Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

CDC Report Blames Pregnancy-Related Deaths on Heart, Mental Health Issues, But No Mention of Vaccines

The Defender | September 23, 2022

The U.S. has long had the dubious distinction of trailing other wealthy nations in infant and child mortality.

Shamefully, it is not just babies and young children who are at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts in peer nations, but also American moms-to-be and new moms, with the U.S. having the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country.

In countries like New Zealand, Norway and the Netherlands, there are three or fewer maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births, versus about 17 deaths per 100,000 in the U.S.

America also is the only high-income nation where pregnancy-related deaths have, since 2000, been increasing rather than declining.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks moms’ deaths both short-term and longer-term, looking at maternal deaths that occur within six weeks (42 days) of the end of pregnancy, and deaths that occur up to a year after the end of pregnancy, some of which are referred to as “late maternal deaths.”

“Late” deaths are yet another area in which the U.S. is an outlier compared to its sister nations.

For both the short-term and longer-term measures, the cause may be “any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.”

In lower-income nations, hemorrhage, infections and delivery-related complications are some of the leading contributors to maternal mortality.

But according to a new CDC report, in the U.S., the picture is quite different.

The CDC report analyzed about 1,000 deaths from 36 states for the 2017-2019 period — that is, the time frame before restrictive COVID-19 policies and vaccines introduced new risks.

Noting that more than half of pregnancy-related deaths (53%) in America take place well after delivery — anywhere from one week to one year postpartum — the CDC report highlights mental health and cardiovascular conditions as the top two “underlying causes of pregnancy-related death,” albeit with stark differences by race/ethnicity.

For white and Hispanic women, it’s the mind

Among non-Hispanic white and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic women, mental health conditions top the list of apparent underlying causes, with the CDC attributing more than a third of pregnancy-related deaths (35%) in the former group to that category and about 1 in 4 deaths (24%) in the latter group.

The CDC defines mental-health-related deaths among pregnant women and new moms as “deaths of suicide, overdose/poisoning related to substance use disorder, and other deaths determined … to be related to a mental health condition, including substance use disorder.”

It should be noted that some researchers believe published data sources on maternal mortality vastly underestimate deaths from suicide and overdose.

Up to 17% of women, according to some sources, experience postpartum anxiety, a fact that long ago prompted experts to flag suicide risks in postpartum women as a “public health priority.”

In 2018, Stanford authors also linked major depression during pregnancy — reportedly experienced by up to 13% of expectant women — to increased risks of “maternal self-harm or suicide.”

However, the go-to “treatments” for postpartum blues — anti-anxiety drugs and antidepressants — are in and of themselves linked to increased suicidality, not to mention being of unproven efficacy.

WebMD, which blithely encourages women experiencing postpartum depression to consider antidepressants, says nothing about suicidality as a potential side effect, merely telling women the drugs “should help you feel more like yourself” and if they don’t, suggesting “a different dosage” or a “combination of medicines.”

Likewise, a 2018 article in HuffPost connected no dots when it told the story of a two-time mom who committed suicide shortly after initiating anti-anxiety medication.

2021 meta-analysis assessing 1.45 million patients produced far more assertive findings, showing that all types of antidepressants — whether commonly prescribed SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) drugs (e.g., Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, Pexeva, Prozac, Zoloft) or non-SSRI medications (e.g., Effexor, Remeron, Wellbutrin, Zyban) — are associated with a significantly increased risk of suicide.

Commenting on the 2021 study, the organization Mad in America noted, “Studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry were far more likely to find lower suicide rates than studies performed by independent researchers,” with non-industry-beholden researchers reporting a doubling of suicide risk in adults taking antidepressants.

An 11-year analysis of prescription medications found a statistically significant association with increased suicide attempts for the anti-anxiety drugs Xanax and Valium — both widely prescribed to new moms and both in the highly addictive benzodiazepine family — as well as for the opioid Vicodin, which combines the narcotic hydrocodone with acetaminophen.

In fact, both depression and suicidal symptoms are potential “side effects” of more than 200 common drugs used by one-fourth to one-third of all Americans — “an important reminder that the drugs a person takes for one health condition may be making them sick in other ways.”

All of these data are left unmentioned when the CDC and other researchers lament substance use disorders as a risk factor for pregnancy-related death.

At best, they pay lip service to the fact that such disorders may involve legal drugs and medications in addition to illicit substances.

Medical sites are equally selective in the facts they choose to emphasize regarding opioid use disorder in pregnant and postpartum women.

For example, few dwell on the hefty incentives that have encouraged providers to widely prescribe opioids for these and other patient groups.

Describing overprescribing of opioids after childbirth, and particularly after cesarean surgery, a 2019 study noted that “the absolute number of women who are exposed to opioids after childbirth and become chronic opioid users every year is very large.”

The same study also highlighted the association between chronic opioid (mis)use and depression.

For Black women, it’s the heart

Among non-Hispanic Black women — who are two-and-a-half times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes than white women — the CDC’s latest findings highlight cardiovascular problems rather than mental health issues as the leading mortality contender.

By the CDC’s accounting, problems ranging from “cardiac and coronary conditions” to cardiomyopathy (heart muscle weakness) to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (forms of high blood pressure predictive of future heart attacks) to strokes and blood clots are responsible for almost 6 in 10 pregnancy-related deaths (58%) in Black women, with a paltry 7% of deaths attributed to mental health challenges.

Recent research indicates Black moms who experience high blood pressure during pregnancy actually face a significantly increased all-cause mortality risk for at least five years after delivery.

Notably, Black women’s heart risks appear to be impervious to socioeconomic status or level of education.

In fact, a Commonwealth Fund report published in late 2020 noted the “startling” fact that education “exacerbates rather than mitigates Black-White differences in maternal deaths,” with college-educated Black mothers being at greater risk of pregnancy-related death than white mothers of any education level.

Many experts profess to be baffled about the root causes or “driving mechanisms” of Black-white cardiovascular disparities.

One factor could be obesity — affecting 57% of Black women versus 40% of white women — but typically, individuals with more education are less likely to be obese, so this can’t completely account for the findings pertaining to college-educated Black women.

Regarding both obesity and related chronic diseases like diabetes, other researchers have speculated that Black Americans “consume significantly more added sugars … than Whites,” noting that diabetes went from being far less to far more common in Blacks versus whites concurrently with the exponential rise in added sugar (and notably, soft drink) intake.

A third factor that has long garnered attention is that of stress and what are referred to as social determinants — “the complexity of factors germane to the environment (that) predisposes people to a burden of cardiovascular disease” — although researchers who vaguely blame “multifactorial” causes ranging from “the individual level to the social environment” have not been particularly helpful in pinpointing meaningful solutions.

Vaccines: an invisible factor affecting both mind and heart

No discussion of threats to the health of pregnant and postpartum women would be complete without noting the alarming loosening of former prohibitions against vaccination during pregnancy.

Vaccine package inserts list nearly 400 possible adverse events — including death and every single “mental health,” cardiac or vascular condition reported by the CDC as an “underlying cause” of pregnancy-related death.

However, the CDC will never investigate the role of this influential variable. On the contrary, the nation’s lead public health agency is the ringleader for vaccination of pregnant women, aggressively recommending inactivated flu shots since around 2006, and Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccines since about 2011, despite an utter lack of data supporting their safety.

By April 2020, three out of five pregnant women (61%) were receiving flu shots and nearly that many (57%) were getting Tdap vaccines, with the CDC celebrating large year-over-year increases in flu shot coverage for non-white women, in particular.

The CDC now also recommends that all pregnant women get COVID-19 shots, and in addition advises five vaccines — hepatitis A and B, meningococcal vaccines (ACWY or B), and polio — either “in some circumstances,” or based on “risk vs. benefit,” or “if otherwise indicated” or “if needed.”

For travel purposes, the CDC gives a thumbs-up to pregnant women for anthrax vaccines (if there is a “high risk of exposure”), rabies (“if otherwise indicated”), typhoid (“if needed”), smallpox (if “post-exposure”) and yellow fever (“if benefit outweighs risk”).

The agency takes an agnostic position (either “no recommendation” or “inadequate data for specific recommendation”) on the PCV13, PPSV23 and zoster vaccines, which leaves only four vaccines — human papillomavirus (HPV), live influenza, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella (chickenpox) — that the CDC either does not recommend or considers “contraindicated” for pregnant women.

When the CDC and other public health officials opened the floodgates to vaccination of pregnant women — a group historically considered to require heightened research protections — it was clear they were turning a blind eye to known risks to the developing fetus, including miscarriage, subsequent neurodevelopmental disorders arising from an inflammatory response called “maternal immune activation,” birth defects and preterm delivery.

But it was with the rushed authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women — “based on [an] unreviewed study [and] unverifiable data” — that public health and government hypocrisy with regard to pregnant women came under the brightest spotlight.

As thousands, if not millions, of women and their babies suffer serious adverse events from the COVID-19 jabs, the CDC’s crocodile tears about 1,000 or so pregnancy-related deaths over a three-year period are hard to take seriously.

If the agency wants to stop pregnant women and new moms from dying, a good start would be to halt all vaccination during pregnancy and take a cold, hard look at the pharmaceutical pill-pushing and other social-environmental factors that ensnare so many women trying to do right by their babies.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Corruption | , , | 1 Comment

Latest COVID Shots Sold as Genetic Software Update

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 20, 2022

Just when you thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration couldn’t possibly get any worse, they prove you wrong. Here are two recent COVID booster campaign messages tweeted out by the FDA:

“It’s time to install that update! #UpdateYourAntibodies with a new #COVID19 booster.”1 “Don’t be shocked! You can now #RechargeYourImmunity with an updated #COVID19 booster.”2

FDA Now Pushes Transhumanist Pipe-Dream

That’s right. The FDA now wants you to believe that your immune system is something that needs to be “recharged,” as if it were a battery, or “updated” with mRNA injections like a piece of software.

This is transhumanist lingo that has no bearing on real-world biology or physiology, and proves beyond doubt that the FDA is fully onboard with the transhumanist ideas of technocracy pushed by the globalist cabal. The human body is basically viewed as nothing more than a biological platform equipped with genetic software that can be altered and updated at will.

The problem, of course, is that your body doesn’t work that way. You cannot turn your body into a “bioreactor”3 or an internal “vaccine-production facility”4 and expect it to work as intended. The massive increase in disability and sudden death among COVID jab recipients is a testament to the fact that allowing Big Pharma to play God is a bad idea.

Transhumanism as a whole is a pipe-dream, as it fails to take into account just about everything that actually makes us human, including the nonlocality of consciousness, which they irrationally believe can be uploaded to a cloud-based system and merged with AI, or downloaded into an artificial body construct, such as a synthetic body.

False Advertising

The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for addressing fraudulent advertising. According to law, an ad must be “truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.”5 The FDA itself also requires drug ads to be “truthful, balanced and accurately communicated.”6

“Balanced” refers to promotional materials that include efficacy and benefit claims, which must include a balance between benefit information and information about risks. In my view, the FDA’s most recent COVID booster ads are clear examples of false advertising, because:

  • They’re not truthful and accurate, as there’s no basis for the claim that your antibodies need to be updated with a drug, or the claim that immunity must be recharged at regular intervals
  • They’re not backed by scientific evidence, as the FDA is a) ignoring massive evidence of harm from the original shots, and b) the bivalent boosters are being released based on data from a few mice alone. The FDA is advertising the boosters for the prevention of disease, even though it has zero data to prove it prevents anything
  • They’re not balanced, as the FDA fails to warn people about any of the many side effects reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)7

Was No-Test Drug Approval the Plan All Along?

While I cannot prove it, I suspect Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — devised in the spring of 2020 by a dozen top officials from then-President Trump’s health and defense departments to expedite the development of a COVID-19 vaccine8 — may have been intended to normalize the approval of drugs without proper testing.

Even if the normalization of expedited drug approval wasn’t originally intended, it certainly has been used and abused to that aim since. In June 2022, the FDA quietly implemented a “Future Framework” scheme9 to speed up the delivery of COVID boosters. This is what allows for the authorization of reformulated COVID shots without human trials.10,11,12

The FDA basically rewrote the rules on the fly, deciding that mRNA gene therapies are equivalent to conventional influenza vaccines and can be updated and released without testing.

The idea here is that the safety of the mRNA COVID shots has already been proven by the original shots, which they claim have harmed or killed no one. Hence, safety is a given, and the effectiveness of reformulated boosters can be assessed simply by checking the antibody levels in a few mice, which is what Pfizer and Moderna did.

In reality, however, millions of people around the world have been harmed and killed by the original shots, the human trials for those shots were riddled with fraud, antibody levels tell us nothing about the jab’s ability to protect against infection, and the two technologies (conventional flu vaccines and mRNA gene therapy) have no common ground.

I have no doubt this “Future Framework” will also, over time, be widened to include other vaccines and drugs that drug makers may want to tinker with. It may even lower standards for drug trials in general, which historically have required at least 10 years of multiphase testing.13 The dangers of this trend really cannot be overstated.

Analysis of US Booster Policy

In a September 12, 2022, article, Kaiser Health News raised several questions about the FDA’s authorization of the new bivalent COVID boosters:14

“… in the real world, are the omicron-specific vaccines significantly more protective — and in what ways — than the original COVID vaccines so many have already taken? If so, who would benefit most from the new shots? Since the federal government is purchasing these new vaccines … is the $3.2 billion price tag worth the unclear benefit? …

The FDA could have requested more clinical vaccine effectiveness data from Pfizer and Moderna before authorizing their updated omicron BA.5 boosters. Yet the FDA cannot weigh in on important follow-up questions: How much more effective are the updated boosters than vaccines already on the market? In which populations?

And what increase in effectiveness is enough to merit an increase in price (a so-called cost-benefit analysis)? Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, perform such an analysis before allowing new medicines onto the market, to negotiate a fair national price …

As population immunity builds up through vaccination and infection, it’s unclear whether additional vaccine boosters, updated or not, would benefit all ages equally … The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices considered limiting the updated boosters to people 50 and up, but eventually decided that doing so would be too complicated.”

Shocking Jab Study Decimates Safety Claims

In related news, a shocking risk-benefit analysis15 looking at the impact of booster mandates for university students concluded that:

  • Between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected adults (aged 18 to 29) must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalization
  • For each hospitalization prevented, the jab will cause 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3 “booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities”

That means mandating a third COVID shot for university students will result in “a net expected harm.” The authors also stress that “Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favorable.” The authors go on to state that “University booster mandates are unethical because:”16

“1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;

2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;

3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;

4) U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and

5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialization and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.”

Government Study Reveals COVID Jab Problems

A small observational study17,18 led by neurology researchers at the National Institutes of Health also brings bad news, as they found “a variety of neuropathic symptoms” occurring within three to four weeks of COVID injection:

“We studied 23 patients (92% female; median age 40 years) reporting new neuropathic symptoms beginning within 1 month after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. 100% reported sensory symptoms comprising severe face and/or limb paresthesias, and 61% had orthostasis, heat intolerance and palpitations …

Biopsies from randomly selected five patients that were evaluated for immune complexes showed deposition of complement C4d in endothelial cells. Electrodiagnostic test results were normal in 94% (16/17). Together, 52% (12/23) of patients had objective evidence of small-fiber peripheral neuropathy …

This observational study suggests that a variety of neuropathic symptoms may manifest after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and in some patients might be an immune-mediated process.”

FDA Refuses to Release Key COVID Jab Safety Analyses

In July 2022, The Epoch Times asked the FDA to release “all analyses performed by the agency for the COVID-19 vaccines using … Empirical Bayesian data mining, which involves comparing the adverse events recorded after a specific COVID-19 vaccine with those recorded after vaccination with non-COVID-19 vaccines.”19

The FDA has so far refused, claiming the data is tied to “internal discussions protected by law.” September 10, 2022, The Epoch Times reported:20

“According to operating procedures laid out by the agency and its partner in January 202121 and February 2022,22 the FDA would perform data mining ‘at least biweekly’ to identify adverse events ‘reported more frequently than expected following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.’ The agency would perform the mining on data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

In a recent response, the FDA records office told The Epoch Times that it would not provide any of the analyses, even in redacted form. The agency cited an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act that lets the government withhold inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums and letters ‘that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.’

The agency also pointed to the Code of Federal Regulations, which says that ‘all communications within the Executive Branch of the Federal government which are in written form or which are subsequently reduced to writing may be withheld from public disclosure except that factual information which is reasonably segregable in accordance with the rule established in § 20.22 is available for public disclosure.’

It’s not clear why the FDA could not produce copies of the analyses with non-factual information redacted. The Epoch Times has appealed the determination by the records office.”

CDC Also Refuses to Release Its Safety Analyses

According to the VAERS standard operating procedures cited above, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also required to perform data mining analyses, using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining. PRR23 measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.

When The Epoch Times asked the CDC to release its results, it too refused. According to The Epoch Times, the CDC “has also twice provided false information when responding to questions”:24

“The agency initially said that no PRR analyses were done and that data mining is ‘outside of th[e] agency’s purview.’ The agency then said that it did perform PRRs, starting in February 2021. Later, the agency acknowledged that wasn’t true.

The agency did not begin performing PRRs until March 2022, a spokesperson told The Epoch Times. Roger Andoh, a records officer, gave the initial response, citing the CDC’s Immunization and Safety Office. Dr. John Su, a CDC official, gave the second response.

It remains unclear with whom the information originated. The Epoch Times has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for internal emails that may provide answers.”

So far, the FDA has insisted the data show no evidence of serious adverse effects from the COVID jab. The only possible signal they’d found through April 16, 2021, was for raised body temperature. In the article, The Epoch Times cites several papers in which the FDA and/or CDC claim their data mining efforts have come up empty handed.

But if that’s true, why the reluctance to release the data? Don’t they want us to be reassured that these shots are as safe as they claim them to be? Why sit on exculpatory evidence? Unless, of course, the data proves the FDA and CDC have been lying all along.

Senators Calling for Special Grand Jury

Video Link

In other related news, naturopath Henry Ealy and two Oregon state senators, Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum, have been trying since March 2022 to compel the impaneling of a special grand jury to investigate decisions by federal officials that “significantly compromise[d] the accuracy and integrity of COVID-related data.”25

According to the March 7, 2022, petition,26,27 filed in Portland, Oregon, the 30 defendants manipulated statistics to create “a significant hyperinflation of COVID-19 case, hospitalization and death counts,” which in turn resulted in $3.5 trillion in fraudulent taxpayer expenditures.

Defendants specifically named28 are former CDC director Robert Redfield and current CDC director Rochelle Walensky, former Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Alex Azar, HHS director Xavier Becerra, and National Center for Health Statistics director Brian Moyer.

As explained by Ealy in the video update above, the defendants were given 60 days to reply to the March 7 petition. As it happened, the U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Scott Asphaug, was assigned by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to be the defending attorney — an interesting choice, considering Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum had in 2021 asked Asphaug to investigate the listed defendants, which he refused to do.

Asphaug immediately filed for an extension, which gave them another 60 days. The defendants now had until August 26, 2022, to respond. Suddenly, July 13, the DOJ reassigned Asphaug to Nairobi, Kenya. Asphaug resigned from his post as U.S. attorney, effective July 17, at which point U.S. Attorneys Natalie Wight and Dianne Schweiner took over the CDC’s defense.

When the defendants missed the August 26 deadline, Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum filed for default judgment.29 Two days later, August 29, Wight and Schweiner opposed default judgment.30

Schweiner’s excuse for missing the deadline was that she’d been busy caring for her acutely sick dog. As noted by Linthicum in his newsletter,31 “no self-respecting sci-fi editor would allow something this outlandish past his desk when trying to make a story about integrity and transparency sound believable.”

Ealy is now convinced the CDC is feeling the heat, and urges Americans to sign Stand for Health Freedom’s petition to convene a special grand jury to investigate the CDC’s conduct during COVID-19.

Sign Stand for Health Freedom's petition to convene a special grand jury

The more signatures there are on this petition, the stronger the argument that the court must order a grand jury investigation, as it demonstrates that this investigation is important to the American public, and isn’t just some pet grievance by Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum.

As noted by Ealy, the CDC has committed criminal data fraud. There are laws prohibiting data manipulation by federal agencies, and laws meant to prevent it from happening in the first place.

The CDC violated those laws, not just once, but repeatedly, and those in charge must be held accountable. We cannot have a public health agency flouting data laws in order to justify harming the public. So, please, add your name to the grand jury petition.

Sources and References

September 21, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Illegal Collusion Between Government and Big Tech Exposed

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 15, 2022

In a September 1, 2022, article,1 the Post Millennial reveals how federal officials in the Biden administration have held secret censorship meetings with social media companies to suppress Americans’ First Amendment rights to free speech, and to ban or deplatform those who share unauthorized views about COVID and vaccines.

The evidence for this comes out of a lawsuit2 brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana (Eric Schmitt and Jeff Landry) against President Biden, filed in May 2022.

During the discovery process, the plaintiffs sought to identify “all meetings with any social media platform relating to content modulation and/or misinformation,” which is how we now know that such illegal meetings did, in fact, take place.

Illegal Collusion to Suppress Free Speech

Monthly, a Unified Strategies Group (USG) meeting took place — and may still be taking place — between a wide variety of government agencies and Big Tech companies, during which topics to be censored and suppressed were/are discussed.

Censored topics included stories involving COVID jab refusal, especially those involving military refusals and consequences thereof, criticism against COVID restrictions and their effects on mental health, posts talking about testing positive for COVID after getting the jab, personal stories of COVID jab side effects, including menstrual irregularities, and worries about vaccine passports becoming mandatory.3 According to the New Civil Liberties Alliance:4

“… scores of federal officials … have secretly communicated with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech federal officials disfavor. This unlawful enterprise has been wildly successful.

Under the First Amendment, the federal government may not police private speech nor pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is precisely what the government has done — and is still doing — on a massive scale not previously divulged.

Multiple agencies’ communications demonstrate that the federal government has exerted tremendous pressure on social-media companies — pressure to which companies have repeatedly bowed …

Communications show these federal officials are fully aware that the pressure they exert is an effective and necessary way to induce social-media platforms to increase censorship. The head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency even griped about the need to overcome social-media companies’ ‘hesitation’ to work with the government …

This unlawful government interference violates the fundamental right of free speech for all Americans, whether or not they are on social media. More discovery is needed to uncover the full extent of this regime — i.e., the identities of other White House and agency officials involved and the nature and content of their communications with social-media companies.”

Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance added:5

“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official COVID messaging, that doubt has been erased. The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed …”

Federal Agencies Involved in Free Speech Suppression

Documents obtained so far have identified more than 50 federal employees across 15 federal agencies, who participated in these censorship meetings or otherwise engaged in illegal censorship activities.6 This includes officials from:

  • The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Election Security and Resilience team
  • Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis
  • The FBI’s foreign influence taskforce
  • The Justice Department’s (DOJ) national security division
  • The Office of the Director of National Intelligence
  • White House staff (including White House lawyer Dana Remus, deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty and former White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andy Slavitt)
  • Health and Human Services (HHS)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  • National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
  • The Office of the Surgeon General
  • The Census Bureau
  • The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  • The State Department
  • The U.S. Treasury Department
  • The U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Emails from a strategic communications and marketing firm called Reingold7 also reveals that outside consultants were hired to manage the government’s collusion with social media to censor Americans. For example, Reingold set up a “partner support portal” for the CDC so that CDC officials could link emails to the portal for easier flagging of content it wanted censored by social media companies linked to the portal.

Big Tech Companies Involved in Government Censorship

On the private industry side, notable tech participants in the censorship meetings include:

  • Google
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Reddit
  • Microsoft
  • Verizon Media
  • Pinterest
  • Wikimedia Foundation

While some social media companies may have “hesitated” to censor on the government’s behalf at times, Facebook was certainly an eager beaver from the get-go. As early as February 2020, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was in contact with the State Department, offering its services to help “control information and misinformation related to coronavirus.”8

Biden Administration’s ‘Executive Privilege’ Denied

As you might expect, the White House has not cooperated with discovery and have fought to keep communications secret — especially with regard to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s correspondence — claiming all White House communications as “privileged.”

However, executive privilege does NOT apply to external communications, so the plaintiffs called on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to “overrule the government defendants’ objections and order them to supply this highly relevant, responsive and probative information immediately.”

September 7, 2022, Judge Terry Doughty did just that. The Biden administration’s claim of executive privilege was rejected and Doughty ordered the White House to hand over any and all relevant records.9 That includes correspondence to and from Fauci, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and many others. According to the judge’s order, they have three weeks to comply.

Examples of Illegal Government Censorship

On Twitter,10 Missouri AG Schmitt has shared a long list of examples of government censorship, including one document in which Clarke Humphrey, COVID-19 response digital director at the White House, asked Facebook to take down the Instagram account “anthonyfauciofficial,” a parody account dedicated to making fun of Fauci.11 Facebook complied.

Schmitt also shared emails12,13 between a senior Facebook official and the surgeon general, stating, “I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.” This email came on the heels of the surgeon general’s July 2021 “misinformation health advisory.”

The CDC also coordinated with Facebook, providing them with talking points to debunk various claims, including the claim that spike protein in the COVID shots is dangerous and cytotoxic. In a July 28, 2021, email, a CDC official provided Facebook with the following counter-narrative, taken straight from the “How mRNA Vaccines Work” section on the CDC website:14

“Messenger mRNA [sic] vaccines work by teaching our cells to create a harmless spike protein …” (Emphasis in the original.)

Fast-forward to mid-June 2022, and the CDC was suddenly less sure about the harmlessness of the spike protein.

Up until then, the words “harmless spike protein” had always been bolded, but in this June revision, they removed the bolding, along with an entire section in which they’d previously claimed that mRNA was rapidly broken down and spike protein did not last more than a few weeks in the body.15 Clearly, the truth was catching up to them and certain lies were getting too risky to hold on to.

CISA also reached out to Google, Meta (Facebook’s parent company), Microsoft and Twitter for help, shortly after the DHS’s Disinformation Governance Board was announced.16 Fortunately, public outcry put an end to this Orwellian Ministry of Truth before it got started.

When Censorship Becomes Election Interference

According to The Washington Times :17

“Details about the Biden administration’s conduct raised the hackles of Republican lawmakers. ‘Confirming that this is the most dangerously anti-free speech administration in American history AND that Facebook … is nothing but an appendage of the deep state,’ Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri Republican, said on Twitter as he shared news of the court filing.”

Other lawmakers are also getting involved. In an August 29, 2022, letter18,19 to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin requested records of the government’s contacts with social media companies to ascertain whether the FBI and/or DOJ did, in fact, instruct them to censor information about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal by falsely referring to it as “Russian disinformation.”20

Zuckerberg has also been asked21 to provide any correspondence involving the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, especially as it pertains to the FBI’s instructions to censor this political hot potato — something he openly admitted in a recent Joe Rogan interview (see video above).22

Lawmakers Pursue Legislation to Penalize Gov’t Censorship

Three Republican House Representatives on the House Oversight and Reform, Judiciary, and Commerce committees — Reps. James Comer of Kentucky, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington — have also introduced the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act23 (HR.8752), aimed at preventing federal employees from using their positions to influence censorship decisions by tech platforms.

The bill would create restrictions to prevent federal employees from asking or encouraging private entities to censor private speech or otherwise discourage free speech, and impose penalties, including civil fines and disciplinary actions for government employees who facilitate social media censorship.

While the U.S. Constitution clearly forbids government censoring and restricting free speech, HR. 8752 could be a helpful enforcement tool, as people might tend to think twice when they know there’s a real and personal price to pay.

Sources and References

September 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Biden regime orders 171 million bivalent booster doses after successful 8-mouse trial in which all got Corona anyway

By Rav Arora | eugypius | September 7, 2022

Vaccine zealotry has reached a fever pitch.

Last week, a day after the FDA authorized the new “Omicron booster” targeting the dominant Omicron BA.5 subvariant, the CDC’s vaccine committee formally recommended the shots for Americans as young as 12. Pfizer’s Omicron boosters will be available for people ages 12 and older, while Moderna’s new shots are for adults ages 18 and older. The new mRNA composition contains two half components of the spike protein: the ancestral virus strain and BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5, which have identical spikes.

The totality of public evidence for this new magical inoculation is detailed by CNBC:

For the BA.4/BA.5 boosters, the companies have submitted animal data. They have not released those data publicly, although at the June FDA meeting, Pfizer presented preliminary findings in eight mice given BA.4/BA.5 vaccines as their third dose. Compared with the mice that received the original vaccine as a booster, the animals showed an increased response to all Omicron variants tested: BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5.

Yes, on the basis of “increased response” to Omicron in eight mice, the Biden administration has ordered 171 million doses of the new Pfizer and Moderna boosters. Even had this vaccine been tested in humans and shown some efficacy against infection – like the primary series – there would be more than enough reason for caution and hesitation. The European Medicines Agency has warned against the potential adverse immunological effects of repeated boosting every four months. As Dr. Marty Makary from Johns Hopkins has noted, recent research shows a “reduced immune response against the Omicron strain among people previously infected who then received three Covid vaccine doses compared to a control group that previously had Covid and did not have multiple shots.”

It is just impossible to overstate the unconditional absurdity of the FDA and CDC decision. Not only is the booster merely available to the public (or most rationally, the greatest at-risk in nursing homes) but it is recommended by the state for everyone, including children and teenagers – those with least to gain and most to lose. The regulatory framework that allows them to approve and universally promote the booster is that of the Emergency Use Authorization:

The FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear] threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

What these serious “diseases or conditions” might be, which pose such a risk to a healthy 20-year-old that they warrant the use of these criminally under-tested inoculations, is nowhere mentioned. Moreover, rather than observing any kind of remotely defensible dosing schedule, the FDA has recommended the new booster as early as two months after the prior dose. Short vaccination intervals are known to elevate the risk of vaccine myocarditis – another towering and studiously ignored concern.

The most robust research for vaccine-induced myocarditis in young men, who are most at-risk for this adverse reaction, puts the probability at around 1 in 1,800 per second dose. As I’ve previously written, myocarditis is not “mild” and if left undetected, can easily be lethal (read about law enforcement member Dev’s near-death vaccine experience here).

What reassurance can CDC officials give to those concerned with the most documented serious adverse event associated with mRNA vaccination?

CDC official Dr. Sara Oliver: “We know that the myocarditis risk is unknown but anticipate a similar risk to that seen after the monovalent vaccines.”

Sigh.

Anyone who has followed the corruption of the FDA and CDC over the past two years could hardly find these developments surprising. Recall that 12 months ago, two top officials (Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause) at the FDA’s office of vaccine products resigned over political pressure from the White House to universally authorize the original booster shot to the public. Previously, the Trump administration pressured the FDA to “bend” vaccine emergency use authorization standards and allegedly prevented the collection of safety data prior to the 2020 election.

It’s more than rational to have subzero faith in institutions which are continually rotting on the inside and prone to outside influence from the most powerful political actors in the world. Those still working inside these banana-laboratories attest to their deterioration. On Bari Weiss’s Substack, Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg reported stunning, privately obtained quotes from top FDA officials. Here’s a sampling:

“It’s like a horror movie I’m being forced to watch and I can’t close my eyes… people are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.”

“I can’t tell you how many people at the FDA have told me, ‘I don’t like any of this, but I just need to make it to my retirement.’”

For those who have previously complied with the authoritarian dictates of the government, this may be a great awakening. Do you trust a state-recommended medical intervention based on a 10th grade science experiment on eight mice (all of which got Omicron anyway)? Do you trust an agency which has been under tremendous political pressure, forcing their top vaccine experts to resign and other employees to witness an abject mockery of the scientific method? Do you trust a vaccine that hasn’t even been tested in humans, and will probably never be studied for effectiveness against infection or severe disease because “such trials are very expensive”?

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Dr. Paul Offit, the most prominent vaccine expert in the U.S and member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee (VRBPAC):

“I’m uncomfortable that we would move forward—that we would give millions or tens of millions of doses to people—based on mouse data.”


Rav Arora is a 21-year-old writer from Vancouver, British Columbia. His work has appeared in such places as the NY Post and The Globe and Mail. Yet his heretical writing on vaccine injuries and mandates has forced him to go independent. Please consider supporting him by becoming a paid subscriber at his Substack, Noble Truths.

September 9, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Judge Orders Fauci to Cough It Up

BY JEFFREY A. TUCKER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | SEPTEMBER 8, 2022

A lawsuit against the federal government – Anthony Fauci in particular – from the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana has been brewing for a good part of the summer of 2022. The issue concerns the censoring of certain high-level experts on social media, three of whom are senior scholars of the Brownstone Institute. We know for sure that this censorship began early in the pandemic response and included exchanges between Fauci and then head of NIH Francis Collins, who called for a “quick and devastating takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration.

At issue is whether and to what extent the government itself has had a hand in encouraging tech companies to squelch speech rights. If so, this is unconstitutional. It flies in the face of the First Amendment. It never should have happened. That it did required arduous legal means to expose and, hopefully, stop.

The Framers guaranteed that Congress would make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Constitution never allowed an exception for an administrative bureaucracy answerable not even to voters to collaborate with large-scale private corporations to obtain the same result by other means. It’s still a violation of free speech.

It is of course true that any private company can regulate itself and make terms of use. But matters are different when its managers directly collude with government agencies to distribute only information of high priority to administrative bureaucrats while censoring dissident voices at the behest of government and its interests.

In order to determine if that happened, courts need access to full information on precisely what was going in their circles of communication. On September 6, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty released a decision that orders the government to give up information relevant to the case and do so in 21 days.

Dr. Fauci’s communications would be relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations in reference to alleged suppression of speech relating to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin, and to alleged suppression of speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns. (Karine) Jean-Pierre’s communications as White House Press Secretary could be relevant to all of Plaintiffs’ examples.

Government Defendants are making a blanket assertion of all communications to social media platforms by Dr. Fauci, and Jean-Pierre based upon executive privilege and presidential communications privilege. Plaintiffs concede they are not asking for any internal White House communications, but only external communications between Dr. Fauci and/or Jean-Pierre and third-party social media platforms.

This Court believes Plaintiffs are entitled to external communications by Jean-Pierre and Dr. Fauci in their capacities as White House Press Secretary and Chief Medical Advisor to the President to third-party social media platforms…

The initial complaint was filed May 5, 2022 and can be read in full here. It includes vast evidence of collusion between government officials and social media companies. But the government answered by claiming some kind of executive privilege and would not fork over information.

An amended complaint added the fireworks: It documented that 50 government officials in a dozen agencies were involved in applying pressure to social media companies to censor users, reports Zachary Stieber of Epoch Times.

That second filing might have flipped the switch and resulted in the judge’s decision to pull no punches. Indeed, it is a remarkable document, reproducing vast amounts of correspondence between government agencies and Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

What you see here is not antagonism but obsequious friendship: ongoing, relentless, guileless, as if nothing could be wrong here. They knew what they believed to be the problem voices and were determined to stamp them out. And that target included the documented censorship of top scientists associated with Brownstone Institute along with thousands of other credible experts and regular citizens who disagreed with the government’s extreme policy response to Covid.

Martin KulldorffAaron Kheriaty, and Jay Bhattacharya are represented in the filing by the New Civil Liberties Alliance with Jenin Younes leading the legal team for the scientists. Within weeks, we’ll have a better sense of whether and to what extent these individuals were the targets directly and how many other accounts were named in takedown orders. For example, we know for sure that Naomi Wolf, another writer for Brownstone, was directly named in correspondence between the CDC and Facebook.

All of this went on for the better part of two years, during which time the First Amendment was a dead letter insofar as it concerned Covid information on platforms that are overwhelmingly dominant on the Internet. Through those means, individual citizens were restricted in their access to a diversity of views and instead inhabit a world of censorship and tedious hegemonic exhortation that have seriously hurt the credibility of the platforms that cooperated.

Finally we see courts coming around to the view that government needs to be held accountable for its actions. It is happening far too little and far too late but at least it is happening. And at long last, we might gain a clearer look into the mysterious works of Fauci and its imperial reign over American public health during the worst crisis for constitutional rights in many generations.


Jeffrey A. Tucker, Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute, is an economist and author. He has written 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press.

September 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fauci’s Red Guards: Lawsuit Reveals Vast Federal Censorship Army

By Michael P Senger | The New Normal | September 2, 2022

One aspect of dictatorships that citizens of democratic nations often find puzzling is how the population can be convinced to support such dystopian policies. How do they get people to run those concentration camps? How do they find people to take food from starving villagers? How can they get so many people to support policies that, to any outsider, are so needlessly destructive, cruel, and dumb?

The answer lies in forced preference falsification. When those who speak up in principled opposition to a dictator’s policies are punished and forced into silence, those with similar opinions are forced into silence as well, or even forced to pretend they support policies in which they do not actually believe. Emboldened by this facade of unanimity, supporters of the regime’s policies, or even those who did not previously have strong opinions, become convinced that the regime’s policies are just and good—regardless of what those policies actually are—and that those critical of them are even more deserving of punishment.

One of history’s great masters of forced preference falsification was Chairman Mao Zedong. As László Ladány recalled, Mao’s decades-long campaign to remold the people of China in his own image began as soon as he took power after the Chinese Civil War.

By the fall of 1951, 80 percent of all Chinese had had to take part in mass accusation meetings, or to watch organized lynchings and public executions. These grim liturgies followed set patterns that once more were reminiscent of gangland practices: during these proceedings, rhetorical questions were addressed to the crowd, which, in turn, had to roar its approval in unison—the purpose of the exercise being to ensure collective participation in the murder of innocent victims; the latter were selected not on the basis of what they had done, but of who they were, or sometimes for no better reason than the need to meet the quota of capital executions which had been arbitrarily set beforehand by the Party authorities. From that time on, every two or three years, a new “campaign” would be launched, with its usual accompaniment of mass accusations, “struggle meetings,” self-accusations, and public executions… Remolding the minds, “brainwashing” as it is usually called, is a chief instrument of Chinese communism, and the technique goes as far back as the early consolidation of Mao’s rule in Yan’an.

This decades-long campaign of forced preference falsification reached its apex during the Cultural Revolution, in which Mao deputized radical youths across China, called Red Guards, to purge all vestiges of capitalism and traditional society and impose Mao Zedong Thought as China’s dominant ideology. Red Guards attacked anyone they perceived as Mao’s enemies, burned books, persecuted intellectuals, and engaged in the systematic destruction of their country’s own history, demolishing China’s relics en masse.

Through this method of forced preference falsification, any mass of people can be made to support virtually any policy, no matter how destructive or inimical to the interests of the people. Avoiding this spiral of preference falsification is therefore why freedom of speech is such a central tenet of the Enlightenment, and why it is given such primacy in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. No regime in American history has ever previously had the power to force preference falsification by systematically and clandestinely silencing those critical of its policies.

Until now. As it turns out, an astonishing new release of discovery documents in Missouri v. Biden—in which NCLA Legal is representing plaintiffs including Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty against the Biden administration for violations of free speech during Covid—reveal a vast federal censorship army, with more than 50 federal officials across at least 11 federal agencies having secretly coordinated with social media companies to censor private speech.

Secretary Mayorkas of DHS commented that the federal Government’s efforts to police private speech on social media are occurring “across the federal enterprise.” It turns out that this statement is true, on a scale beyond what Plaintiffs could ever have anticipated. The limited discovery produced so far provides a tantalizing snapshot into a massive, sprawling federal “Censorship Enterprise,” which includes dozens of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies and components identified so far, who communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and the suppression of private speech on social media—all with the intent and effect of pressuring social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech that federal officials disfavor.

The scale of this federal censorship enterprise appears to be far beyond what anyone imagined, involving even senior White House officials. The government is protecting Anthony Fauci and other high level officials by refusing to reveal documents related to their involvement.

The discovery provided so far demonstrates that this Censorship Enterprise is extremely broad, including officials in the White House, HHS, DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, and the Office of the Surgeon General; and evidently other agencies as well, such as the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. And it rises to the highest levels of the U.S. Government, including numerous White House officials… In their initial response to interrogatories, Defendants initially identified forty-five federal officials at DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, and the Office of the Surgeon General (all within only two federal agencies, DHS and HHS), who communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation and censorship.

Federal officials are coordinating to censor private speech across all major social media platforms.

The third-party social-media platforms, moreover, have revealed that more federal agencies are involved. Meta, for example, has disclosed that at least 32 federal officials—including senior officials at the FDA, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and the White House—have communicated with Meta about content moderation on its platforms, many of whom were not disclosed in response to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories to Defendants. YouTube disclosed eleven federal officials engaged in such communications, including officials at the Census Bureau and the White House, many of whom were also not disclosed by Defendants. Twitter disclosed nine federal officials, including senior officials at the State Department who were not previously disclosed by Defendants.

Federal officials are granted privileged status by social media companies for the purpose of censoring speech on their platforms, and officials hold weekly meetings on what to censor.

These federal bureaucrats are deeply embedded in a joint enterprise with social-media companies to procure the censorship of social-media speech. Officials at HHS routinely flag content for censorship, for example, by organizing weekly “Be On The Lookout” meetings to flag disfavored content, sending lengthy lists of examples of disfavored posts to be censored, serving as privileged “fact checkers” whom social-media platforms consult about censoring private speech, and receiving detailed reports from social-media companies about so-called “misinformation” and “disinformation” activities online, among others.

Social media companies have even set up secret, privileged channels to give federal officials expedited means to censor content on their platforms.

For example, Facebook trained CDC and Census Bureau officials on how to use a “Facebook misinfo reporting channel.” Twitter offered federal officials a privileged channel for flagging misinformation through a “Partner Support Portal.” YouTube has disclosed that it granted “trusted flagger” status to Census Bureau officials, which allows privileged and expedited consideration of their claims that content should be censored.

Many suspected that some coordination between social media companies and the federal government was occurring, but the breadth, depth, and coordination of this apparatus is far beyond what virtually anyone imagined. And the scale of this censorship apparatus raises troubling questions.

How could so many federal officials be convinced to engage in the clandestine censorship of opposition to tin-pot public health policies from China which have killed tens of thousands of young Americans and—let’s be honest—were never really that popular to begin with? The answer, I believe, is that high-level White House officials such as Anthony Fauci must have been simultaneously threatening social media companies if they did not comply with federal censorship demands, while also threatening entire federal bureaucracies if they did not toe the Party line.

By simultaneously threatening both the federal bureaucracy and social media companies, a handful of high-level officials could effectively transform the federal government into a sprawling censorship army reminiscent of Mao’s Red Guards, silencing any opposition to tin-pot public health policies with increasing detachment and certitude as this systematic silencing falsely convinced them that the regime’s policies were just and good. A few of these federal employees must have eventually let slip to the Republicans that this jawboning was taking place, which appears to have been how this suit began.

In plaintiff Aaron Kheriaty’s words:

Hyperbole and exaggeration have been common features on both sides of covid policy disputes. But I can say with all soberness and circumspection (and you, kind readers, will correct me if I am wrong here): this evidence suggests we are uncovering the most serious, coordinated, and large-scale violation of First Amendment free speech rights by the federal government’s executive branch in US history.


Michael P Senger is an attorney and author of Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World. 

September 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Why the COVID Jab Should Be Banned for Pregnant Women

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | August 30, 2022

Since the rollout of the experimental COVID shots, U.S. health officials have adamantly claimed the shots are safe for pregnant women, and have been urging all pregnant women to get the jab “to protect themselves and their babies.” To this day, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the COVID shot for:1

“… people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future.”

The CDC further recommends:2

“People who are pregnant should stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines, including getting a COVID-19 booster when it’s time to get one.”

And claims:3

“Evidence continues to build showing that:

  • COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective.
  • There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems in women or men.”

All the while, they’ve had Pfizer data showing the shots cause shocking rates of miscarriage which, adding insult to injury, have been blatantly miscategorized as a “recovered/resolved” adverse effect.4 Who in their right mind would consider DEATH a resolved side effect unless they had a depopulation agenda in mind all along?

I don’t see how this could be described as anything but a criminal cover-up. The only reason we know any of this is because U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to release Pfizer documents at a rate of 55,000 pages per month. The FDA and Pfizer had asked to release the documents at a pace of 500 pages per month, which meant it would take 75 years to disclose them all.5

Criminal Cover-Up

Dr. Naomi Wolf recently reported that an analysis of Pfizer data revealed 44% of the women in the trial suffered miscarriages.6 That statistic turns out to have been the result of a miscalculation,7 as Pfizer listed the miscarriages in two separate columns, resulting in them being counted twice.

We’ve repeatedly found Pfizer’s data collection and reporting to be all over the place, and seemingly on purpose, to make hazards more difficult to ascertain. Wolf admitted the error and took down the original report. However, while fact checkers are gloating over the perceived victory, there’s plenty of other evidence in the Pfizer material to demonstrate these shots should be banned for all time.

In an August 20, 2022, Substack article, Dr. Pierre Kory addressed other, “absolutely horrifying,” findings on miscarriages found in the Pfizer data dumps:8

“… let’s do a dive on just one page of the many thousands. See below, Section 5.3.6, Page 12 of the document called ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.’

Looking at the first bullet under the header: Pregnancy cases: 274 cases including:

In this paragraph, at first read, it is just a list of adverse events and numbers, detailed in a way that is confusing at best, and obfuscating at worst. I think it is the latter because, if you do some simple arithmetic trying to parse that paragraph, you end up with this:

270 pregnancies were reported in vaccinated women during the first 12 weeks of the vaccine campaign. In 238 of them, ‘no outcome was provided.’ So, they only knew the outcome of 32 pregnancies reported. What happened in those 32 pregnancies they followed up on?

My hands are literally trembling as I write this, but here goes. In these 32 pregnancies, there were:

23 spontaneous abortions

2 spontaneous abortions with intra-uterine death

So, 25 of the 32 pregnancies with known outcomes resulted in a miscarriage, a rate of 78%. Note that miscarriage normally occurs in only 12-15% of pregnancies

2 premature births with neonatal death

1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death

1 normal outcome

Note that this only adds up to 29 known outcomes, but then they note that ‘two different outcomes were reported for each twin’ and then they talk about ‘fetus/baby cases as separate from mother cases.’ I have no idea how to interpret this explanation of outcomes, so it may have been one or two less (or more) deaths then.

So, of the 32 pregnancies they knew the outcome of, 87.5% resulted in the death of the fetus or neonate. Burying this data in the way and not alerting the world to what they found, is criminal activity …”

To be perfectly clear, the failure to record and report the outcomes of 238 out of 274 pregnancies during a drug trial is simply unheard of. It’s shockingly unethical. And the fact that both the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC accepted this, and claim there’s “no evidence” of harm to pregnant women and their babies is proof positive of reprehensible maleficence.

There’s no fixing what’s gone wrong at the FDA and CDC. Their credibility with the public is ruined beyond any possible recovery. The CDC can review and reorganize itself all it wants, but it changes nothing. They are, to this day, urging pregnant women to take a shot that they KNOW will cause babies to die. Calling it a dystopia of epic proportions is a profoundly serious understatement.

CDC-Sponsored Study Also Tried to Hide Data

Need more evidence? How about the fact that the CDC-sponsored study9 published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April 2021 — which was widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected — also obfuscated data to hide a shockingly elevated miscarriage rate.

According to this paper, the miscarriage rate within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy was 12.5%, which is only slightly above the normal average of 10%. (Looking at statistical data, the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20.10)

However, there’s a distinct problem with this calculation, as highlighted by Drs. Ira Bernstein, Sanja Jovanovic and Deann McLeod, HBSc, of Toronto. In a May 28, 2021, letter to the editor, they pointed out that:11

“In table 4, the authors report a rate of spontaneous abortions <20 weeks (SA) of 12.5% (104 abortions/827 completed pregnancies). However, this rate should be based on the number of women who were at risk of an SA due to vaccine receipt and should exclude the 700 women who were vaccinated in their third-trimester (104/127 = 82%).”

In other words, when you exclude women who got the shot in their third trimester (since the third trimester is after week 20 and therefore should not be counted when determining miscarriage rate among those injected before week 20), the miscarriage rate is 82%. (The errors in that NEJM article were also reviewed in a Science, Public Health Policy and the Law paper12 published in November 2021.)

Of those 104 miscarriages, 96 of them occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, which strongly suggests that getting a COVID shot during the first trimester is an absolute recipe for disaster. So, here was yet another attempt to hide the fact that more than 8 in 10 pregnancies may be terminated as a result of the jab.

As of August 12, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting (VAERS) database listed 4,941 miscarriages post-COVID jab.13 For comparison, the fetal death reports for all other vaccines reported to VAERS in the last 30 years is 2,239.14

Birth Rates Are Suddenly Plummeting Worldwide

In addition to miscarriages, we’re also looking at abruptly plummeting birth rates, suggesting the COVID jabs are having an adverse impact on future fertility as well.

“They are large drops, and they are occurring, almost like clockwork, approximately 9 months after pregnant women around the world started to be vaccinated,” Kory notes.15

For example, Germany recently released data showing a 10% decline in birth rate during the first quarter of 2022.16

The live birth rate graph for Sweden looks much the same, with a 14% drop:17,18 According to Gunnar Anderson, a Swedish professor in demographics at Stockholm University, “We have never seen anything like this before, that the bottom just falls out in just one quarter.”19

Between January and April 2022, Switzerland’s birth rate was 15% lower than expected, the U.K.’s was down by 10% and Taiwan’s was down 23%.20,21,22 In Hungary, MP Dúró Dóra has expressed concern about a 20% drop in birth rate during January 2022, compared to January 2021.23

The U.S. is also showing signs of a drop in live births. Provisional data from North Dakota show a 10% decline in February 2022, 13% reduction in March and an 11% reduction in April, compared to the corresponding months in 2021.24

In a July 5, 2022, Counter Signal article, Mike Campbell reported that in the five countries with the highest COVID jab uptake, fertility has dropped by an average of 15.2%, whereas the five countries with the lowest COVID jab uptake have seen an average reduction of just 4.66%. Below is a chart from Birth Gauge25 on Twitter comparing live birth data for 2021 and 2022 in a large number of countries.

Many Women Report Menstrual Irregularities Post-Jab

High rates of menstrual irregularities post-jab are also a warning sign that reproductive capacity may be impacted. As of August 12, 2022, there were 31,443 VAERS reports of menstrual disorders.26

Changes include heavier and more painful periods27 and changes in menses length, as well as unexpected breakthrough bleeding or spotting among women on long-acting contraception or those who are postmenopausal and haven’t had a period in years or even decades.28

Health officials have tried to brush off the reports, but a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health — confirmed an association between menstrual cycle length and COVID-19 shots.29

According to the authors, it’s possible that the immune response created by the mRNA shots affect the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis, which plays a well-known role in the timing of a woman’s cycle:30

“Our findings for individuals who received two doses in a single cycle supports this hypothesis. Given the dosing schedule of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States (21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna), an individual receiving two doses in a single cycle would have received the first dose in the early follicular phase.

Cycle length variability results from events leading to the recruitment and maturation of the dominant follicle during the follicular phase …”

Other Disturbing Evidence

A Japanese biodistribution study for Pfizer’s jab also showed the COVID spike protein from the shots accumulate in female ovaries and male testes,31,32 and there’s credible concern that the COVID jabs will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that may impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.

A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study33 revealed the injection more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss (i.e., the risk of infertility), and led to mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae.34,35 As noted by The Exposé :

“With this being the case, how on earth have medicine regulators around the world managed to state in their official guidance that ‘Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy’? And how have they managed to state ‘It is unknown whether the Pfizer vaccine has an impact on fertility’?

The truth of the matter is that they actively chose to cover it up. We know this thanks to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request36 made to the Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).”

You can read more about that in The Exposé’s July 19, 2022, article, “FOIA Reveals Pfizer & Medicine Regulators Hid Dangers of COVID Vaccination During Pregnancy After Study Found It Increases Risk of Birth Defects & Infertility.”37

We’re also seeing a sudden uptick in infant mortality. The Exposé 38 highlighted data from Scotland, showing neonatal deaths were 119% higher above the annual norm in March 2022.

COVID Jab Affects Male Fertility Too

Video Link

Male fertility is also under attack by these bioweapons. Israeli research39,40 published in the journal Andrology found the Pfizer COVID jab temporarily but significantly impairs male fertility, dropping sperm concentration by 15.4% and total motile count by 22.1%, compared to baseline pre-jab.

Both eventually recovered, some three months after the last jab, but if you destroy a man’s sperm for three months every time he gets a COVID shot, you’re significantly reducing the probability of him fathering a child for a good part of any given year and the stats reviewed above support this.

Remember, the mRNA shots are recommended at three-month intervals for the original series, and boosters are now being recommended at varying intervals thereafter. In the video above, Amy Kelly, project director for the Daily Clout’s Pfizer document analysis team, reviews this study and other post-jab male fertility concerns.41

End the COVID Shots Now, Before It’s Too Late to Recover

In October 2021, when the FDA was voting on whether to authorize the COVID jab for children aged 5 through 11, Dr. Eric Rubin, an FDA advisory panel member, Harvard professor and editor-in-chief of the NEJM, stated:42

“We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes … And I do think we should vote to approve it.”

So, in this and other instances, they’ve openly admitted that anyone who takes the jab is part of an experiment. Yet at the same time, the FDA and CDC have insisted that the jabs are perfectly safe — all while in possession of data showing they’re anything but! In conclusion, I agree with Kory, who writes:43

“… when a new medicine or device is introduced, you must first assume any adverse effects or deaths reported to be related to the intervention until proven otherwise. That is what I am doing here.

We must assume the vaccines are impacting fertility unless some other provable or credible explanations for a sudden drop in month to month birth rates. So stop the shots until you can prove they are not …

Too many young people dying,44 too many becoming disabled, too many pregnancies resulting in fetal or neonatal death as above, and now we find out that if we continue with this vaccine obsession, they will not be replaced. This is a humanitarian catastrophe heaped atop the one caused by dangerous gain-of-function research.

When will the world wake up to this rapidly unfolding horror? For those of us who know what is going on, it is hard not to feel helpless as we are forced to watch increasingly apparent and widespread needless death. But we will continue to try to get these truths out despite the massive censorship and propaganda overwhelming the globe.

We have a moral and ethical obligation and take that responsibility seriously no matter what befalls us. Stop the vaccines, now. And if we can’t stop them, we must try to convince everyone we know to no longer agree to get vaccinated. Their lives and our future depend on it.”

Sources and References

August 31, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

CDC Director deflects blame for lockdowns towards predecessors

By Mike Campbell | The Counter Signal | August 25, 2022

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admitted organizational shortcomings on Fox News while deflecting blame toward predecessors for their lockdown recommendation.

“Many of those lockdowns pre-dated me at the CDC,” she said.

Walensky, who once used ‘Trust the science’ to persuade the public, carried a humbler tone while reflecting on her organization’s decisions.

“There were important decisions that we had to make in imperfect times, with imperfect data, and we always updated those decisions as those data were evolving…”

“So, I don’t really want to re-visit the questions of lockdowns that pre-dated me, but what I will say is, we’ve updated our guidance in the context of new information, and sometimes we have to make a decision before we have all the information that we want…”

Indeed, the CDC updated guidance by removing special quarantine recommendations for unvaccinated persons, effectively admitting that vaccination status is no longer relevant when it comes to infection or spread of the Covid virus.

In fact, on July 23, the CDC deleted a ‘fact’ from their “Facts about mRNA Covid-19 Vaccines”, and they did so without explanation. Last time I checked, facts don’t change — but apparently, they do for the CDC.

Walensky further stated that “[their] science” indicated hybrid immunity was superior to natural immunity. However, we’ve reported on a scientific study that accounted for more than 5.7 million people, which showed that natural immunity is just as effective as hybrid immunity.

To this point, Walensky’s usage of science in the possessive sense — by calling it “our science” — denotes a departure from “the science,” of which they’re either arbitrarily picking from or are completely unaware.

Between Fauci stepping down and Walenski pointing fingers, it appears the blame game has officially started.

August 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 2 Comments

The CDC Failed, So Spin It Off and Make It More Powerful?

BY JEFFREY A. TUCKER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | AUGUST 17, 2022

The failure of the CDC to manage Covid-19 was baked in from the first moments of its response. A government agency was never going to mitigate much less get rid of this sort of pathogen. This is because the virus never cared a whit about prestige degrees, job descriptions, big budgets, high-end connections, media agitprop, or polls. It went on its merry way, hit everyone, and immune systems adapted as they always have done.

The great experiment was an enormous flop.

The costs of the experiment we know: it is the catastrophe that Donald Henderson predicted it would be in 2006.

Thus does it make sense that the present overlords of the agency have admitted at least partially to have made some errors. The question is what were these errors. From the latest news concerning some impending shakeup, I see no evidence of any serious rethinking of the crazed and cockamamie lockdown orders it issued from March 2020 onward. Not even preposterous mandates like plexiglass at retail counters, two years of school closures, “six feet of distance,” one-way grocery aisles, band members in bubbles, mask mandates, and limits on how many people you can have in your home have prompted remorse.

Instead, every indication is that the CDC believes the real problem was that it did not have a high-enough budget and enough power. Plenty of lawmakers are willing to go along – not that anyone is asking them. Therefore, its tremendous pandemic powers need to be tweaked and invested mainly in a division known as the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR.

Says The Washington Post :

The Biden administration is reorganizing the federal health department [HHS] to create an independent division that would lead the nation’s pandemic response, amid frustrations with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Joy!

The new head of this high-level division (same level as FDA/CDC) is Dawn O’Connell who has a background in literature (Vanderbilt) and law (Tulane), not science or medicine. She is a political appointee who took the reins as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Preparedness and Response, as confirmed by the Senate in 2021. She is now elated to report that her division will be elevated to become just as important as the CDC and the FDA.

Here is her memo to the staff:

ASPR Team:

As you know firsthand, ASPR is at the forefront of many of HHS’s and the Biden-Harris Administration’s top priorities. Whether your work involves strengthening our core preparedness and response capabilities, tackling new and emerging challenges, or providing essential support services to the team, please know that the work that you do matters and that it is making a big difference.

In recognition of the tremendous value this team brings to the Department and the American people – and due to the increasing size and scope of what we do – I asked Secretary Becerra to consider making us an Operating Division and I am pleased to report that Secretary Becerra has made the critically important decision to elevate our team from a Staff Division to an Operating Division (OpDiv)!

This change allows ASPR to mobilize a coordinated national response more quickly and stably during future disasters and emergencies while equipping us with greater hiring and contracting capabilities. As an OpDiv, we are now in the same category as other large HHS teams with core operational responsibilities such as CDC, NIH, FDA, CMS, and ACF. This change is an important next step for our organization which has continued to grow and evolve since its creation in 2006 – the pace of which has quickened over the past year. This change is also a recognition of the good work you all have been and continue to do on behalf of the American People

Along with this reclassification, moving forward we will be known as the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR). The adjustment to our name signals our elevation to an OpDiv, while maintaining the equity and brand recognition we have built with key internal and external stakeholders, particularly over the course of the pandemic.

Thus must we ask: what the heck is going on here? The Biden administration has no idea. Indeed the Washington Post reports that “some senior Biden administration officials said they were unaware of the plan to reorganize the department, which was approved by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and has been held close by his deputies.”

This point is crucial. This is how the administrative state works. It cares nothing for the elected officials who come and go. It moves on its own, fueled by money baked into the budgets and with power hardly anyone dares to challenge. There is never any accountability. There is only one path forward: more power. Elections be damned.

The most important part of the memo here is the idea of mobilizing a “coordinated national response.” It drove these people utterly bonkers that during the pandemic, several states went their own way. South Dakota never shut down. Georgia opened a month after the shutdowns. Florida and Texas were next. Finally all the states with Republican governors opened while most states with Democratic governors remained closed to some degree.

The empirical results are incredibly obvious. The open states performed as well and often better on disease demographics. Meanwhile their economies did not suffer nearly as much. The kids stayed in school. The churches functioned. There were live musical performances. The museums, libraries, and playgrounds opened. People are less traumatized.

The migration of people from blue to red tells the whole story. Masses of people fled the lockdown states for the open states.

A “coordinated national response” would make such federalist solutions impossible. Forget the 9th and 10th Amendments. These agencies and these people care nothing for them, nor actual science which would encourage a plethora of experiments in the management of a pathogen. These bureaucrats in Washington think they have all the answers, and they demand complete compliance.

Meanwhile, the CDC itself is being reorganized. But don’t be fooled by any appearance of contrition. They still have a legal appeal in process that would put a mask back on your face when traveling. The new agency to which some of its pandemic responsibilities will be transferred will have a 1,000-person staff to start, people paid the big bucks to sit around coming up with new ways to whip up disease panic and start another crackdown.

A better solution would be to abolish the CDC. States can handle all its responsibilities. It did not even exist until 1947. Its purpose was mosquito control, spraying a now-banned chemical (DDT) everywhere. These days we handle that by going to Home Depot.

The CDC as an agency grew out of the 1944 Public Health Services Act that permitted nationally ordered quarantines for the first time. The legislative history of that thing remains a mystery to me. Regardless, it is nowhere justified in the US Constitution. This act needs to go too. So too all the federal agencies to which it gave rise. This is the only real solution.

Certainly creating a new agency is not the answer. And note that ASPR has its roots in 2006 as an outgrowth of the Bush administration’s obsessive panic over bioterrorism. It was also the first year that anyone imagined that lockdowns could be an appropriate path for any free society. It was the year that “social distancing” was invented by a cabal of computer scientists with zero experience in infectious disease.

These fanatics need to be out of power completely, and the regulations, laws, and agencies that enabled them to ruin the country and its freedoms must be ended. This is what any responsive government in a modern society would do. It would see failure and call it and then do something about it. It certainly would not go in this new direction and reward the disease planners with more power and money!

We must learn real lessons and act on them.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He writes a daily column on economics at The Epoch Times, and speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

August 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 1 Comment

CDC’s Ludicrous Makeover

BY HARVEY RISCH | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | AUGUST 18, 2022

CDC announced that the institutes have done an external/self-study and proposed a makeover “to restore public trust.” Dr. Walensky said that she “plans to remake the culture to help the agency move faster when it responds to a public health crisis. She also wants to make it easier for other parts of the government to work with the CDC, and wants to simplify and streamline the website to get rid of overlapping and contradictory public health guidance.”

The CDC’s announcement covers everything except the fundamental problem to which the director and the external reviewer are blind: industry subservience and epidemiologic incompetence.

CDC has published numbers of fatally flawed study reports over the last two years in MMWR, its captive journal. No amounts of “moving faster” will fix this problem. It took CDC two years to figure out that the vaccines are not an effective public health tool for reducing infection spread, something that I and numerous colleagues have been saying for more than a year.

CDC has still not recognized that for Covid, masks are useless, that distancing is useless, that general population testing is virtually useless for managing the population pandemic.

That the CDC has reviewed itself and only found trivialities and not the systematic problems that caused it to produce repeatedly failing policies shows that this review exercise was only window dressing. It was not a serious review.

The CDC needs a completely different independent external review to understand how it as a public health agency with MD and PhD epidemiologists could get so much science wrong for so long. The current makeover plans are ludicrous, will fool no one, and will not restore any of the large amount of public trust that has been lost by its poor performance over the last 2.5 years.

Harvey Risch is Professor of Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. Dr. Risch received his MD degree from the University of California San Diego and PhD from the University of Chicago. After serving as a postdoctoral fellow in epidemiology at the University of Washington, Dr. Risch was a faculty member in epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Toronto before coming to Yale.

August 18, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

I just now notified hundreds of people at the CDC why they aren’t able to find any vaccine-related deaths

By Steve Kirsch | August 14, 2022

I just sent the email below to nearly 300 people at the CDC who are known to be involved in the COVID vaccine program.

I pointed out that existing autopsy protocols cannot find vaccine deaths and asked why isn’t the CDC notifying medical examiner and pathologists how to find COVID vaccine-related deaths?

Do you think I’ll hear back? Do you think they will do anything differently?

Here is the full text of the email:

I wanted to make sure everyone who is involved in the COVID vaccination program understands exactly why the CDC isn’t finding any vaccine associated deaths.

The short answer is because they aren’t looking for them properly even though the methodology to do so is in plain sight. That methodology is ignored. This is why the pathologists find nothing.

A simple analogy: if the PCR test were run with just 5 cycles, we’d never find any COVID virus. We’re basically doing the same thing with the tests we do post-vaccine: we didn’t change the tests to FIND the vaccine.

This is unethical.

I wanted to make sure everyone who works at the CDC is aware of this.

At the very least, the CDC needs to publicly acknowledge this clear failing.

As I said recently on Fox News, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by the COVID vaccines.

I’ve posted the summary of the backup data here.

People who were skeptical of my numbers found that document very convincing.

Fox News REFUSED to look at my data or discuss it. Why not? Because they are paid not to challenge the narrative. Over $1B is being paid out to promote the vaccines and ignore anything that goes against the narrative.

Even worse, nobody will go on camera to try to refute any of this. Why not?

The reason the CDC finds no deaths is because they aren’t looking for them with tools that will find the deaths.

How can Burkhardt and Bhakdi find 93% vaccine-caused deaths when the coroners found nothing IN THE EXACT SAME TISSUE SAMPLES?

You need to run specialized tests to determine an association with the vaccine. The standard tests run by medical examiners are NEVER going to find an association. That was clear in their paper and it was independently validated by Dr. Ryan Cole who is a very experienced board certified pathologist.

The question you all should be asking is:

Why isn’t the CDC requiring that for anyone who dies 30 days after getting a vaccine an autopsy protocol that can find an association with the vaccine using the necessary specialized tests?

Such a protocol already exists and it is proven it works. See this article.

Dr. Cole points out that YOU NEED SPECIALIZED TESTS to find the association.

How many pathologists are doing these tests in America? Just one as far as he knows.

I am absolutely baffled as to why the CDC has never done any of these tests and why nobody has talked to Dr. Cole.

Do you know why? Can you tell me?

While there may be a better protocol, this protocol is proven to detect vaccine involvement in 93% of the cases studied. These are all tissue samples from people dying shortly after vaccination where the medical examiners were unable to find any association.

If this protocol is insufficient, where is the CDC document explaining why and proposing a better one that finds more association?

If the CDC has been doing adequate tests, where is the documentation of that?

It seems pretty clear to me that the CDC isn’t finding vaccine-caused deaths because they refuse to look.

They can even go back to the autopsy tissue samples they already have and re-stain them to see how many were missed in the initial analysis as documented in the Rosenblum paper in Lancet.

The Rosenblum paper should have reported that none of the autopsies used stains that were necessary to show an association. But this was never mentioned. Shouldn’t that paper be corrected?

I tried to talk to the authors, but Martha Sharan at the CDC ignored every email and phone call I left for her.

Is this how science is done? By not allowing anyone to challenge your work?

My article also explains very clearly why doctors are not finding vaccine-related deaths. The interview with Gina Doane makes it clear her dad died from the vaccine yet the doctor in charge refused to even consider this as a possibility even though NONE of his other explanations fit, and the vaccine hypothesis fit perfectly. That’s not how science works. This is corruption. You don’t need a medical degree to figure it out. It’s all in the video.

But that second video shows you first hand how doctors are looking the other way.

I hope you will find the two videos and the content of the post eye opening. One commenter wrote: ” One of the best and most revealing pieces of research on the net….very telling. Thank you.”

It’s well worth your time. I’ve written over 700 articles on the COVID vaccines and the content presented in these two interviews are the most important interviews for everyone at the CDC to watch because it shows you how 1) the tests are inadequate and 2) even with overwhelming evidence, the doctors are deliberately NOT acknowledging vaccine death.

If you want to chat, I can be reached at <redacted>.

-steve

Am I flogging a dead horse?

No. I’m just putting hundreds of people at the CDC on the record as having been notified of what is going on.

And who knows. Maybe ONE person is honest.

The CDC has backed off their earlier “guidance” and have removed things from their website that were untrue.

August 14, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment