Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Impending US ICD Vaccine Passport and Its Unconstitutionality

By Harvey Risch | Brownstone Institute | January 26, 2023

The CDC recently codified International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes for Covid-19 vaccine status. ICD codes are extensively used in medical records, medical insurance data and health research to classify precisely disease states as well as injuries from exogenous agents such as accidents, medication and medical device injuries, toxic chemicals, etc. Vaccination status is not a disease or an injury state, yet CDC has rationalized creating ICD codes for it. The coding is set to become effective on April 1, 2023.

As described by Dr. Robert Malone, “The ICD classification system is run by the World Health Organization, not the US government.” The vaccine status ICD codes were developed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) some nine months ago, and CDC is implementing them.

The coding scheme, Z28.xxx, includes both vaccination status and possible reasons for the status. However, there does not appear to be a code for “fully vaccinated,” only for various states of “not fully vaccinated.”

  • The code Z28.0 means “immunization not carried out because of contraindication.”  Z28.1 means “immunization not carried out because of patient decision for reasons of belief or group pressure.”
  • Z28.2 means “immunization not carried out because of patient decision for other and unspecified reason.”
  • Z28.8 means “immunization not carried out for other reason” which because of code Z28.2 must refer to reasons not attributable to patient decisions.
  • Finally, Z28.39 means “other underimmunization status,” including “Delinquent immunization status” and “Lapsed immunization schedule status.”

However, a potential contradiction arises because code Z28.310 means “unvaccinated for COVID-19.”

In order to reconcile this, the Z28 codes in the previous paragraph must refer to vaccines other than for Covid-19. The only other Covid-19 code is Z28.311 which means “partially vaccinated for COVID-19,” where “partial” refers to the CDC definition for “fully vaccinated” at the time when the patient visits the health-care provider who records the vaccination status in the medical chart.

It is apparent that the details of reasons for patient choices for vaccine status are not specified in codes for Covid-19 vaccines, but the CDC has some two months to fix this. There are no specific codes yet for “refused to divulge COVID-19 vaccination status” or “unknown COVID-19 vaccination status,” but these codes are likely to be added at some point.

What is the usage for which this information is planned? There is certainly a public health rationale for agencies to be able to monitor population vaccination status. Personal health information is routinely analyzed by public health agencies, insurance companies and health researchers, but in anonymized and grouped formats. The identifiable information is recorded in the databases, however HIPAA and other laws strictly protect identifiable health information and regulate how such information may be used for analyses.

In theory, vaccination status could be no different. Medical records already know your age, gender and race, where you reside, about your obesity, diabetes, your smoking and alcohol usage and your HIV status. Some of this information could be stigmatizing if released publicly, but at present there are no politicized or other circumstances to force unwanted choices on members of the public based on this compiled personal information.

Imagine, however, that one day, government agents are pounding on your door at 6am, telling you that you are required to take smoking cessation medications, under penalty of forced residence in a “smoking-cessation hotel” until you submit to the government’s requirement.

The medications have built-in transmitters that are activated when exposed to stomach acid, so taking them is recorded. After all, 500,000 Americans die every year from smoking-related diseases and their end-of-life medical care is an expense for which the government no longer wants to pay. Your smoking is economically hurting the medical care that grandma needs. Or something.

But Covid-19 and its vaccination are different. The Covid vaccines and their boosters were created under emergency-use authorization (EUA) protocols and are not fully licensed. The Biologics License Application (BLA) versions, e.g., Comirnaty, are not generally available in the US. This licensing chicanery has not gone unnoticed by the American public and a substantial fraction of people find the vaccines controversial.

Many people have seen their multiple-vaccinated friends and relatives get Covid, some multiple times. Many have also seen friends and relatives harmed by the vaccines, and most people know of the incessant daily deaths of healthy athletes, deaths discussed as caused by “coincidence.” People have seen the vaccines touted as solutions to the pandemic, yet utterly fail across the population to suppress transmission of the infection.

And, people have been bombarded with daily narratives for two solid years that the vaccines are “safe and effective” and that they must be taken, and that unvaccinated people are “bad,” “selfish,” demonized as doing damage to society, and should be shunned.

That is, personal vaccination status today is the most stigmatizing personal data of modern times, surpassing having AIDS. As such, any government compilation must be “bulletproof” against hacking and misuse. As well, the government must be trusted to maintain the data for use only as other personal medical data have been used.

Given the two-plus years of massive government propaganda about the vaccines, about their adverse effects, about Covid, about early Covid treatment, and the government collusion with social media companies in suppression of valid dissenting medical and scientific opinions and data, there is no empirical reason to support trusting the government with such sensitive, stigmatizing data.

There is no reason to believe that the government will not release the status information to insurance companies or other companies doing large business with the American public. Further, there is no recourse should the government actually release such confidential data. Thus, nothing may stop such companies from restricting activities based on the stigmatized data. For example, public travel could be blocked; bank accounts could be blocked; purchasing could be blocked.

The free pursuit of happiness is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. The government cannot lawfully interfere with normal transactions of everyday life. But private companies working at the government’s behest, with government-supplied personal status information, could very well do it.

As has been seen from the FOIA documents, hundreds of government employees have spent the pandemic years doing exactly this unconstitutional behavior in getting social media companies to suppress Americans’ freedom of speech.

Furthermore, there is now no rational government interest in compiling vaccination status at all. At a time when vaccination was generally thought (incorrectly) to reduce Covid-19 transmission across the population, there might have been a rationale for doing so.

However, on August 11, 2022, the CDC stated publicly that the Covid-19 vaccines do not work as a public health measure to control virus transmission. They said, “Receipt of a primary series alone, in the absence of being up to date with vaccination* through receipt of all recommended booster doses, provides minimal protection against infection and transmission (3,6).” “Being up to date with vaccination provides a transient period of increased protection against infection and transmission after the most recent dose, although protection can wane over time.”

The fact that such benefit is “transient” and wanes implies that after some short period, boosters fail to reduce risk of transmission and thus that vaccine mandates are invalid.

The only government interest in mandating Covid vaccines, and thus in compiling personal information about vaccination status, is that the vaccines reduce transmission. They don’t.

Secondly, the CDC’s August 11th policy guidance does not distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated people in any way for any policy. There is thus no compelling government purpose in defining people as vaccinated or unvaccinated. It would be like the government compiling personal information on hair color, except that hair color is not stigmatizing and vaccination status is extremely stigmatizing.

The government itself—through the CDC—has determined that vaccination status is not of policy importance. There can thus be no compelling interest for the government to forcibly collect this information against the wishes of the population, even were it not stigmatizing. So much more so after the government has spent the last two years publicly demonizing unvaccinated people for their rational and legitimate personal health choices.

Harvey Risch, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a physician and a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His main research interests are in cancer etiology, prevention and early diagnosis, and in epidemiologic methods.

January 27, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Meta gave the CDC de facto power to police Covid “misinfo”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | January 20, 2023

The mask is slipping (pun fully intended), all over the place – regarding the Big Tech/Big Government collusion. Now it’s time to pay close attention to the role played by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

We’ve already been awed – just by the magnitude of the whole thing – if not exactly “shocked” by the  Files.

After all, while it was happening, a whole lot of observers surmised that something of the sort had to be behind the unprecedented and, seemingly inexplicable levels of censorship on the platform.

But – what in the world was happening at , around the same time? After all, Facebook is an almost orders of magnitude bigger and more influential social network than Twitter.

For the time being, we don’t have the same “direct line” to internal documents as is the case with Twitter, which was made possible by the dedication to transparency by the new owner himself.

However, what could be dubbed as the “Facebook Files” are based on credible sources, too – Reason is coming out with a story based on confidential emails that emerged thanks to a court case – the state of Missouri suing the Biden administration.

The emails show that Facebook (and by extension ) representatives and the CDC not only kept in touch at all times, but that the tech giant also “routinely asked government health officials to vet claims relating to the virus, mitigation efforts such as masks, and vaccines.”

In turn, the CDC kept a watchful eye on what speech was allowed on Facebook, what policies toward censorship of “inconvenient” Covid topics applied, and this government agency had no problem instructing the social network behemoth how to behave in these instances.

Robbie Soave, a senior editor for Reasonrevealed some examples of what was happening in a series of tweets citing the emails and providing screenshots. One shows that in May 2021, CDC started to get involved in “vetting” content on Facebook that concerns Covid vaccines. And CDC had the last word on what was allowed to remain online as “accurate.”

Other emails show that Facebook (Meta) made sure the CDC was given de facto power to police Covid “misinformation,” while at the same time flagging content for the CDC, consulting with it on claims that could “contribute to vaccine refusals.”

At the same time, Reason is acknowledging that this was by no means the only federal agency to engage in similar activities, all aimed at pressuring some of the world’s biggest social platforms to allow only a certain narrative, and discredit any skepticism, even that coming from medical professionals and scientists.

Even President Biden made sure to “contribute” to this effort, when he in June 2021 bizarrely accused Facebook of “killing people.”

This was really meant to say that the giant had better not dare allow any Covid content the White House failed to “vet” behind the scenes – one way or another.

And the giant obliged, sometimes probably even exceeding the level of compliance expected from the administration. An internal email now reveals that Facebook went as far as to “snitch” on its own users making fun of Anthony Fauci, apparently in a bid to defend his reputation – again, at the expense of free speech.

“One email warned the CDC that Facebook users were mocking Fauci for changing his mind about masking and double-masking. The CDC replied that this information was ‘very helpful’,” Soave, the magazine’s senior editor and host on The Hill TV channel, tweeted.

The upcoming, March issue of Reason delves into how the CDC turned into the speech police when it came to pressuring social media to block content that the government agency decided was Covid “misinformation.”

And this was online speech that this, and other government agencies, have no constitutional way of directly suppressing without breaking the law.

“There is a word for government officials using the threat of punishment to extort desired behaviors from private actors. That word is: jawboning,” Soave remarked in one of the tweets.

And one can imagine – and the emails now show – just how gun-shy and ready to please those in power Facebook had become, after years of public vilification, and who knows what kind of pressure behind the scenes in the wake of the 2016 US election.

January 22, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Internal CDC Emails Claim Assistant Secretary For Health Blocked Release Of Fluoride Review

By Derrick Broze | The Last American Vagabond | January 5, 2023 

Newly released emails reveal that leadership within the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Health acted to prevent the release of a long-delayed review of fluoride’s toxicity by the National Toxicology Program. The emails specifically claim that Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine intervened to stop the release of the NTP review, also known internally as a monograph.

An email dated June 3rd, 2022, shows Nicole Johnson, Associate Director for Policy, Partnerships and Strategic Communication in CDC’s Oral Health Division contacting Jennifer Greaser, a Senior Public Health Policy Analyst in CDC’s Washington office. Johnson states:

“The latest we heard (yesterday) is that ASH Levine has put the report on hold until further notice.”

ASH Levine refers to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health, Rachel Levine.

The emails were released as part of the ongoing legal dispute between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and plaintiffs Food and Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and others who are seeking an end to water fluoridation Throughout the historic lawsuit the plaintiffs have argued that the practice violates the EPA’s Toxic Substances Abuse Act.

Hearings for the lawsuit began in June 2020, but were delayed for more than two years after U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen put the proceedings on hold pending the release of the NTP’s review of all of the available research on fluoride. The NTP had previously claimed the review would be available in May 2022. However, the review has not been made public and hearings have been delayed and rescheduled as the judge awaited the NTP’s conclusions.

In late October 2022, Judge Chen ended the two year stay on the lawsuit when he ruled that the NTP review could be viewed in its unpublished form to better inform his final decision. However, due to concerns from the EPA, Judge Chen ruled that the report could not be made public unless the NTP releases it.

On December 14, 2022, the plaintiff’s filed several exhibits with Judge Chen, including a redacted version of the NTP’s assessment of fluoride’s neurotoxicity and internal emails between the CDC and the NTP which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests.

What do the #FluorideEmails reveal?

Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs, outlined the findings of the emails in several exhibits submitted to Judge Chen. “These emails confirm that the NTP considered the May 2022 monograph to be the NTP’s final report,” Connett writes. “They also confirm that the CDC was opposed to the NTP releasing the report, and that leadership at the top levels of the Department of Health Human Services intervened to stop the report from being released.”

As Connett notes, on April 28, 2022, Dr. Mary Wolfe, the Director of NTP’s Office of Policy, Review and Outreach, emailed Casey Hannan, the Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, and stated that the NTP’s “analysis and conclusions are set”. Dr. Wolfe also let Hannan know that the NTP had reviewed the CDC’s submitted comments, but still planned to release the review “mid/late May” 2022.

In a May 11, 2022 email, Wolfe again notifies Hannan and the CDC that the NTP has “set May 18, 2022 for publication of the monograph. The monograph will be posted to the NTP website, and we will email a notice of the posting to NTP listserv subscribers.”

However, later that day and the following day, Dr. Karen Hacker, the Director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), tells Dr. Wolfe that there is concern within the CDC about publishing the NTP review without an additional review by “NIH leadership”. Hacker also asked about the potential of a “interagency review” by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Dr. Wolfe subsequently told the CDC that “we (the NTP) believe the current findings, as stated in the monograph, reflect the scope of our evaluation and the available scientific literature and no revision is needed”.

Meanwhile, while Dr. Wolfe was defending the work of the NTP, internal emails among officials at the CDC’s Division of Oral Health reveal that the CDC was already preparing to prevent the release. A May 12, 2022 email from Hannan states:

“The May 18th release date for [the monograph] is almost certainly not going to happen. OASH and NIH OD are pretty clearly going to get more involved.”

OASH is a reference to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, the second highest office in the Department of Health and Human Services, while NIH OD refers to the NIH’s Office of the Director, the highest office within the NIH. The current Director of the NIH is Lawrence A. Tabak.

Jay Sanders, Education & Outreach Director with the Fluoride Action Network, told The Last American Vagabond he believes the emails “reveal a concerted effort at the highest level of the U.S. public health bureaucracy to squash a key report on fluoride neurotoxicity”. Sanders also stated the emails “show the lengths these agencies are willing to go to to protect their pet project, fluoridation, from any scientific scrutiny.”

Together with the June 3rd, 2022 email, these communications point to direct intervention from the head of the NIH and the Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The emails confirm what has long been suspected. Namely, that government officials at some level were preventing the release of this important review on the toxicity of fluoride. The CDC interference comes on top of an already unusual process employed by the NTP to evaluate the data on the safety of water fluoridation.

“This report, which has now been reviewed 4 times, is now going to be reviewed a 5th time by the NTP,” Fluoride Action Network attorney Michael Connett stated during the October 2022 hearing. “There will be at least 5 separate peer review processes extending over 4 years. This is, to put it mildly, exceptionally unusual.”

The next hearing in the #FluorideLawsuit takes place on January 12, 2023 at 2:30 PM US Eastern.

January 7, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Nobody Knows What is in the Vials

Covid-19 injections are dangerous, non-compliant biological materials. Their production must be stopped until a full investigation can be done.

By Sasha Latypova | Due Diligence and Art | December 22, 2022

Many of us are familiar with the following conundrum: on one hand, highly credentialed scientists and doctors have written numerous research papers explaining the dangerous mechanisms of action underlying mRNA/DNA “platform” technologies. The papers are meticulously researched and depict, correctly in my opinion, many terrifying consequences of the technology that breaches the innate protective mechanisms of human cells. Furthermore, these theoretical papers are validated by the observed outcomes, such as for example, increases in all-cause mortality in high correlation with increases in rates of vaccination in a given territory, unprecedented increases in the adverse events and deaths recorded by various passive reporting (https://openvaers.com/), astonishingly high reports of the adverse events and deaths from the pharmas’ own pharmacovigilance systems, and autopsy findings in vaccinated post-mortem showing the mechanisms of mRNA technology damage in histopathologic evaluations. On the other hand, many who have received the injections report no adverse effects and deem the data points above a “crazy conspiracy”. The question from the uninjured seems to be – why don’t we see MORE deaths if what you say about mRNA products is true?  Setting aside ethical limitations of this question, here is a possible answer why:

The mRNA shots do not conform to their label specifications. In practice both “blank” and “lethal” vials and anything in between is produced. Without full compliance, nobody, not even the manufacturers or regulators, know exactly what ends up being produced.

Vials of mRNA injections are not routinely tested by the manufacturers for conformity to the label. The only vial-level tests specified by Pfizer in leaked Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) documents are the vial weight at filling, manual inspection for large visible particles, and some tests related to integrity such as vial capping. However, no vial or dose, i.e., “unit-level as dispensed” tests verifying the ingredients are described as routine. How is the public assured that each Pfizer dose contains 30 mcg of mRNA as stated on the label? What level of variability of this key ingredient and other ingredients is acceptable? The ingredient conformity tests described in Pfizer CMC package are based on the bulk product batch testing – an upstream manufacturing process step. It is a regulatory requirement to retain samples of each batch produced, and these samples of vials should exist and be available for examination. Per contracts with the US Government, the product is shipped to the DOD who retains the ownership of the vials until the product is injected into people. These contracts are very detailed and specify manufacturing data to be delivered to the DOD, however, I did not find any descriptions of sampling of the vials for purposes of verification of their contents vs the label. Furthermore, it is expressly forbidden by the international vaccine supply contracts to perform the vial tests for label conformity.

Despite the disturbing prohibition of the independent vial testing, covert random testing of the mRNA vials has been ongoing worldwide. Reported thousands of vials have been obtained and tested by dozens of research groups working independently of each other. The quality of these studies varies and depends on the conditions of the samples acquired, access to the lab equipment and the experience of the investigators. However, the consistent finding among all is that there is yet a single vial to be found in full conformance to the manufacturer’s label. A review of these independent testing efforts has been published recently. Another high-quality report summarizes experiences testing vials from various manufacturers in Germany. These studies use different techniques ranging from optical to electron microscopy, spectroscopy, as well as isolation of genetic and protein components and in some cases sequencing of the RNA.

Some vials contain RNA as well as high concentrations of DNA and protein impurities in quantities far exceeding allowed limits specified by the manufacturer. When RNA was sequenced, the sequences did not fully match the specified BNT162b2 sequence, and a large quantity of RNA fragments was found.  In other instances, vials are found apparently without RNA or DNA in them (evidently absent nitrogen and phosphorus).

Want to know what’s inside the vaccine vials?

These results could depend on the methods used and more thorough testing may be needed.  Nevertheless, I was able to confirm that the apparent “blank” vials from at least one researcher came from batches of Pfizer and Moderna that had almost no adverse events reports in VAERS: two batch numbers had 1 report each and one batch number had no reports.  This should be contrasted with some batch numbers of Pfizer and Moderna associated with 5000+ adverse event reports in VAERS, and an average of ~1500 adverse event reports including ~700 serious reports and deaths across all CDC verified batch numbers.

Almost all vials examined contain high contamination levels of various metals that are toxic to human body. This finding is consistent across all groups and methodologies, and therefore should be deemed more conclusive. There is no explanation of the origin or purpose of these materials according to the known manufacturing processes. Additional findings include various forms of carbon, including, potentially graphene oxide which is a known toxin. Finally, almost all vials examined contain a variety nano- and micro-particulate contaminants – another conclusive finding with plenty of photo and video documentation. These appear under microscope examinations as shapes and structures of various sizes and include characteristic ribbons, fibers, and crystals.  Several published reports by qualified and credentialed microscopy experts have excluded the possibility of environmental dirt on the microscope slides. Sometimes a process of movement and what can be described as “self-assembly” is visible and has been documented in a single take video. The researchers also take steps to maintain the chain of custody, examine unexpired product and keep the vials frozen per manufacturer’s instructions.

Below are some representative images from various manufacturers’ injection vials from many studies:

Dr. David Nixon – Australia, Pfizer

Another Dr. from Australia, Pfizer:

The images above are startling and remain unexplained to date. Some scientists insist these are all “salt and cholesterol”, and nothing to see here folks! I disagree. Images of salt and cholesterol under microscope may match some of these structures, but by far do not explain all of them, and seem especially poor explanations for assembly-disassembly processes that have been observed and video recorded. Sizes of these structures alone are problematic. Dismissing them as “manufacturing junk” is not a great way to instill confidence in anyone.

These contaminants and bizarre objects are not rare, in fact as the last image shows, at least some of the vials are teeming with them. While many speculations can be made, one overwhelming conclusion from all the vial tests by independent investigations is that the products are extremely “dirty”, do not conform to their labels and should thus be deemed adulterated. This is a clear indicator that the manufacture of these products is not compliant with the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP).

Sloppy manufacturing process may result from numerous factors, including lack of accountability, negligence, incompetence and possibly fraud. Review of the contracts with the manufacturers made by the U.S. Department of Defense, BARDA and HHS shows that the main driver were the gigantic sums of money made available with no real accountability for quality or safety – all resulting from the forced extreme speed (“warp speed”) of the scale up of manufacturing. The U.S. DOD contracted Pfizer in May of 2020 for production of at least 100 million doses by October 31, 2020, and up to 500 million doses later. Pfizer’s initial contract award was for $10 billion, with many additional incentives for delivering more doses faster. Similar contracts were made with numerous other “vaccine” manufacturers, and hundreds of other suppliers, all under the guise of panic buying for covid countermeasures. No real accountability for product quality or consistency or safety was built into those contracts, in fact the manufacturers were explicitly exempt from all possible liability under the PREP Act, which is specified in a separate contract clause. The purchaser is the DOD, the distributor is the DOD (and not the licensed and accountable pharmaceutical distributors), and furthermore, the product is not serialized and hence open to both adulteration and falsification or mislabeling.

To meet the contract obligations, Pfizer’s manufacturing batch size has increased from microgram scale for lab and animal study volumes to commercial batches of ~140 liters at the end of 2020 and ~300 liters by late 2021. In my experience commercializing biotechnologies from academia, failure to scale is one of the leading causes of failures of all new technology ventures. Showering this problem with money rarely accelerates the solution, and very often accelerates the demise of the whole venture. This is common sense. For example, placing an order today for 1,000,000 of a new type of vehicles with Ford Motor Company to be delivered in 6 months will likely fail no matter the dollars spent, since even obtaining the raw materials in time will be problematic. Complex manufacturing requires materials, systems, capacity, experienced staff, established processes, suppliers, and most importantly control systems at the correct scale to be successful and produce high quality consistent product. Now imagine simultaneously asking several direct competitors – Ford, GM and Toyota to produce 1,000,000 new cars each in the next 6 months.

Based on review of available literature on mRNA manufacturing and my discussions with experts who have made mRNA in the lab, it is not clear that mRNA can be manufactured at the scale that is estimated for these injections from known shipment numbers and disclosed manufacturing documentation: 200-300 liters of drug product per average batch, 700+ batches a year in the US alone. This is particularly unlikely if strict cGMP rules are applied to the manufacturing requirements, and we know that cGMP is not followed for production of these injections. Recently FDA found Catalent non-cGMP compliant. Catalent handles large volumes of fill-finish for Moderna, therefore batches processed through Catalent are non-cGMP compliant.

The generation of mRNA by in-vitro transcription (IVT) at large scale and under current good manufacturing practice conditions is challenging. For example, the specialized components of the in-vitro transcription IVT reaction must be acquired from certified suppliers that guarantee that all the material is animal component-free and GMP-grade. Furthermore, the availability of large amounts of these materials is limited and purchasing costs are high. This is true, for example, in the case of the enzymes used for translation and capping. Even the glass vials themselves were reported as a shortage. Additionally, the low yields and batch failure are a known problem. Conceptual process flow of making mRNA drug substance contains several steps:

The process is composed of a 2-step enzymatic reaction in continuous form, followed by enzyme recycling using tangential flow filtration strategies and two multimodal chromatography steps, one in bind-elute mode for the intermediate purification, and a second in flowthrough mode for polishing. Formulation is achieved using a third tangential flow filtration module. This means the mRNA needs to be made by chemical reaction, and then purified, and then capped and purified again. There are many variations of this process, and no standards exist. At the “formulation” step (last box in the picture), there are further multiple steps to create lipid nanoparticles, and get the mRNA encapsulated. Further, there are fill and finish steps that likewise are not problem free and decrease the yield. Finally, transportation and manual dose preparation add an extra variability layer.

Here is a simple heuristic to understand any manufacturing process flow and not get confused by the jargon: each arrow in the flowchart points to places where errors accumulate Each output-input point in a complex manufacturing flow is where the errors can be checked for and rectified or, if unsolved, will amplify and destroy the product quality and consistency. This is especially dangerous at the extreme speed and scale.

In science papers mRNA manufacturing is described with problem-free cartoons, it all works beautifully regardless of whether it is microgram or kilogram output, and not a single paper on this topic dwells much on low yields or process failures. This is because the academia never has to confront reality. However, the pesky reality of manufacturing mRNA (or anything else) at large scale is highly error prone. Each step has a yield of anywhere between 50% and 80%, and sometimes the whole batch fails, and that is especially true at the large scale of production. mRNA reaction fidelity is less than 100%, the caps and tails fall off, mRNA breaks into fragments, lipid nanoparticles do not form perfectly and PEGylation can be inhomogeneous leading to their breakage and subsequent escape and breakage of mRNA. Large mRNA breaks into smaller fragments, and these remain in the substance. At large scale of reaction, the enzymatic process for making mRNA was reported seizing at 37.5 liters of mRNA substance (before encapsulation into LNP and making drug product) according to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) documents.  It is not clear how this was resolved and transitioned to 100’s of liters scale in a matter of few months, and for all suppliers.  mRNA fragments were deemed process related impurities by the EMA who raised a significant concern, but they were dismissed by the FDA as a “theoretical problem” – as leaked emails from EMA have shown. mRNA “fragments” may or may not code for proteins, however micro-RNAs (miRNA) can interfere with endogenous cellular processes to detrimental health effects which is described in many scientific papers and even in a textbook on biological weapons published by the NIH in 2018.  Chapter 6 of the book describes gene therapy as a class of biological weapons. Coincidentally, the DOD-pharma contracts for covid-19 shots also explicitly state that the product is being developed for both civilian and military applications.

Returning to mRNA manufacturing, multiplying even an optimistic 80% yield by, for example, 7 process steps results in 20% final yield, and if the in-process failures are larger, final yield is single digit percentage or a failure has occurred. Each step generates large amounts of impurities, which are never fully removed as aggressive purification will break the fragile product. Furthermore, the mRNA substance is never equally distributed in the batch volume as thorough mixing of the product is not possible due to its fragility, and lipids tend to float to the top of the vat as well as stick and congregate together.  Dangerous possibly cytotoxic aggregates of broken LNPs and mRNA (mRNA adducts) can result and were reported by Moderna a full year after large scale deployment of their product. As a result, the larger the volume of the batch, the more inhomogeneity at the vial level. These conditions can create over-concentrated, toxic vials and the ones that could be “blanks”, or anything in between. The larger the batch volume the more duds it will produce, which in case of this product is largely good news for the injectees. Avoidance of specifying any product conformity tests at the vial level by the manufacturers seems to be intentional in this context.

Data from Pfizer’s own CMC documentation submitted to EMA at the end of November 2020 shows “failure to scale” beginning at approximately 25% of the current commercial scale of the batch (current scale = 600,000 vials = 3-4 million doses per batch). The graphs below were generated using exact sizes in vials and doses for each Pfizer batch manufactured between August and November 2020 (Figure 1) and all Pfizer shipped doses in the US up to end of April 2022 (Figure 2). I used reported deaths and adverse events in VAERS database associated with those batches as a measure of batch variability. This does not address vial variability but provides directional information especially for the scale of manufacturing. The batches in Figure 1 were the first ones to ship commercially and were likely all used close to 100% since at that time the demand for these injections was insatiable. As the “scale-up” of manufacturing proceeded in 2020, the batches were manufactured in a variety of sizes from 50,000 and up to 300,000 vials (~140 liters of drug product). During this time, several major changes were made to the manufacturing, for example, transition from the pilot facility at Polymun Scientific to Pfizer’s own plants and changing major manufacturing steps to new processes.

Figure 1.

First, the overall data indicate a statistical trend toward increased number of reported deaths with the increase in the batch size – the more this product is used, the more deaths are reported. This is not news for anyone who has been paying attention to the injection related adverse events and deaths.  However, the variability batch-to-batch demonstrated by the vertical dispersion of the death reports associated with batches of the same size is already apparent at approximately 150,000 vial batch size (25% of the full commercial scale). Batches of the same size are 4-5 times different from each other in the number of reported deaths.

The “failure to scale” story gets larger at scale, no pun. Recently, the exact sizes of Pfizer lots shipped in the United States became known via a FOIA data release, including all doses with associated lot numbers shipped as of end of April 2022 to various vaccination centers. Figure 2 is the plot of all batches from Pfizer, by their reported size in doses on the x-axis and serious adverse events including deaths reported for those lot numbers on the y-axis. Data from VAERS was downloaded on September 24, 2022.

Figure 2.

This graph includes the “early” scale up batches from Figure 1, as well as what appears smaller shipments possibly for batches that were largely distributed overseas. What is immediately apparent from the data – the staggering inconsistency of the product batch-to-batch and the rapid decline of apparent toxicity measured by the adverse events with increase in batch size. The latter trend is the opposite of what was observed with the early batches. The product is causing fewer adverse events per dose when there are more doses available. This does not make sense, except if these doses are simply sitting on the shelves. Of note is batch FM0173 (only 26,700 doses shipped in the US) that generated the highest rate of serious adverse events (3.3/1000 doses), upper left dot.

The scale of manufacturing strains the credulity. A batch of 12 million doses translates to approximately 900+ liters of mRNA! Given the manufacturing steps involved, impurities generates and the amount of raw materials, and the scale of manufacturing equipment and disposables needed, it should be questioned whether this truly was a single production run.

Figure 3 is the same data as in Figure 2, with outlier batches removed for clarity (includes batch sizes from 100K to 4M doses):

Figure 3:

It is evident that the variability batch-to-batch is highly significant and remains unexplained.  It is also strangely declining as the size of the batch is becoming larger. The only reasonable explanation to this is that the usage of this product per batch has plummeted. Most of what is produced later in the time period is sitting on the shelves.  At the end of the time period in this graph (end of April 2022), an estimated 100M doses were manufactured but not administered in the United States. At the beginning of this graph, nearly all manufactured doses were administered. That is the only reasonable explanation – and it proves that these injections cause the injuries and deaths reported to VAERS!

Table below lists all batches >4 million doses, including their date of manufacture and the number of serious adverse events and deaths reported for them in VAERS:

Table 1:

The “mega” batches are not entirely benign. They are simply a larger lottery pool. The single death reported for batch FL0007 is for an 8-year-old girl who died in Texas from a multi-system organ failure (VAERS ID 2327226-1) – see Figure 4. While the first batch listed in her report RL0007 appears to be a typo (RL series do not exist for Pfizer), it is evident that she received both doses from the same FL0007 batch and passed away 3 months later.

Figure 4:

Here is my educated guess on what is going on with the batch variability: Pfizer’s (and other manufacturers’) contracts were for delivery of DOSES. Millions of them and fast. Contract scope is simply a “demonstration of large-scale manufacturing” and billion-dollar bonuses attached for shipping millions of doses by certain dates. No accountability, no checks, no liability, just ship the doses on time! The batches of 5 million+ doses should be questioned in this context.  These appear largely benign from the adverse event perspective but, since the demand for these shots has plummeted coinciding with production of mega-batches, it is hard to say what the real driver of “safety” is – over-dilution of the product or refusal of the customers to be injected. I hope it is the latter.

Here is as close as I can get to answering the question “why aren’t MORE people dying?”: Too many people have died and have been injured by these injections, and plenty more will ultimately have their lives cut short. The manufacturers are making both – lethal shots and highly diluted “blanks” in a sloppy, uncontrolled, unaccountable, and ultimately fraudulent manner.

To know the truth, these products must be tested at the vial and dose levels, in a random sampling by independent 3rd party laboratories. In the meantime, the products must be recalled, and a proper investigation initiated.

December 25, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

Opposition to Childhood Vaccine Mandates on the Rise, More Parents Say They Want the Right to Choose

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. – The Defender – December 16, 2022

A growing number of parents oppose vaccine mandates as a precondition for public school attendance, and interest among adults in receiving COVID-19 booster shots is waning, according to a national poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF).

The results of the latest KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor survey, released today, show more than one-third (35%) of parents now believe they should be the ones to decide whether their children receive a slate of childhood vaccines.

The poll encompassed a nationally representative sample of 1,259 adults who were interviewed between Nov. 29 and Dec. 8. According to The New York Times, the KFF is a “nonpartisan health care research organization.”

“It’s unfortunate that it took a wave of injuries and deaths from vaccines that never should have been released into the market — much less mandated — to draw long-overdue attention to the issue of vaccine safety,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense.

Kennedy told The Defender :

“This latest poll is encouraging for those parents, physicians and scientists who for decades have been calling for an investigation into the relentless promotion by FDA, CDC and Big Pharma of inferior medical products without rigorous safety testing.

“As more parents begin to question the forced, routine administration of vaccines on healthy children, perhaps we will move closer to protecting children and holding vaccine makers and government agencies accountable for the harm these products cause.”

26% of parents today: ‘Risks of childhood vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella outweigh the benefits’

According to the KFF poll, 65% of parents of children under age 18 “think healthy children should be required to be vaccinated to attend public schools.”

This represents an 11% decline from an October 2019 Pew Research Center poll showing 76% of parents supported public school vaccine mandates.

More than one-third of parents surveyed (35%) “now believe parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children, up from 23% in 2019.”

The poll also revealed declines in support for specific vaccines. For instance, 71% of respondents said “healthy children should be required to get vaccinated for MMR in order to attend public schools” compared with 82% who supported the MMR vaccine mandate for healthy children in 2019.

Nearly 3 in 10 parents (28%) said parents should be able to choose whether their children receive the MMR vaccine, compared with 16% in the 2019 poll.

A similar percentage (26%) responded that the “risks of childhood vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella outweigh the benefits.”

A smaller decline was noted in the percentage of adults (85%) who felt the benefits of childhood MMR vaccination outweigh the risk. This represented a three-percentage-point decline from the 2019 Pew Research Center poll (88%).

These declines were driven by increased vaccine “skepticism” and a growing movement toward parental choice, on the part of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents — 44% of whom responded that parents should have a choice about whether or not their children receive the MMR vaccine, up from 20% in 2019.

Only 11% of Democrats provided the same response.

Moreover, only 56% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said “healthy children should be required to be vaccinated to attend public schools,” a decline of 23 percentage points compared to 2019.

A similar divide was apparent among respondents in reference to their COVID-19 vaccination status. While 83% of vaccinated respondents said healthy children should be required to be vaccinated in order to attend public schools, 63% of unvaccinated parents said parents should instead decide.

‘Tepid’ interest in COVID ‘boosters’ and flu vaccine

Interest in the updated COVID-19 booster is “tepid,” according to the KFF poll, which showed only 1 in 5 adults (22%) surveyed said they have received the updated bivalent booster and an additional 16% said they plan to receive it “as soon as possible.”

However, 12% of respondents said they would “wait and see” before deciding whether to get the new booster, 13% said they would get it only if required and 9% said they would “definitely not” get it.

An additional 27% were unvaccinated or only “partially” vaccinated, which means they are not eligible to get the booster.

Interest in the bivalent booster was highest among adults 65 and older (39%) and Democrat voters (38%), though both figures fall significantly short of a majority. Conversely, only 12% of Republicans and 11% of young adults under 30 said they had received a dose of the updated booster.

Also, 36% of “fully vaccinated” adults 65 and older said they don’t think they need the updated booster, while a “similar percentage,” according to KFF, said they did not think the benefit of the updated booster was worth it.

Overall, fewer than half of parents of children under 18 said their child has received the updated booster or is likely to do so.

Combined with children who have not been vaccinated and who are therefore ineligible for the booster, 58% of parents of 12- to 17-year-olds and 70% of parents of 5- to 11-year-olds responded in this manner.

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, even if vaccinated, expressed skepticism toward the updated booster, with 64% stating they do not think they need it, and 61% saying they did not believe the benefit was worth it.

Even among Democrats, a majority (51%) said they were too busy or hadn’t had the time to get the updated booster, indicating it was not a high priority for them.

Even in the face of a so-called “tripledemic” of COVID-19, flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) this fall and winter, and despite the majority of parents saying they are worried their children will get sick from RSV (56%, and 73% of parents of children under the age of 5), only 34% of parents said their child has gotten a flu shot this season.

Parents’ rights movement growing in prominence

According to The Times, “The shift in positions appears to be less about rejecting the shots than a growing endorsement of the so-called parents’ rights movement.”

Dr. Sean O’Leary, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases told The Times :

“The talking point that has been circulated is the concept of taking away parents’ rights. And when you frame it that simply, it’s very appealing to a certain segment of the population.”

O’Leary said he worried that the parental rights movement might slow down compliance with state-mandated childhood immunization schedules, telling The Times “We do have a global dip in vaccine coverage. So this is not a time to be considering a rollback of these laws.”


Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

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.

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

Mercury/Alzheimer’s – Boyd Haley interviewed by James Delingpole

James Delingpole | November 19, 2022

In 1967, Haley obtained an M.S. degree from the University of Idaho. He then entered a doctoral program at Washington State University, where he worked to make chemical modifications on ATP to try to identify how and exactly where ATP binds to cause muscle movement. In 1971, WSU granted him his Ph.D. degree in chemistry-biochemistry.
https://emeramed.com/about/

Freedom isn’t free – James needs your support to continue creating The Delingpod. There are many ways you can show your support to James:Join the James Delingpole Community as a paid supporter at: jamesdelingpole.locals.com
Support James monthly at: subscribestar.com/jamesdelingpole
Support James’ Writing at: substack.com/jamesdelingpole
www.delingpoleworld.com

December 15, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 2 Comments

Why Doctors Push COVID-19 Vaccination so Hard

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | December 7, 2022

Patients commonly ask me why their other doctors push COVID-19 vaccination so hard still to this day with alarming safety statistics, loss of efficacy, and now a complete lack of human trial data with the bivalent boosters?

The answer may come by following a money trail from HHS and CDC called “COVID-19 Community Corps” that early in 2021 made undisclosed individual payments to hundreds of organizations to promote mass vaccination. There were notable medical groups including the American Medical Association, American Association of Family Physicians, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Student Association.

More investigation is likely to reveal that federal money received was temporally linked to e-mail blasts, town hall meetings, and many other activities pushing mass vaccination.

Could COVID-19 Community Corps money to the AMA have been the reason why the AMA launched its campaign to “abolish” the use of ivermectin in 2021 so the public would be panicked into taking more shots?

How could the pediatric associations take federal money before the clinical trials for their patients were completed or the vaccines approved via EUA?

Did they promote the vaccines to pediatricians before clinical trial results were known?

Finally, how could federal dollars flow to gynecologists/obstetricians when pregnant women and those of childbearing potential where excluded from randomized trials reported just a few months before the HHS initiative?

These broad acts of public bribery, corruption, and vaccine racketeering worked to put millions of lives danger as we learned about the risks of COVID-19 vaccination in 2021.

As we sit here today, the CDC VAERS system through November 25, 2022, is reporting 15,508 US deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, 22% occurred within 96 hours of the shot. There have been 15,505 Americans disabled, 9266 with heart damage, and 356,269 office visits, urgent care encounters, or hospitalizations attributed to vaccine side effects.

Never again can we allow our public health agencies use unchecked financial power to promote any medication or vaccine to healthcare providers. Corruption and indoctrination are deadly.

December 7, 2022 Posted by | Corruption | , , , , | 3 Comments

CDC and Census Bureau had direct access to Twitter portal where they could flag speech for censorship

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | December 7, 2022

Emails between an employee at the United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and  have revealed that at least one CDC staff member and the US Census Bureau had access to Twitter’s dedicated “Partner Support Portal” which allows approved government partners to flag content to Twitter for censorship.

The emails were released by the nonprofit organization America First Legal and show Twitter enrolling a CDC employee into this portal through their personal account in May 2021 (pages 182-194).

On May 10, 2021, the CDC’s Carol Crawford sent Twitter employee Todd O’Boyle a list of example posts highlighting “two issues that we [the CDC] are seeing a great deal of misinfo about.” O’Boyle responded by saying that enrolling in Twitter’s Partner Support Portal is the best way for Crawford to get posts like this reviewed in the future.

Crawford asked O’Boyle if she could enroll in the portal with her personal Twitter account and on May 27, 2021, O’Boyle confirmed that Crawford had been enrolled in the portal.

In other emails, Crawford asked O’Boyle whether the federal government could flag “COVID misinformation on the portal using the existing census.gov accounts that have access” and questioned how to flag “misinformation” via the portal.

June 2021 emails (pages 359-360) also show another CDC employee attempting to enroll in a  portal but getting error messages. While these emails don’t describe the portal, it appears to be Facebook’s content takedown portal which is similar to the Twitter portal and allows government agencies to flag content for censorship.

Additionally, a February 4, 2021 email (pages 354-355) shows Facebook’s US Head of Public Policy, Payton Iheme, asking Crawford whether she’s aware of the US Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) misinformation work.

“I saw that DHS/CISA is planning /possibly working on COVID-19 misinfo concerns?” Iheme wrote to Crawford. “Are you aware of that aspect?”

This email was sent more than a year before the DHS announced its controversial “Disinformation Governance Board” in April 2022.

Another revelation from this email is that Iheme acknowledges the focus on misinformation “growing among members of Congress.”

These emails provide more evidence of the Big Tech-Biden administration censorship collusion that’s currently facing a legal challenge over potential First Amendment violations.

“In recent months, millions of Americans have witnessed the peeling of the ‘misinformation’ onion,” Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Vice-President and General Counsel, said. “Beneath each layer of shocking details about a partnership between the federal government and Big Tech is yet another layer of connections, conspiracy, and collaboration between power centers that seek to suppress information from the American people. We are proud to play a leading role in fighting for the rights of all Americans and revealing this vital information to the American people.”

We obtained a copy of the emails for you here.

The emails also shine a light on the government departments that have access to these direct Big Tech censorship portals. Previous reports and document releases have shown that the California Secretary of State’s Office of Elections Cybersecurity (OEC) has access to the Twitter portal while the DHS and the New Zealand government have access to the Facebook portal.

Related: Former Twitter exec, Vijaya Gadde, who was appointed adviser to President Biden’s DHS in 2021, played a key role in suppressing Hunter Biden story a year earlier

December 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 1 Comment

One Health: what is it and why is it important?

One Health is being embedded into the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHRs) and Pandemic Treaty/Accord

By Meryl Nass | December 5, 2022

First, what is One Health? It is essentially a meaningless concept that is important to the WHO, CDC and the new pandemic regulations being negotiated, as I heard it mentioned several times by country representatives discussing the new IHR amendments. My best guess is that One Health will be invoked as the justification to move people off the land in certain rural communities. The authors of a June 2019 article titled “The One Health Approach—Why Is It So Important?” provide 3 definitions and a graphic to try and explain the term:

The most commonly used definition shared by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the One Health Commission is: ‘One Health is defined as a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach—working at the local, regional, national, and global levels—with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment’. A definition suggested by the One Health Global Network is: ‘One Health recognizes that the health of humans, animals and ecosystems are interconnected. It involves applying a coordinated, collaborative, multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral approach to address potential or existing risks that originate at the animal-human-ecosystems interface’. A much simpler version of these two definitions is provided by the One Health Institute of the University of California at Davis: ‘One Health is an approach to ensure the well-being of people, animals and the environment through collaborative problem solving—locally, nationally, and globally’. Others have a much broader view, as encapsulated in Figure 1.

I hope you agree that these definitions shed no light on the meaningfulness of this concept, nor how it might be relevant to public health. However, the definitions seem to rope a lot of other things into a consideration of “health” which I fear is its main objective—eventually to justify social engineering under the rubric of health, or rather ‘One Health.’

The authors of the piece cited above note that they have not gotten buy-in from the medical community:

“Interdisciplinary collaboration is at the heart of the One Health concept, but while the veterinarian community has embraced the One Health concept, the medical community has been much slower to fully engage, despite support for One Health from bodies such as the American Medical Association, Public Health England, and WHO. Engaging the medical community more fully in the future may require the incorporation of the One Health concept into the medical school curricula so that medical students see it as an essential component in the context of public health and infectious diseases.”

And so cheap fixes are being applied. November 3 has been designated “One Health Day” since 2016 by the One Health Commission, the One Health Platform Foundation, and the One Health Initiative. One Health Day is celebrated through One Health educational and awareness events held around the world. Students are especially encouraged to envision and implement One Health projects, and to enter them into an annual competition for the best student-led initiatives in each of four global regions.

After titling their article as if it was going to explain why One Health is important, in the end all we get is a spurious sentence asserting that it is so:

Today’s health problems are frequently complex, transboundary, multifactorial, and across species, and if approached from a purely medical, veterinary, or ecological standpoint, it is unlikely that sustainable mitigation strategies will be produced.

I went to the WHO website to see if I could get a more satisfying explanation of this concept, but was left with the same sense—that it was simply an attempt to throw every living thing, plus every ‘ecosystem’ on the planet into the One Health basket, where pretty much everything might in future be manipulated under the guise of public health. See if you get a different take:

https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1

One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.

It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animalsplants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent.

While health, food, water, energy and environment are all wider topics with sector-specific concerns, the collaboration across sectors and disciplines contributes to protect health, address health challenges such as the emergence of infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food safety and promote the health and integrity of our ecosystems.

By linking humans, animals and the environment, One Health can help to address the full spectrum of disease control – from prevention to detection, preparedness, response and management – and contribute to global health security.

The approach can be applied at the community, subnational, national, regional and global levels, and relies on shared and effective governance, communication, collaboration and coordination. Having the One Health approach in place makes it easier for people to better understand the co-benefits, risks, trade-offs and opportunities to advance equitable and holistic solutions.

It matters because One Health appears to be a necessary part of the globalist, WEF plan to corral the earth’s people, akin to vaccine passports. Please help educate those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. This needs to be stopped. The best way is by exiting the WHO. Trump started the process, which was immediately reversed by the Biden administration. We can do it again. Or they will keep coming up with cockamamie programs designed to control us under the guise of health.

December 6, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | 1 Comment

Finding mRNA in breast milk typifies how covid vaccine safety was oversold

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | November 21, 2022

On 24 Sept 2021, when CDC director Rochelle Walensky was asked if it was safe to receive a covid-19 vaccine while breastfeeding, her reply was unwavering:

“There is no bad time to get vaccinated,” said Walensky.

“Get vaccinated while you’re thinking about having a baby, before you’re thinking about having a baby, while you’re pregnant with your baby or after you’ve delivered your baby.”

But Walensky’s advice was not based on science. The safety studies had not been done.

It has been over a year since her comment, and a study published in JAMA found trace amounts of mRNA in the breast milk of mothers who’d received the Pfizer or Moderna covid-19 vaccine.

The researchers speculated that lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA, once injected into the arm, are transported via the lymphatic system to the mammary glands and expressed into breast milk.

Yes, it was a small study, and the mRNA was only detected in expressed breast milk for up to two days, but the authors stated:

Caution is warranted about breastfeeding children younger than 6 months in the first 48 hours after maternal vaccination until more safety studies are conducted.

Caution is warranted? 

Aaron Kheriaty, psychiatrist and director of the Bioethics and American Democracy Program at the Ethics and Public Policy, Washington DC, has been critical of the “jab first, ask questions later” approach.

He says Walensky’s insistence about the safety of mRNA vaccines in breastfeeding women was “completely reckless” in the absence of adequate safety data.

“We don’t have evidence that it’s harmful, but we also don’t have sufficient evidence that it is safe for your baby, so that’s the first thing that needs to be said when there’s an absence of evidence,” says Kheriaty.

There are still many unknowns. Oral ingestion of mRNA bound to lipid nanoparticles has no demonstrated safety, and the pegylated product (a design of the mRNA vaccines) when ingested, can be rapidly absorbed through the gut lining.

“The safety studies should’ve been done right out of the gate. Until you actually do the studies, you cannot, at the same time, come out and say, don’t worry, this is safe. We have to inform people of the state of the science, we should tell them that the evidence is not clear,” he adds.

Public health authorities argued that pregnant women and their babies would face a greater risk of harm from covid than from the vaccine, but Kheriaty says it was guesswork.

“We didn’t know any of that. It was a theoretical risk. Childbearing women were excluded from the clinical trials, so we did not have that data.”

Childbearing women were coerced

Adam Urato, a maternal-foetal medicine specialist at MetroWest Medical Centre, Massachusetts, says vaccines have an important role to play in medicine, but admits that many of his patients have legitimate concerns about the unknown impact of covid-19 vaccines on pregnancy and breastfeeding.

“These women make good points. They should be listened to, and their judgement and decisions respected,” says Urato.

“After all, these vaccines are synthetic chemical structures. They are made in chemical manufacturing facilities. They aren’t ‘all natural’ substances. And, honestly, we just don’t know what all of the effects are going to be from using these vaccines during pregnancy and during breastfeeding,” he adds.

Urato rejects the media narrative that childbearing women are “victims of misinformation” if they have concerns about covid-19 vaccine safety.

“My patients are intelligent, they have good instincts and I think their concerns are valid. The idea that all of these women are misled, and uninformed ‘victims of misinformation’ is an insult to them,” he says.

When vaccine mandates were imposed across the globe, many pregnant and breastfeeding women were forced to get vaccinated under penalty of losing their jobs and those who declined, were accused of being anti-vaxxers.

“Pregnant women should be allowed to make personal health choices and decide what gets injected into their body, and the decision should be free from coercion,” says Urato.

Instead, doctors are being coached on ways to handle vaccine hesitancy. In Canada, for example, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario encouraged doctors to prescribe medication to manage anxieties about the vaccine or to recommend psychotherapy.

The precautionary principle

recent article by British sociologist Robert Dingwall reminds us of the underlying principle of clinicians primum non nocere; the first duty of a doctor is to do no harm.

Dingwall writes that safety cannot be “assumed” but must be demonstrated.  He says, “doing stuff just in case” or because “it might help,” is not sufficient.

“Emergency conditions do not justify the abandonment of the precautionary principle. If action is urgent, but benefits and harms are uncertain, then the actions or innovations must be temporary, provisional, and closely monitored with a view to withdrawing or halting them if their benefits are not proportionate to their harms.

Pandemic policies would have looked very different if the precautionary principle had been applied correctly.”

Urato agrees. He says that we will look back with regret at how public health authorities treated pregnant women.

“Vaccine mandates were a really cruel, uncompassionate, and inhumane way to treat pregnant women.  The community needs to really learn from this awful episode and make sure nothing like this happens again.”

November 23, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | 3 Comments

Department of Homeland Security CISA

US Government Office of Medical Censorship and Propaganda

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | November 11, 2022

The US Department of Homeland Security (HSA) is conducting medical censorship while hiding in plain sight. The website for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has resources to engage vigilante “disinformation” police to assist HSA in their mission of silencing opinions on COVID-19 and pandemic response. The main stated target is disinformation defined as information deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country. Their toolkit allows any user to use “products” and tailor them with official logos to spread the government propagandized message:[i]

“COVID-19 DISINFORMATION TOOLKIT

These Toolkit resources are designed to help State, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) officials bring awareness to misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories appearing online related to COVID-19’s origin, scale, government response, prevention and treatment. Each product was designed to be tailored with local government websites and logos.

Download and share these resources—talking points, FAQs, outreach graphics, and posters—to help spread awareness.”

The toolkit directs well-intended users to use images, talking points, and documents to deliver a message. There is only ONE source of trusted information — you guessed it — state and local agencies who rely upon the CDC!

So, the picture is becoming more clear on how the US government operationalized a propaganda campaign on its own people from the very beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. They took these steps:

1) establish a single source of truth — the CDC,

2) weaponize CISA to declare “disinformation” their target,

3) enlist a legion of volunteer deputies without any official authority or accountability to operate within social media and all walks of life, giving public service messages telling Americans the CDC is the only trusted source of information. The converse of this assertion–anything else must be considered untrue and up for being nailed as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation.”

Don’t be surprised if FOIA-obtained documents demonstrate CISA and CDC were operating as partners in established campaigns with social media, mainstream television, print media, corporations, schools, and every aspect of life. Nothing can be more dangerous to public health. Directing all trust to a single source of medical information that is not contemporary, has no regular schedule of review or public briefings, is not transparent with data (e.g., the withheld V-Safe dataset), and has woefully lagged on major scientific developments (contagion control, testing, vaccine safety).

It’s a mind-blowing reality that our government agencies, in a planned and coordinated manner, have operationalized a plan to control information and spread propaganda in order to influence behavior. They pitted agencies against citizens and individuals against one another and set social media as the main battleground. The CDC and DHS CISA should be prime targets of US Senate and Congressional Investigations into our disastrous pandemic response.


[i] DHS CISA Publication: “We’re in This Together. Disinformation Stops With You.”

November 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Some States Say ‘No’ to Coronavirus Shots Mandate for Students Despite CDC’s Childhood Vaccine Schedule Change

By Adam Dick | RonPaul Institute | November 2, 2022

In October, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee voted to add yearly experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots to the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule. Many state governments have a history of looking to this CDC schedule to guide their imposing of shots mandates for students.

Which states will follow along to mandate the newly added shots? As we start the month following the committee’s vote, it is good to take a look across the country to see what different state governments have done to protect against or welcome the CDC schedule’s addition of these yearly shots that have proven to be neither safe nor effective and that are asserted to target a threat that has been long known to pose a miniscule risk of serious sickness or death for children. Young adults in college have also tended to be at very low risk, though you wouldn’t know it from the draconian policies many universities imposed in the name of countering coronavirus.

Compounding the absurdity and detestability of including the coronavirus shots in the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule is that the much-hyped coronavirus that people were worried about during the coronavirus scare is long gone. What is not gone is the risk of serious sickness or death from the shots.

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo advised well when he posted the following at Twitter last week:

Parents, don’t hold your breath… CDC & FDA abandoned their posts. Keep sticking with your intuition and keep those COVID jabs away from your kids.

Unfortunately, when faced with a shots mandate for school attendance, many parents may, against their better judgment, give in to the pressure and authorize their children being given the shots. Older students at universities that have more commonly imposed coronavirus shots mandates since last year have faced similarly terrible pressure to take the shots.

The good news is that, according to tracking by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), 21 state governments have taken at least some action to prohibit mandating coronavirus shots for students. Still, even where state governments have taken action against mandated coronavirus shots for students, there is in many cases room to make that protection against pushing these shots on students both stronger and broader.

Check out NASHP’s map of America where you can see information regarding states standing up against or supporting mandated coronavirus shots for students. Put the cursor over a state to find out some details regarding a particular state’s policy on mandating the shots.


Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

November 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 1 Comment