”3
As of September 3, 2021, the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS)4 had received 675,591 reports of adverse events following vaccination. Of these, there were 14,506 deaths, 6,422 heart attacks and 5,371 cases of pericarditis or myocarditis.
It is important to note that the VAERS has tracked adverse events since 1990. In 2019, there were 605 reports of deaths from all vaccines given. In 2021, there were 14,594 deaths reported in nine months.
Although these numbers are significant, a 2010 Harvard study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services revealed data demonstrating the VAERS likely only represents approximately 1% of those who are injured.5
In light of these statistics and knowing the new shot program was experimental, December 18, 2020, the Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief legal counsel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, requested the Biden Administration consider establishing a “comprehensive, high integrity system to monitor adverse outcomes following vaccination.”6
In early 2020, many clinicians, scientists and other health experts warned that millions of people may experience potentially permanent or long-term injury or death after the shot. Interestingly, it is the call for greater surveillance of vaccine injury that has, in part, generated censorship from social media platforms through AI surveillance of your posts.
Spike Protein Damages Endothelial Cells and Hurts Heart
Dr. J. Patrick Whelan is a pediatric rheumatologist who warned the FDA of the microvascular injury the vaccine may cause to the kidneys, brain, liver and heart before it was released to the public. Whelan specializes in treating children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), which is associated with coronavirus infections.7
He did not dispute the potential benefit the vaccine might have to arrest the spread of the virus, but instead cautioned that recipients may experience permanent damage to their microvasculature. At the time, his concern was based on data scientists and doctors were reporting after an infection with COVID-19 affected multiple organs beyond the lungs.
In March 2021, a research study was published in the American Heart Association’s journal Circulation.8 However, it is important to note that the study was preprinted online in December 2020,9 before the first vaccine was administered in the U.S.10
This is important, since the study demonstrated that the spike protein associated with SARS-CoV-2 damages endothelial function.11 In other words, before the emergency use authorization jab that injected instructions to create the spike protein was first administered, the CDC, FDA and NIAID were well aware the spike protein was likely causing damage to the endothelial cells lining the circulatory system.
This information was not discussed in the media and not considered by the FDA, and it continues to be buried as government agencies push for 100% vaccination in the U.S. In the study, the researchers created a pseudo-virus12 that contained the spike protein but did not contain the virus. Using an animal model, they showed that the virus was not necessary to create damage and inflammation.13
When the S protein attached to the ACE2 receptor it disrupted signaling to the mitochondria and caused damage and fragmentation. The alterations in mitochondrial function were confirmed as part of the inhibition of ACE2 signaling in the lab.
The results also revealed that the virus could induce endothelial cell inflammation and endotheliitis. The protein reportedly decreased ACE2 levels and impaired nitric oxide bioavailability.14 Co-senior scientist of the study, Uri Manor, explained in a press release from Salk Institute:15
“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID. Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS CoV-2 viruses.”
Further Study Demonstrates the Effect of the Spike Protein
Then, a second paper16 was published online March 8, 2021, investigated the potential that the spike protein is an inflammagen, or an irritant that can trigger inflammation at the cellular level. The researchers sought to determine if the spike protein was the underlying cause of the hypercoagulation found with a COVID-19 infection.
Mass spectrometry showed the spike protein damaged fibrinogen, prothrombin and complement 3, all compounds used in coagulation. They suggested that the presence of the protein was contributing to hypercoagulation and may result in large microclots that have been observed in plasma samples from patients infected with COVID-19.
Again, science demonstrated that it wasn’t the virus causing endothelial damage that led to organ damage, such as was found in the heart, liver and kidney of COVID-19 patients. Rather, it was the spike protein that was also being injected in a genetic therapy shot program.
A third study published April 27, 2021, again demonstrated in an animal model that exposure to the spike protein alone was enough to induce severe lung damage.17 And yet, there was no move by governmental agencies to slow the distribution of this genetic experiment.
Researchers have continued to study how the spike protein affects the endothelial cells, and ultimately damages the heart muscle. A study published June 2021 in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine18 demonstrated that the spike protein down regulates the expression of junctional proteins found in the arteries. They concluded:
“… these experiments reveal that Spike-induced degradation of endothelial junctional proteins affects endothelial barrier function and is the likely cause of vascular damage observed in COVID-19 affected individuals.”
Even as researchers identify the pathway the spike protein takes to damage the endothelial cells, it is patently ignored by the mainstream media, governmental agencies and many health experts who continue to push the public into vaccinating with a genetic therapy injection that does not effectively keep you from getting the disease or stop you from spreading the disease.
Infection Starts and May Stay in the Lungs
Interestingly, another study19 published in March 2021 questioned if the prevalence of inflammatory heart disease after COVID-19 infection in professional athletes would affect their ability to return to play.
The researchers evaluated 789 professional athletes who had COVID-19 and found no adverse cardiac events in those who underwent cardiac screening. In this group of healthy individuals, it appeared very rare for there to be systemic involvement of the spike protein.
However, in the VAERS reports September 3, 2021, there were a total of 11,793 individuals who suffered heart attack, myocarditis or pericarditis in the nine months that the vaccine had been administered.20 The effect of COVID-19 on the heart is well documented.21
In my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko22 in February 2021, we discussed the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. At that point, Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and only three of his high-risk patients had subsequently succumbed to the disease.
While the focus of the interview was on treatment protocols and the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, Zelenko shared an interesting statistic about his protocol. In the early months of COVID-19, Zelenko decided to treat his high-risk patients as early as possible, without waiting for severe symptoms. This turned out to be one key to his significant success.
His understanding of the mechanism behind hydroxychloroquine and zinc led to using the combination alongside azithromycin, to prevent bacterial pneumonia and other bacterial infections common with COVID.
What is interesting are the statistics for Zelenko’s patients with long haul symptoms. Data from the University of Washington in 2021 found 32.7% of outpatients with COVID-19 go on to experience persistent symptoms.23,24 However, Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients and none who received treatment within the first five days went on to develop long-haul symptoms. His data was from the same period as that of the University of Washington.
While he has had patients with persistent symptoms from COVID-19, they sought medical care after the first five days of symptoms, which meant the inflammatory process had advanced. From his experience, and the experience of the patients he treated, early intervention with the protocol nearly eliminated the risk of persistent symptoms.
Long Haul Symptoms May Be Related to Spike Damage
The symptoms that may last for weeks or months after a COVID-19 infection are referred to as long-haul symptoms. For some, this may be the result of vascular damage caused by the spike protein. The CDC25 reports that a combination of the following symptoms without an active COVID infection can appear weeks after the infection and last for months.
Brain fog described as difficulty thinking or concentrating
Chest pain
Cough and difficulty breathing
Depression or anxiety
Dizziness when first standing
Fast beating heart or pounding heart
Fatigue
Fever
Headache
Joint or muscle pain
Loss of smell or taste
Shortness of breath
Scientists now know that the predominant pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes endothelial damage and microvascular injury, stimulation of hyperinflammation and hypercoagulability.26 A review in Physiological Reports27 examined how the capillary damage and inflammation from endotheliitis triggered by COVID-19 could contribute to the persistent symptoms by interfering with tissue oxygenation.
The combined effects of capillary damage in multiple key organs may accelerate hypoxia-related inflammation and lead to long-haul symptoms. Unlike Zelenko’s patients who did not have long-haul symptoms, participants in an online survey published in EClinical Medicine did not fare so well.28
The study revealed data from 3,762 participants with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 in 56 countries. For the majority, it took greater than 35 weeks to recover from all their symptoms. The data showed that people experienced an average of 55.9 symptoms across 9.1 organ systems. The most frequent symptoms six months after infection were cognitive dysfunction, fatigue and post-exertional malaise.
List of Vaccine Side Effects Is Growing
As the list of people reporting adverse events after the vaccine continues to grow, social media platforms are working just as hard to suppress any information about the list of side effects people are experiencing.
In order to tell their stories, people are posting videos, still photos and evidence of their vaccine injury at No More Silence29 and 1000 COVID Stories.30 One example is Sarah Green, a 16-year-old student who is experiencing debilitating symptoms. This is her story as told by her mother:31
“Within a few weeks, she developed a bad stutter and started experiencing uncontrollable head movements. She looked like someone who has Parkinson’s. She had never stuttered or had these tics before.
She was admitted to the hospital where she spent two nights and underwent numerous tests, before being discharged and told that it was a ‘nervous tic,’ and to see a mental health provider.
‘We asked several times if it could be the vaccine and we were ignored, until one doctor told us that he had no idea what it was, but it was ‘absolutely not the vaccine’ and we couldn’t blame everything on that.’
Her parents argued for a referral to see a neurologist, who diagnosed Sarah with Functional Movement Disorder, and told that it was “related to the vaccine, but not vaccine related.” They also said that it was an ‘extremely rare’ side effect, despite having seen several cases of it in their own practice over the past year.
Sarah had ended the last school year with a 4.7 GPA and was enrolled in an Early College program, on track to graduate with an Associates Degree. Given her current physical condition and limitations, she had no choice but to drop her college classes for this upcoming semester.
She has started her regular classes but has found it impossible to look down or write without triggering violent tremors and spasms. Her teacher will be typing her notes for her.
‘I am heartbroken because she has worked so hard and everything has changed for her — and I’m so damn mad! Our whole lives have changed, and for what what? A vaccine that doesn’t even work! My hope is that you, the reader, will be able to make an informed decision when deciding whether you get the vaccine or not. We were not afforded that opportunity.’”
It is crucial to report a vaccine injury or side effect to VAERS, as the data are essential in helping individuals, doctors and researchers make informed decisions. You can make your own report online or using a PDF by going to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.32 You’ll find more information about adverse events and how vaccines affect your health at the National Vaccine Information Center.33
OK folks, today you are in for a real treat. We have presented many of the pieces previously, but this will help put them in the proper perspective. That is the phase we are in now. We have the facts, we just need to understand what they mean and interpret them properly.
This is a really important article. It catalyzed my understanding of what the heck is going on. The facts are obvious; the entire response to the global pandemic was facilitated by the World Health Organization. Their recommendations were followed lock-step by virtually every government on Earth.
No one will dispute this fact. The next data point is: Who controls the WHO? Some will dispute this, but the evidence is pretty clear and solid. It is Bill Gates, who became the WHO’s biggest funder when then-President Trump removed U.S. support in 2020.
What does Gates have to benefit from controlling the WHO? How about the best investment he ever made, with many tens of billions of dollars running through his “nonprofit” GAVI Vaccine Alliance? The maniacal suppression and censorship of any inexpensive natural alternative for COVID-19 makes perfect sense now.
These natural therapies, with nebulized hydrogen peroxide, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine being the best examples, would be serious competition for the vaccines. If everyone knew that these remedies were readily available, highly effective and practically free, who would risk their life for a vaccine? Virtually no one. It all makes perfect sense.
With that framework, enjoy the information our team has compiled that expands on this general concept. Every day we are putting the pieces of the puzzle together, and the more pieces we fit together, the sooner you will see the bigger picture.
WHO Insider Speaks Out
In July 2020, four German attorneys founded the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1).2,3 In the video above, the founding members, led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,4 interviews Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D., a WHO insider, about what she discovered about Bill Gates and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.
Stuckelberger has served as deputy director of the Swiss national program of aging since the 1990s, and is the president of the WHO-funded Geneva International Network on Ageing.
According to her bio,5 she “is an internationally recognized expert on issues related to evaluating scientific research for policymakers, in particular in health and innovation assessment, pandemic and emergency management training and in optimizing individual and population health and well-being.”
She’s also a published author, with a dozen books to her credit, as well as more than 180 scientific articles, policy papers and governmental and international reports. Stuckelberger points out that much of the research was and still is highly politicized and primarily done to support and justify political decisions.
For the past 20 years, since 2000, she’s been involved with public health at the WHO, and was part of their research ethics committee for four years. In 2009, she got involved with the WHO’s international health regulations.
Stuckelberger points out that the whole purpose of WHO’s international health regulations is to prepare member states to be ready for a pandemic, to be able to not only prevent outbreaks but also respond swiftly when an outbreak occurs. However, the WHO has actually been actively preventing and undermining this pandemic preparedness training.
The Center of Corruption
According to Stuckelberger, Switzerland is at the heart of the corruption, largely thanks to it being the headquarters for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by Bill Gates. In 2009, the GAVI Alliance was recognized as an international institution and granted total blanket immunity.6
As explained by Justus Hoffmann, Ph.D., one of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee members, GAVI has “qualified diplomatic immunity,” which is odd, considering the organization has no political power that would warrant diplomatic immunity. Odder still is that GAVI’s immunity clauses go beyond even that of diplomats. GAVI’s immunity covers all aspects of engagement, including criminal business dealings.
“They can do whatever they want,” Stuckelberger says, without repercussions. The police, for example, are barred from conducting an investigation and collecting evidence if GAVI were to be implicated in a criminal investigation. “It’s shocking,” she says. GAVI is also completely tax exempt, which Stuckelberger notes is “very strange.”
Essentially, GAVI is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they do wrong, willfully or otherwise. This is rather unprecedented, and raises a whole host of questions. It’s particularly disturbing in light of evidence Stuckelberger claims to have found showing that GAVI is “directing, as a corporate entity, the WHO.”
Furthermore, documents cited by Stuckelberger show the WHO has assumed what amounts to dictatorial power over the whole world. The director general has the sole power to make decisions — including decisions about which tests or pandemic medications to use — that all member states must then obey.
The Nation-State of Gates
What’s more, Stuckelberger discovered that, in 2017, Gates actually requested to be part of the WHO’s executive board — like a member state — ostensibly because he gives them so much money. Indeed, his funding exceeds that of many individual member states.
Like Stuckelberger says, this is truly incredible — the idea that a single man would have the same power and influence over the WHO as that of an entire nation. It’s a brazen power grab, to say the least. While there’s no evidence that Gates was ever officially granted the status of a member state, one wonders whether he doesn’t have it unofficially.
One thing that raises Stuckelberger’s suspicion is the fact that Swissmedic, the Food and Drug Administration of Switzerland, has entered into a three-way contract agreement with Gates and the WHO. “This is abnormal,” she says.
Essentially, in summary, it appears that when he did not get voted in as a one-man nation state, Gates created three-party contracts with member states and the WHO, essentially placing him on par with the WHO. As mentioned earlier, whatever the director general of the WHO says, goes. They’ve effectively turned global health security into a dictatorship.
The question is, is Gates the real power behind the curtain? Does he tell the director general what to do? When you look back over the past year, it seems Gates has often been the first to announce what the world needs to do to address the pandemic, and then the WHO comes out with an identical message, which is then parroted by world leaders, more or less verbatim.
As noted by Fuellmich, it’s becoming clear that many private-public partnerships have been hijacked by the private side — and they’re immune from liability. “This has got to stop,” he says.
A complete review and overhaul of the United Nations, which established the WHO, is also required as the U.N. has done nothing to prevent or rein in undemocratic and illegal activity. As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to reconsider whether we even need them.
Changed Definition of Pandemic Allowed Health Dictatorship
In the interview, they also highlight the WHO’s role in setting the stage for a global health dictatorship by changing the definition of “pandemic.” The WHO’s original definition, pre-2009, of a pandemic was:7,8
“… when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”
The key portion of that definition is “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” This definition was changed in the month leading up to the 2009 swine flu pandemic.
The change was a simple but substantial one: They merely removed the severity and high mortality criteria, leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”9 This switch in definition is why COVID-19 was and still is promoted as a pandemic.10,11,12
We now have plenty of data showing the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with the seasonal flu.13,14,15,16,17 It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same. Yet we’re told the price we must all pay to keep ourselves and others safe from this virus is the relinquishing of our civil rights and liberties.
In short, by removing the criteria of severe illness causing high morbidity, leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO and technocratic leaders of the world were able to bamboozle the global population into giving up our lives and livelihoods.
WHO Rewrites Science by Changing Definition of Herd Immunity
The WHO has also radically altered the definition of “herd immunity.” Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been reached.
Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease. Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired immunity that comes from prior illness, but also the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.
However, in October 2020, the WHO upended science as we know it, revising this well-established concept in an Orwellian move that totally removes natural infection from the equation.
As late as June 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity, posted on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely-accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said:18
“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”
The updated definition of herd immunity, which appeared in October 2020, read as follows:19
“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick.
Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission. With herd immunity, the vast majority of a population are vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”
After public — and no doubt embarrassing — backlash, the WHO revised its definition again December 31, 2020, to again include the mention of natural infection, while still emphasizing vaccine-acquired immunity. It now reads:20
“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity,’ is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.
WHO supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease.”
WHO’s Recommendation of PCR Test ‘Intentionally Criminal’
Stuckelberger also shocks the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee by pointing out that twice — December 7, 2020,21,22 and January 13, 202123 — the WHO issued medical alerts for PCR testing, warning that use of high cycle thresholds (CT) will produce high rates of false positives, that the CT value should be reported to the health care provider and that test results be considered in combination with clinical observations, health history and other epidemiological information.
Yet since the beginning of the pandemic, it has pushed PCR testing as the best way to detect and diagnose infection. This, she says, makes it intentionally criminal. The January 13, 202124,25 medical product alert was, incidentally, posted online January 20, 2021, mere hours after Joe Biden’s inauguration as the president of the United States.
In this alert, the WHO stressed that the “CT needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load,” and that “Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested.”
It also reminds users that “disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results,” so that “as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases.” The alert goes on to explain:26
“This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”
Taking a patient’s symptoms into account and using a scientifically defensible CT count should have been routine practice from the beginning. It just didn’t fit the geopolitical narrative. Since the start of the pandemic, the WHO has recommended using a CT of 45,27,28,29 which guarantees an enormous number of false positives, and therefore “cases.” This alone is how they kept the pandemic fearmongering going.
The scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the PCR test useless,30,31,32 as the accuracy will be a measly 3%, meaning 97% are false positives.33 By finally recommending lower CTs and more precise criteria for diagnosis, the WHO engineered an assured end to the caseload at a desired time. Coincidentally, the next day, January 21, 2021, President Biden announced he would reinstate the U.S.’ financial support for the WHO.34
Time to Put an End to the Global Health Mafia
The WHO was created as a specialized agency of the U.N., established in 1948 to further international cooperation for improved public health conditions. It was given a broad mandate under its constitution to promote the attainment of “the highest possible level of health” by all peoples.
It is now beyond dispute that the WHO is beyond compromised. Because of its funding — a large portion of which comes from the “one-man nation-state of Gates” — it fails to complete its original mandate. Worse, WHO serves corporate masters and through its dictatorial powers is essentially destroying, not improving, the health of the world.
In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) issued a report35 on the WHO’s handling of the 2009 pandemic of novel influenza A (H1N1), which included the recommendation to use a fast-tracked vaccine that ended up causing disability and death around the world.
PACE concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the WHO, EU health agencies and national governments led to a waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.”36
Specifically, PACE found “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making — a claim echoed by other investigators as well.37,38,39,40,41
The Assembly made a number of recommendations, including greater transparency, better governance of public health, safeguards against undue influence by vested interests, public funding of independent research and, last but not least, for the media to “avoid sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain.”42
None of those recommendations were followed and, if anything, the WHO’s mismanagement of public health, thanks to private-public partnerships with NGOs such as GAVI, has only worsened. Other reports, two published in 201543,44 and one in 2017,45 also highlighted the WHO’s failures and lack of appropriate leadership during the 2013 through 2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
While the WHO is recognized as being uniquely suited to carry out key functions necessary in a global pandemic, experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Harvard Global Health Institute, have pointed out, years ago, that the WHO has eroded so much trust that radical reforms would be required before it can assume an authoritative role.
Yet here we are, still, and no reforms ever took place. Instead, the corruption festered and metastasized, and the WHO turned into a power hub for the technocratic deep state that seeks to assume power and control over all nations.
As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to take a long hard look at the WHO and the U.N., and decide whether they’re even worth saving. At bare minimum, the disproportionate influence by private vested interests, disguised as NGOs such as GAVI, must be thoroughly investigated and routed out.
In the featured video,1 James Corbett of The Corbett Report explores what it means to “trust the science,” demolishing along the way the notion that science can ever be “settled” and beyond question. This is important, because scientific deception will continue to be used in the biosecurity state being built around us.
What Science Should You Trust?
With increasing frequency, we’re told to “trust the science” and “follow the science.” Yet what science are we supposed to follow? Exactly who’s an expert and who’s not, and who decides which is which? As I’ve been writing about for nearly two years now, there’s plenty of scientific evidence refuting everything we’re being told to accept as “fact.”
This includes the claim that masks protect against viral infection, that lockdowns slow down the spread, that school closures protect children, that there are no effective early treatments for COVID-19, and that the fast-tracked COVID shots are safe, effective and necessary even if you have natural immunity.
Whistleblowers Expose Corruption at the EPA
Corbett starts out by reviewing a recent Intercept story, published in two parts: “Whistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office,”2 published July 2, 2021, and “Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientists in ‘Hair-On-Fire’ Cases,”3 published August 4, 2021.
According to four whistleblowers — Elyse Osterweil, Martin Phillips, Sarah Gallagher and William Irwin, all of whom are scientists employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and hold doctorates in toxicology, chemistry, biochemistry and medicinal chemistry — managers and career staffers in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention have tampered with the risk assessments of dozens of chemicals to hide their dangers. According to The Intercept :4
“The whistleblowers, whose jobs involve identifying the potential harms posed by new chemicals, provided The Intercept with detailed evidence of pressure within the agency to minimize or remove evidence of potential adverse effects of the chemicals, including neurological effects, birth defects, and cancer.
On several occasions, information about hazards was deleted from agency assessments without informing or seeking the consent of the scientists who authored them.
Some of these cases led the EPA to withhold critical information from the public about potentially dangerous chemical exposures. In other cases, the removal of the hazard information or the altering of the scientists’ conclusions in reports paved the way for the use of chemicals, which otherwise would not have been allowed on the market.”
At the EPA, Following the Science Is a Punishable Offense
The EPA, according to these whistleblowers, is violating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and when staffers actually do follow the science wherever it leads, they are punished.
In a statement to The Intercept and Rep. Ro Khanna, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the EPA whistleblowers state that they fear “their actions (or inactions) at the direction of management are resulting in harm to human health and the environment.”
They certainly have cause for concern. For example, one recent study5 warns exposure to organochlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers during pregnancy can cause the chemicals to accumulate in multiple fetal organs and contribute to chronic health problems. This is the first study to demonstrate that toxic chemicals can be present in the fetus even if the mother does not have detectable levels in her blood. As noted by Beyond Pesticides:6
“… studies like these help government and health officials better identify fetal exposure contaminants and subsequent health concerns otherwise missed by current chemical monitoring methods.”
In Part 27 of its report, The Intercept discusses a particular chemical that Irwin had been assessing. He had concerns that the unnamed chemical in question was analogous to bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical now recognized for its detrimental effects on reproduction, fertility and human hormones.
When he refused to sign off on the chemical as safe, he was removed from the assessment, and the chemical was approved, despite the potential harms he’d uncovered.
So, what scientists should we trust? Scientists like these four whistleblowers? Or “the EPA” as a catchall designation, where corrupt career managers have overruled the scientists doing the actual work and who have the actual science credentials?
Believing (the Wrong) Science Now Proves You’re Racist
As noted by Corbett, this issue is no small matter. Determining what science is “valid” and what’s not has enormous repercussions for society. To illustrate his point, he goes on to review the issue of hormone-disrupting chemicals and their reproductive effects.
Some scientists have sounded the alarm, saying our reproductive capability is so severely impacted by toxic environmental factors that by 2045, all couples will require fertility treatment if they want to conceive. Sperm counts have dropped precipitously ever since the 1970s, and the trend is showing no signs of leveling off.
If true, this signals a true existential emergency, but as has become the norm over the past couple of years, the declining sperm count issue is now being reframed as a racist, “far right” issue. This in and of itself ought to signal that we’ve left science and moved into ideology, but no.
The narrative we’re asked to swallow is the complete opposite: That the scientists who made these discoveries used sham science to fit an ideological narrative rooted in white supremacy. Meanwhile, “the science” offered by nonscientists says there’s no problem here, and that’s that.
Corbett cites a Quillette article by Geoffrey Kabat, “The Sperm Count Culture War,” published mid-June 2021, which states:8
“The latest entry in the sperm count debate comes from a Harvard-MIT research team led by philosophy professors Marion Boulicault and Sarah Richardson.
They recently published a paper in the journal Human Fertility entitled ‘The Future of Sperm Variability for Understanding Global Sperm Count Trends.’ They also published an article in Slate9 summarizing their findings for a lay audience.
While the scientific paper is dense and difficult to navigate, the Slate article gets straight to the point with its title: ‘The Doomsday Sperm Theory Embraced by the Far Right.’
Its subheading elaborates: ‘The idea that male fertility is on the decline is an old myth dressed up as science.’ The authors tell us why they believe the accepted science on declining sperm counts should be rejected:
‘The human species is in grave reproductive danger, according to recent headlines. Some scientists say that sperm counts in men around the world have been plummeting, with Western men approaching total infertility by 2045.
Far-right ‘Great Replacement’ theorists, who fear that people of color are ‘replacing’ the white population, have taken up the research with gusto …
The narrative that white, Western men are in danger of emasculation and disappearance has deep roots in white nationalist discourse. It is tied to a nostalgic cultural myth of a past in which white men held unchallenged power.'”
Human Extinction Concerns Dismissed as Fearmongering
As noted by Kabat, the two philosophy professors “all but ignore the science to focus on what they believe is more important — the ideological framing of the issue in socio-cultural discourse.”
Interestingly, the paper they published is in response to “what is widely considered to be the most definitive research on science of sperm count decline,” Kabat notes, and perhaps that’s why they did it. It’s real science being debunked as “science driven by ideology,” by nonscientists who have an ideological agenda but pretend not to!
Here we have two philosophy professors trying to debunk 50 years of research by some of the most respected researchers in the field — by declaring the whole investigation racist, misogynistic and “overtly white supremacist.” They roundly dismiss concerns about impending global infertility and thus human extinction, stating:10
“What these anxieties have in common with the threat of sperm count decline is the premise that, in an environmentally clean and appropriately-gendered social past, there existed an optimal and natural manifestation of masculinity …
It is all too easy for scientific institutions, with majority-white researchers, to center white people and further these myths, which circulate often unconsciously … The recent sperm count decline research demonstrates how racist, sexist, and Eurocentric ideas can get embedded in the categories that scientists use to analyze data.”
In their paper, Boulicault et.al. offer their own hypothesis to explain and dismiss the decline in sperm count as a natural variation that has no bearing on fertility or health — none of which is accurate or true.
Expertise Matters
The take-home message here is that philosophy professors can depose (or at least attempt to depose) a team of reproductive health scientists who have spent their entire careers looking at this issue, simply by interjecting their own ideology into the mix, all while accusing the actual scientists of ideology-based hype. And here’s how mainstream media covered this clearly insufficient debunking attempt:11
Yahoo! News — “Freaking Out About Declining Sperm Count? Don’t, Harvard Researchers Say.”
The Telegraph — “Threat of Human Extinction from Falling Sperm Counts Greatly Exaggerated.”
Haaretz — “Spermaggedon in the West? Relax, Harvard Has Good News for You.”
Vox — “Sperm Counts Are Falling. This Isn’t the Reproductive Apocalypse — Yet.”
Kabat writes:12
“None of the news stories … so much as remarked on the inflammatory rhetoric of the Boulicault paper, which will appear to the fair-minded reader as an activist manifesto masquerading as a scientific hypothesis. Even the New York Times fumbled this. It provided a useful discussion of some of the questions raised by the Harvard study and presented different points of view …
But it treated the study as a serious critique of the sperm count controversy, giving no indication of Boulicault and colleagues’ ideological framing of the issue or that their alternative hypothesis has little to do with science …
It is difficult to explain the deference paid to the Harvard paper by various commentators. Perhaps we are in a time in which even trained scientists are reluctant to call out an uninformed but ideologically fashionable treatment of a high-profile issue.”
Are You Seeing How This Applies to the COVID Narrative?
These stories tell us a lot about our current situation, where ideological gatekeepers are commanding us to “look here, not there.” Actual, reproducible science by bonafide scientists is being dismissed as “ideology masquerading as science,” while fake or flimsy science is being held up as the only science worthy of that designation.
If you chose to trust science that counters the technocratic transhumanist Deep State narrative, well, then you’re labeled a racist, a misogynist, a white supremacist, a domestic terrorist or some other unpleasant and derogatory term, the only purpose of which is to shame and shut you up.
As noted by Corbett, when politicians and health authorities urge us to “trust the science,” they are referring to select agency-branded science, meaning science that has the stamp of approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Health Organization, for example.
The assumption we’re supposed to accept is that these organizations aren’t tainted by the kind of corruption we’re now told exists within the EPA — financially driven corruption that sidelines actual scientists, even within those organizations, that may have serious concerns. But regulatory capture is a longstanding problem, and there’s no evidence to suggest it’s been rooted out of the agencies we’re now told to trust without question. As noted by Corbett:
“As ‘The Science’ more and more dictates whether you can step outside your own home, or what kind of experimental interventions you are forced or coerced into putting into your body against your will, I hope you understand that the stakes have been raised to the point where this is not some mere philosophical concern. This is the heart of the biosecurity state that we are being steeped in.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has chosen a new Surgeon General, America’s Frontline Doctor, signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration, a UCLA doctor and expert in health policy, Dr. Joseph Ladapo. Listen to his radical plan for the Sunshine State.
Multiple sources in The HighWire’s network of Frontline Physicians, have reported an alarming uptick in aggressive cancers post-Covid vaccination. Could there be a link? Pathologist Ryan Cole, MD, discusses the available science and his lab’s findings.
Did you see the recent hype on the latest cholesterol-lowering confection from Pharma? No data whatsoever to suggest it will improve heart disease outcomes, but UK NICE body has pronounced that billions will be spent on it regardless? Well here Dr. Aseem Malhotra and Dr. Malcolm Kendrick lay bare the latest lipid scam on GB news!
With all medical eyes on COVID19, a cardiovascular drug with no proven benefit – at all – has been approved by NICE (The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Once a drug is approved by NICE it can, and will, be prescribed by doctors in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
… approving drugs, or launching drugs before you have any evidence that they do anything – other than having a favourable effect on an established lipid biomarker – is ridiculous. But never mind, longer term studies on Inclisiran will be completed by 2023, and 2026. When will they actually be published?
Who cares, by the time they are published, Inclisiran will have made billions, and no-one will care if the results are positive, or negative, as it will have become established as ‘standard’ treatment.
A number of us found the NICE approval of Inclisiran so ridiculous that we wrote them a letter. … Read full article
The Czech Republic’s vaccine roll-out has hit a wall.
It appears that state agencies are experiencing an increasingly low demand for jabs being recommended to over 60 year-olds due to multiple reports concerning possible side effects from the vaccine.
In September, only 36 new applicants came for AstraZeneca.
Irozhlasreports how the government is now dumping hundreds of thousands of doses overseas in Asia (translated):
In recent weeks, the Czechia has directly donated over 200,000 doses of AstraZenec to Asia, hundreds of thousands more vaccines have been released by the state to other countries since the summer, and these orders will not even reach the Czech Republic.
Those jabs which they can’t give away are heading for the incinerator:
Burned: 20,650. So far, this is the September account of AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccines …. the state must dispose of vaccines en masse. It is said that they cannot donate anymore. Tens of thousands more doses expire in October. Most of the state is likely to burn again.
At the turn of October and November, the incinerators will have their work taken care of. Another 55,000 batches, which are in stock by the distribution company Avenier and which are distributed in warehouses and pharmacies, will go.
Problems with the vaccine agenda in eastern Europe are a source of concern for Brussels as it hopes to implement its digital segregation system system commonly referred to as Vaccine Passports but codified in EU policy as a more harmless sounding “Digital Wallet.”
Recycling was introduced, worldwide, as a tool to teach citizens to become compliant.
Forcing citizens to sort their rubbish into up to nine separate bags or boxes every week had absolutely nothing to do with ‘saving the planet’ and everything to do with teaching citizens (through a mixture of fines and shame) to behave ‘responsibly’ i.e. to do as they were told without looking too closely at the rationale of what they were being told to do.
The recycling never had anything to do with protecting the planet, of course. Most of the rubbish sorted, washed and collected in the UK was taken abroad, by lorry or ship or train, and burnt or dumped. It was, quite simply, impractical and not cost effective to recycle the material that had been collected. And, of course, collecting the sorted rubbish involved massive costs in terms of cash and pollution.
Today, the recycling business has reached an apogee of lunacy. Councils introduce ever more complex rules and fees. They refuse to take away much of the waste that is collected. And those wanting to take their rubbish to a ‘recycling’ centre will probably have to make an appointment and answer a host of questions.
It is no surprise that fly-tipping has become a major problem. The biggest causes of plastic in the sea are dumped fishing gear and plastic waste (much of it officially designated as recycled) which has been dumped by ships.
The good news, however, is that in Britain, recycling rates are falling. More and more people have become aware that the whole recycling movement was just another piece of manipulative trickery.
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.
