The chilling new ‘advice’ on vaccine heart risk for children
By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | December 3, 2021
I HAVE just been alerted to the Government’s new Myocarditis and pericarditis after Covid 19 vaccination: guidance for healthcare professionals, published four days ago on Monday. It makes chilling reading.
You can read it here.
First, it is a clear admission of that myocarditis is a serious post-vaccine adverse reaction risk. Second, amongst the usual and increasingly implausible disclaimers like ‘it is a rare condition’ and ‘it is usually mild or stable and most patients typically recover fully without medical treatment’, comes the terrifying admission that ‘a high percentage of children admitted to hospital with myocarditis have significant left ventricular fibrosis and no follow-up data is available yet on hospitalised patients.’
So does it recommend halting the vaccine programme for children, given ‘that no follow-up data is available yet on hospitalised patients’?
No.
In complete defiance of any precautionary principle the subtext of this disturbing document is that these are reactions that are expected, not to be alarmed by and to be lived with as an inevitable consequence of the vaccination, giving what should be self-evident advice that though ‘the majority of cases appear to be mild and self-limiting; any acutely ill or unstable patients should be referred to hospital directly’. As though an acutely ill child was not normally treated as an emergency and rushed to hospital.
Furthermore, how they can claim to know at this stage that ‘ the majority of cases are mild and self-limiting’ in the absence of rigorous and systematic follow-up health checks on such children? It beggars belief and betrays an astonishingly cavalier attitude to children.
Even more chilling, if that were possible, is the publication of this document on the very same day that the JCVI decided to recommend second vaccine doses for 12-15s.
The opening few bullet points include these gems:
· Myocarditis – significant left ventricular (LV) fibrosis has been described in a high percentage of children admitted to hospital, with a small percentage of these having non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT);
· No follow-up data is available yet on hospitalised patients;
· The long-term consequences of this condition secondary to vaccination are yet unknown, so any screening recommendations need to be balanced against the frequency and severity of the disease with the aim to prevent complications, in particular of myocarditis (arrhythmias, long term myocardial damage or heart failure).
The question is also raised as to why would a GP not refer every child or youth with suspected myocarditis or pericarditis to the paediatric team for a full assessment, especially given this is a vaccine still under emergency use authorisation requiring proper post marketing surveillance? Perhaps the government doesn’t want to find too many cases?
Please, please do anything and everything you can to bring this to the attention of parents.
Some 80 per cent of school children* are estimated to have had Covid already and so have nothing to gain from vaccination, only the potential risk of harm.
*MRC Biostatistics Unit’s statistics on infections and deaths, which are updated once a week using ONS data, estimates that 5.53 million 5-14-year-olds in England have had Covid. This is of a total population of 6,975,037.
Huge new study shows ZERO Covid deaths of healthy German kids over 4 or adolescents
By Alex Berenson | December 2, 2021
German physician-scientists reported Monday that not a single healthy child between the ages of 5 and 18 died of Covid in Germany in the first 15 months of the epidemic.
Not one.
Even including children and adolescents with preexisting conditions, only six in that age range died, the researchers found. Germany is Europe’s largest country, with more than 80 million people, including about 10 million school-age children and adolescents.
Serious illness was also extremely rare. The odds that a healthy child aged 5-11 would require intensive care for Covid were about 1 in 50,000, the researchers found. For older and younger children, the odds were somewhat higher, about 1 in 8,000.
Another eight infants and toddlers died, including five with preexisting conditions. In all, 14 Germans under 18 died of Covid, about one per month. About 1.5 million German children or adolescents were infected with Sars-Cov-2 between March 2020 and May 2021, the researchers found.
“Overall, the SARS-CoV-2-associated burden of a severe disease course or death in children and adolescents is low,” the researchers reported. “This seems particularly the case for 5-11-year-old children without comorbidities.”
The researchers reported their findings in an 18-page paper published to the medrxiv preprint server on Monday.
The data came from a registry Germany established in March 2020 intended to capture all hospitalizations of people under 18 with Covid. All German children’s hospitals, pediatric infectious disease specialists, and pediatric societies were invited to participate.
(SOURCE: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.30.21267048v1.full.pdf)
British researchers have posted similar findings, reporting that only six healthy children (including those under 18) out of 12 million died of Covid.
Given the known risks of vaccine-induced myocarditis in young men, the fact that Pfizer tested its mRNA vaccines on barely 3,000 children 5-11 and followed most of them for only weeks after the second dose, the German data again raises the question of how health authorities can possibly justify encouraging children or teenagers to be vaccinated.
But they have.
So parents will have to decide what’s best for their children (at least in those states that bar vaccine fanatics from trying to vaccinate teenagers without parental consent).
Vaccine Mandates: Unscientific, Divisive, and Enormously Costly
By Allon Friedman | Brownstone Institute | December 2, 2021
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s controversial plan to enforce COVID-19 vaccinations for large businesses—recently enjoined by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals— was ostensibly designed to minimize “deadly outbreaks of COVID-19.” The ability of COVID-19 vaccines to protect life is at the heart of the OSHA mandate and the fierce debate over similar mandates now embroiling much of the world.
Nearly 18,000 scientific papers have been published since last year on COVID-19 and vaccines, so the task of sifting through the evidence to help critically evaluate whether vaccines reduce risk of death seems daunting. It turns out, though, that two studies stand so far above the rest in terms of rigor and quality that they are uniquely suited to help us address the question of vaccine protection.
These two studies, published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine, are fundamentally distinct from the other studies in that they are the only clinical trials yet reported to randomize adults to receive either a COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) or a placebo injection and then follow them over time. Why is this important? Because the randomized controlled study design they used is the gold standard and most rigorous scientific tool available to examine cause and effect relationships between an intervention and outcome (vaccination and death, in this case).
This design also limits as much as possible the influence of other factors, whether known or unknown, that could affect the outcome. Many studies have used other designs to try and understand how well the COVID-19 vaccine protects against death, but no matter how well planned or executed, none of these studies approaches the level of scientific rigor that a well-conducted randomized controlled trial offers.
So did these two clinical trials find that vaccination reduced the risk of dying from COVID-19? The Moderna study reported one death from COVID-19 in the vaccinated group and three in the unvaccinated group, far too few to make any statistical conclusion. The Pfizer trial was even more inconclusive because the findings published in the New England Journal report (one COVID-19 death in the vaccinated group and two in the unvaccinated group) differed from what Pfizer later reported to the Food and Drug Administration, and the FDA update did not specify the number of COVID-19 deaths.
Regardless, the most relevant study endpoint is not death from COVID-19 but all-cause mortality, which counts every death that occurred during the study period. All-cause mortality is the key outcome of interest not simply because it circumvents the oftentimes subjective decision as to why someone died but also because it balances all the possible effects of a COVID-19 vaccine, both good and bad, that could influence risk of death. In other words, it allows us to quantify lives saved by the COVID-19 vaccine while taking into account potential lives lost from vaccine-related heart disease, blood clots, severe allergic reactions, and perhaps other causes.
Because results from the two trials were so similar regardless of the type of vaccine used it is helpful to merge the results. Following a combined total of 74,580 individuals, half given the COVID-19 vaccination and half given a placebo shot, over six to seven months, the two studies reported that thirty-seven people who were vaccinated died as compared to thirty-three people who received placebo.
Simply put, the very best scientific evidence currently available to mankind does not support the widely held contention that COVID-19 vaccination using the Pfizer or Moderna brands lowers risk of death, at least over the first half-year after vaccination. Interestingly, these striking findings were not reported in the main body of the papers but in supplemental sections.
There are several additional points to consider.
First, the studies’ findings were limited by the fact that their design did not take into consideration previous infection leading to subsequent immunity from COVID-19 infection, which could very well have lowered risk of death in one or both study groups.
Second, there are serious concerns over falsification of data and other data integrity issues in the Pfizer trial so this could also have influenced results. Importantly, because both trials mostly excluded groups at highest risk of dying from COVID-19 such as the frail elderly, the very obese, or those with serious chronic illnesses, we cannot assume that the vaccines do not protect against death in these populations.
Based on my clinical judgment and lesser quality supportive evidence, I generally assume when treating such patients that the vaccine’s benefits outweigh its risks and so advocate for their use, though I cannot be absolutely certain they offer protection against death because of the lack of randomized controlled evidence.
Finally, the very low rates of death from COVID-19 observed in both studies should serve to remind us of how minimal this risk is in the general population.
Perhaps the key takeaway message is that absolutist, rigid COVID-19 vaccine mandates such as that put forth by OSHA are not based on best science. Such mandates run counter to the universal medical dictum of risk stratification, whereby treatment is tailored to individuals based on individual risks and benefits to be accrued. They also violate the dominant philosophy of evidence-based medicine, which supports the use of current best evidence when making decisions about patient care.
The Pfizer and Moderna trials show that in lower risk populations (which account for most of society) COVID-19 vaccines do not reduce mortality. Therefore, vaccine mandates, which are enormously costly and terribly divisive, are a cure worse than the disease.
Allon Friedman is a Professor of Medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine and a medical researcher focusing on topics related to kidney disease. The ideas expressed in the article are entirely his own and not necessarily those of his employer.
Should employers require vaccination without any other option? Comments to OSHA close on Dec 6.
By Steve Kirsch | December 3, 2021
ICYMI, here’s the URL to file your comments before the comment period closes on December 6, 2021.
In a nutshell, OSHA believes that:
- Face coverings work and should be used.
- COVID recovered people who have not been fully vaccinated still face a grave danger from workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
- They should impose a strict vaccination mandate ( i.e., all employers required to implement mandatory vaccination policies as defined in this ETS) with no alternative compliance option.
I believe:
- The scientific evidence (Danish mask study, Bangladesh mask study) shows that face coverings are completely ineffective.
- COVID recovered people should be exempt from all rules. If COVID recovered people are re-infected, they don’t get hospitalized, don’t die, and don’t spread the virus to others. The CDC has no counter-examples.
- The vaccines kill more people than they save for all age groups according to the VAERS data. And even in Pfizer’s own study, there were significantly more deaths in the vaccine group than then in the placebo group. There is ZERO scientific evidence the vaccines save lives when you are looking for a reduction in all cause mortality. Businesses should BE PROHIBITED from requiring vaccination.
One of us is wrong. If you agree with me, please consider taking a few minutes to file a comment.
‘Post Pandemic Stress Disorder’: We have now reached the “cover up” stage of the vaccination campaign
el gato malo – bad cattitude – december 3, 2021
THIS is just staggering in its predatory mendacity.
there is not a shred of evidence to support it nor any remotely plausible reason to even put forward such a hypothesis.
frankly, it’s patently absurd and has no precedent in other stressful events. being bombed nightly during the blitz did not cause this.
this is a desperate lie from a desperate class of state run doctors desperate to shift the blame for that which they have wrought.
nothing more.
you can tell a lot about what people are afraid of when they start answering questions that were not really asked.
it goes double when the answers don’t make any sense.
there is no question that lockdowns, social alienation and ostracization, etc have caused piles of mental health problems. this is what makes it a great smokescreen. but there is no way that’s translating to heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, and myo- and pericarditis in young people like this. it doesn’t do that (or at least not to any meaningful extent).
what DOES do that are these vaccines. and it concentrates MOST in the young and, seemingly, in athletes.
these truths are gaining currency. this is a clear counter-lie/backfire set to try to head them off and provide a false explanation for these increasingly unavoidably obvious outcomes.
there is a point where one cannot plead incompetence any longer, a line across which one becomes deliberately pernicious and predatory and seeks to lie to save their own hide at the expense of others.
reasonable people might argue about where that is.
but this is WAY over that line. it’s pure propaganda and cannot even be couched as “it’s for their own good.” this is an attempt to mask and shift the cause of serious harm while allowing that harm to continue.
it’s just the next extension of this already failing lie: (previously debunked HERE)
it’s really very simple. this heart risk outcome has become too prevalent to hide. so they need to shift the blame and they are willing to lie to the people and keep harming them to do so.
period.
It’s not surprising that the FDA wants to slow-walk the release of COVID jab reaction data
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | December 2, 2021
It took the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 108 days to review all the data Pfizer/BioNTech submitted in order to gain FDA approval for its Comirnaty COVID shot, which was licensed August 3, 2021.
Considering the agency claims there are 329,000 pages of data, the fact that they were able to read, analyze and draw conclusions about its safety and effectiveness in just 108 days — about 80,000 pages a month — is no small miracle. They must employ some very efficient speed readers.
And that is why the FDA’s claim that it now needs half a century to review the documents before they can release them to the public doesn’t seem very credible. Even Reuters has expressed shock, and its former CEO is on the board of Pfizer.1
Expedited FOIA Request for Comirnaty Data
In September 2021, a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FDA to obtain the documentation used to approve Comirnaty.
This includes safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports and lists of active and inactive ingredients. Approximately 400 additional FOIA requests by other individuals for all or part of this information have also been filed.2
In their FOIA application, the PHMPT asked the agency to expedite release of the documents — a reasonable request, considering we have no raw data and the shots are being pushed on children as young as 5.
FOIA guidelines include two conditions upon which a request may be expedited. One is “if the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose a threat to someone’s life or physical safety,” which one could easily argue is the case here.
The second condition is “if there is an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information.” This too is clearly applicable.
“During a time when COVID-19 vaccine mandates are being implemented over the objection of those that have questions about the data and information supporting the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer Vaccine, and individuals with these questions are being expelled from employment, school, transportation, and the military, the public has an urgent and immediate need to have access to this data,” the PHMPT said in its request.3
FDA Now Wants 55 Years to Release COVID Jab Data
When, after a month, the FDA still had not responded to the FOIA request, the PHMPT sued.4 The FDA is now asking a federal judge to allow them to delay the full release of all documents until 2076 — 55 years from now.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney who represents the FDA in this case, the agency will be able to “provide more pages to more requesters” if allowed to stick to a rolling schedule of 500 pages per month, “thus avoiding a system where a few large requests monopolize finite processing resources.”
They claim they only have 10 employees assigned to FOIA releases, and before material can be released, an FDA official has to go through them and redact any information that might reveal personal information about clinical trial participants and any confidential business or trade secret information.
The 1967 FOIA law requires federal agencies to respond to FOIAs within 20 days unless “unusual circumstances” exist that prevent a timely release. Circumstances that might warrant an extended release schedule include:
- Instances where response records must be searched for and collected from an entity other than the office processing the request
- Situations involving “voluminous” amounts of records that must be compiled, and
- Instances requiring consultation with another federal agency that has a substantial interest in the information
The DOJ attorney points out that the court has allowed for a 500-page maximum per month release schedule in other cases, and should allow the FDA the same leeway here.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue the agency should be able to release everything by early March 2022, noting the FDA employs 18,000 people and has an annual budget of $6 billion. Between 2008 and 2017, the agency processed 114,938 FOIA requests, of which it granted 72.4%, either fully or partially.
Of those, 39.8% were designated as “complex,” and 81.5% of these complex FOIA requests were granted in 61 days or more. Considering these historical statistics, a backlog of 400 FOIA requests doesn’t appear excessively burdensome.
FDA’s Foot-Dragging Is Suspicious
Then there’s the sticky issue that it has already proven its capacity for rapid review. Aaron Siri of the law firm Siri & Glimstad wrote in the PHMPT’s court filing:5,6,7,8
“This 108-day period is the same amount of time it took the FDA to review the responsive documents for the far more intricate task of licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine …
It took the FDA precisely 108 days from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure to when the FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine. Taking the FDA at its word, it conducted an intense, robust, thorough, and complete review and analysis of those documents in order to assure that the Pfizer vaccine was safe and effective for licensure.
While it can conduct that intense review of Pfizer’s documents in 108 days, it now asks for over 20,000 days to make these documents available to the public …
The entire purpose of the FOIA is to assure government transparency. It is difficult to imagine a greater need for transparency than immediate disclosure of the documents relied upon by the FDA to license a product that is now being mandated to over 100 million Americans under penalty of losing their careers, their income, their military service status, and far worse.”
Shocking Revelations in First Batch of FOIA Docs
Two months after the lawsuit against it was filed, the FDA released a batch of 91 pages,9 and if this batch is any indication, it’s not surprising that the FDA wants to slow-walk the release of the rest. In a November 21, 2021, substack article, Kyle Becker cites directly from the released documents:10
“’It is estimated that approximately [REDACTED] doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorization for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021,’ the document states. ‘Cumulatively, through 28 February 2021, there was a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events …
Most cases (34,762) were received from United States (13,739), United Kingdom (13,404) Italy (2,578), Germany (1913), France (1506), Portugal (866).’ Below is a General Overview of the reported outcomes to the Adverse Events:
The chart lists 1,223 fatal outcomes in the Relevant Cases. Interestingly, the age range with the most relevant cases was 31-50 years old, which is not the age group considered to be at high risk from COVID-19.”
It’s worth noting that by redacting the specified number of doses shipped, it becomes more difficult to assess the potential ratio of injury. Still, even without that, 42,086 reports of injury, including 1,223 fatalities, are a significant signal in and of itself, especially when you consider that the 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled after 25 deaths.
Glaring Disregard for Life
It’s even more disturbing when you consider that those 42,086 reports were received by Pfizer in just the first 2.5 months of the shot being rolled out. Pfizer even acknowledges the abnormal rate of injuries, but then sweeps it aside as being of no consequence. As noted by Siri, in a November 19, 2021 substack article, in which he discusses this first batch of documents:11
“Pfizer explains, on page 6, that ‘Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, [Pfizer] has prioritized the processing of serious cases…’
Pfizer ‘has also taken a [sic] multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports’ including ‘increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues’ and ‘has onboarded approximately [REDACTED] additional fulltime employees (FTEs).’
Query why it is proprietary to share how many people Pfizer had to hire to track all of the adverse events being reported shortly after launching its product …
But no cause for alarm since Pfizer explains to the FDA: ‘The findings of these signal detection analyses are consistent with the known safety profile of the vaccine.’ So, if they knew these issues were going to arise, then why didn’t they appear to have enough staff to process this expected volume of reports?
The grand conclusion by Pfizer to the FDA: ‘The data do not reveal any novel safety concerns or risks requiring label changes and support a favorable benefit risk profile of to the BNT162b2 vaccine.’ Nothing to see here.”
Clearly, there’s plenty to be seen in the hundreds of thousands of documents Pfizer/BioNTech submitted to the FDA. The fact that the FDA is stonewalling and wants 55 years to redact them before they’re fit for public view is telling in and of itself.
You don’t need a fanciful imagination to comprehend what they might be hiding. It almost seems they want to make sure the responsible parties are all dead by the time the full data set is out in the open and people can be held to account for their decisions. Let’s hope the judge is more interested in public health than protecting the FDA’s dirty secrets.
Sources and References
- 1 ZeroHedge November 23, 2021
- 2, 7 Daily Mail November 19, 2021, Updated November 20, 2021
- 3, 4 The Defender November 19, 2021
- 5 US District Court Northern District of Texas Case 4:21-cv-01058-P
- 6 US District Court Northern District of Texas Case 4:21-cv-01058-P Second Joint Report
- 8 The Vaccine Reaction November 21, 2021
- 9 PHMPT.org Pfizer documents
- 10 thekylebecker.substack.com November 21, 2021
- 11 aaronsiri.substack.com November 19, 2021
The case for compulsory vaccinations is dead… Omicron just killed it.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | December 2, 2021
Yesterday, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, held a press conference where she talked at length about her “concerns” over the EU’s low vaccination rate, and how best to “fix” it.
When asked about making vaccines mandatory, she said:
It is understandable and appropriate to lead this discussion now – how we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union. This needs discussion, this needs a common approach, but I think it’s a discussion that has to be led.”
Adding:
Two or three years ago, I would have never thought to witness what we see right now, that we have this horrible pandemic, we have the life-saving vaccines but they are not being used adequately everywhere. And thus this is an enormous health cost,”
Of course, the idea that the EU nations are going to “debate” mandatory vaccinations is a joke, they are more likely to enforce them no matter what.
But any real, rational debate was over as soon as the EU and the vaccine manufacturers both admitted that the vaccines do not work.
By any pre-2021 definition, the Covid “vaccines” are not actually vaccines. From the beginning, it has been widely admitted that they don’t stop you getting the disease, and they don’t stop you spreading it.
Every day we hear about some famous person or other testing positive “despite being vaccinated”.
The EU has already hinted that their vaccination passes (which, ironically enough, they appear to have been planning for “two or three years” despite von der Leyen claiming they never saw the pandemic coming), will expire in nine months.
Why will they expire?
Because the “protection” allegedly conferred by the vaccine wears off.
How fast does it wear off?
The alleged emergence of the Omicron variant makes the situation even worse, from the establishment point of view. Indeed, it could be argued the first real casualty of the Omicron outbreak was narrative cohesion.
Experts are already warning that the Omicron variant may be resistant to the vaccines, and the CEO of Moderna added his voice to this chorus yesterday, saying:
I think it’s going to be a material drop [in vaccine effectiveness]. I just don’t know how much because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to…are like ‘this is not going to be good’.”
Even if these warnings prove incorrect, and the mainstream suddenly backtracks and starts reporting that the vaccines work “better than expected” to combat Omicron, that’s irrelevant.
They have just admitted that the “vaccines” could stop working the moment there is a new mutation. And viruses mutate a lot.
So, they know the vaccine’s don’t work very well, they know they will wear off, and they know any new mutations could stop them working completely.
The only thing they don’t know is what the long term side effects of the vaccines are, a fact admitted by Pfizer themselves in their supply contracts:
the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known
Now, here’s the all-purpose disclaimer: This is not admitting that Covid19 is dangerous, the pandemic real or in any other way endorsing the narrative. Rather, and this is important, it’s pointing out that even on their own terms the establishment’s plan for compulsory vaccination does not make any sense at all.
The current narrative is that:
- The vaccines do not confer immunity or prevent transmission.
- What beneficial effect they do have wears off, they don’t know when.
- They probably don’t protect against new variants or mutations.
- The vaccines have unknown longterm side effects.
These are not fringe ideas or baseless theories, they are the self-contradictory supposed “facts” of the schizophrenic covid story.
Going entirely by the mainstream’s own words, and completely on their own terms, any possible case for mandatory vaccinations is dead.
The “Omicron variant” killed it, even if it never killed anything else.
Scenarios in Response to the New War Against Humanity
By Doug E. Steil | December 2, 2021
In light of recent developments in the western world it has become abundantly evident to most informed observers that a war against the general population has been launched under the guise of counteracting a viral pandemic. Through a process of coordinated incrementalism governmental efforts have focused on implementing a totalitarian population control system rather than appropriately targeting public health problems associated with a limited viral outbreak.
A key mechanism in this control process has involved coercive means to inject as many people as possible with an experimental gene therapy concoction with proven toxicity, in some cases deadly, which however has been ineffective in its claimed suppression of viral infection and transmission to others. The established term “vaccination” was misappropriated to mislead the public into believing that getting these shots would lead to salvation by protecting themselves and others around them. These toxic doses were authorized for emergency use a year ago based on various fraudulent misrepresentations, which included relying on false test results, suppressing viable treatment protocols, such as those published by physician Dr. Peter McCullough, rigging trial designs and aborting prematurely, and manipulating statistical interpretations in a manner that created the impression they were effective when they were not. Though their producers acknowledged unforeseen effects they demanded contractual indemnification against bad outcomes. The failure to properly inform the public about the facts surrounding these substances, including known and potential adverse effects, in conjunction with the aggressively coercive measures to compel millions of people to submit to receiving them into their bodies, constitutes crimes against humanity in accordance with the Nuremberg Code, established in 1947.
At least technically, thus far getting these toxic injections was voluntary, but a substantial portion of the public saw through the scam or were reservedly skeptical, for which they have been publicly vilified in a vicious defamation campaign propagated by the mass media, operating in concert with the pharmaceutical industry and governments. Only a few days ago – November 19 in Austria and November 30 in Germany – a critical red line was crossed through announcements by public officials, of impending requirements for everybody, including kids, to get these toxic injections, purportedly against a virus from Wuhan that has long since mutated. Today Angela Merkel expressed her endorsement of such measures, though she will no longer be in power to vote for them. The mantra has been simply that this was necessary – indeed “the only solution” – in order to increase the overall so-called “vaccination rate” in the population, as if though that could somehow solve ongoing health problems. Since there is no substantive evidence for these sensationalistic claims, it equates to pure political demagoguery. Yet, contrary to this transparently false claim, mandatory injections, possibly on a repetitive basis, would only exacerbate the current situation purportedly occurring in emergency rooms or intensive care units at hospitals because the shots do not provide any remedy but cause harm instead, in some cases almost immediately, in many cases cumulatively. Essentially, this highly controversial mandate amounts to a subversive extermination campaign in the long run, deriving from likely cases of infertility and decreased life expectancy. In order to deflect from their previous lies, officials have chosen to raise the stakes an thus declared war against humanity.
Such an egregious attack as this is unprecedented in recent memory, so it may be difficult for many to understand what is occurring, right in front of their eyes. There may be a prevailing inclination toward cognitive dissonance, but it is preferable to assess various means to counteract such ominous developments within the full scope of possible scenarios that may arise. Below are five situations, beginning with the most obvious. Subsequent response scenarios represent an escalatory progression. Though they are not equally likely to occur and may be less specific to some regions, such results cannot be ruled out entirely when considering the volatile social conditions that are caused by governments that have intentionally gone rogue. In the pursuit of conquest, they have split and destabilized society, a recurring modus operandi when regarded in a historical context, back to Philip II of Macedon and Julius Caesar – divide et impera.
• Legal Challenges
The stated rationales for implementing compulsory injections of toxic substances, euphemistically referred to as “mass vaccination”, cannot be legally justified under any circumstances under existing protections, therefore the arguments presented to the public are all based on provably false premises or wishful thinking. They have been repeated so often, that many have already internalized them to be functionally true. At their core have been false promises of immunity, appeals to social solidarity, moral self-righteousness, and an unproven notion of easing the potential demand for medical services. If only everybody had volunteered to get the shots, the claim goes, the outbreak would have been eradicated; therefore mandatory injections are the only solution. None of this is true; on the contrary the data show that case hospitalization rates increase in correlation with the proportion of administered injections. Yet even if it were true, there are basic legal protections in place worldwide that forbid such mandates.
Many people understand this as self-evident and therefore expect the legal process to work, as it should, in theory. They may regard the announcements as typical hot air from politicians as a tactical means of leveraging their authority to exert additional pressure on those people who had not made up their minds yet about this vital question and presume the judicial reviews will enforce a reversal. Though this would be a reasonable expectation if the facts and the law were followed, the problem is that the legal process has become hopelessly corrupted. Reiner Füllmich, one of the founders of the Corona Investigative Committee, which has broadcast the 80 weekly sessions it has held thus far, has repeatedly confirmed that the German legal system has been so thoroughly corrupted, that bringing forth such matters before a system with an Anglo-American legal tradition makes more sense. Contemporary judicial rulings in Germany can be so out of touch with reality that it is difficult to imagine that decisions in prior totalitarian regimes could have possibly been any worse. Even so, it is still necessary to formally proceed through this avenue in order to be able to justify taking additional steps if it should turn out that cynical expectations of an inherently corrupted system are confirmed. There is also the possibility that the time it takes to submit to the judicial review process will result in the matter becoming moot, so that the stated premises for the mandates no longer obtain and are formally withdrawn.
The sheer suddenness and public lying that accompanied these announcements, which were completely contrary to repeated promises made by these same politicians who then proclaimed there was no alternative, shows they deserve no trust. They will say and do whatever they feel will defer the truth from emerging and in the meantime protect themselves from embarrassment. Once they have gone so far as to thrown aside basic principles – having in effect become criminals of the worst kind – one can no longer expect to reverse themselves in response to appeals to decency.
• Passive Resistance
This is an effective path that many skeptics and opponents of totalitarian edicts have already chosen. Examples of this have been the numerous work stopages among US airline pilots, or hospital staff quitting their jobs. In the Italian port cities of Trieste and Genoa dock workers have gone on extended strikes in response to onerous governmental impositions still falling short of universal mandates to submit to toxic injections.
During the most recent session of the Corona Investigative Committee four specialists working in Austria, of which three are physicians, presented responses to the Austrian announcement of future mandates a week earlier, which was followed by large demonstrations in Vienna on the next day, which were said to have involved the participation of more than a hundred thousand protesters. The fourth guest , an attorney, started a political party that immediately received sufficient acclaim to be represented in the provincial government of Upper Austria. He stressed the importance of mass resistance and announced liaison efforts with various unions in addition to forming new union representation.
Mass strikes and roadblocks associated with the yellow vest movement in France have shown how determined efforts by a coordinated group of dedicated individuals can force the government to back down under persistent pressure. For people who understand why they have adamantly refused to be injected with a toxic substance for the sake of a failing mass experiment the imposition of a mandate would be regarded as an existential issue. Sane people do not risk the threat of premature death, severe sickness or disability for the sake of satisfying the power egos of corrupted political puppets and greedy profiteers.
Big demonstrations have recently taken place in numerous cities in the Netherlands, France, Britain, Australia, Croatia, Warsaw, and many other locations. Even during the cold winter months hundreds of thousands of protesters will go out onto the streets to show their strength.
• Active Rebellion
On July 20, 1944, as part of Operation Valkyrie, Claus Von Stauffenberg participated in a plot to kill Adolf Hitler and other leading cohorts by means of a suitcase bomb placed in a conference room. The bombing killed a stenographer instantly but the coup failed because the intended targets survived. After the follow-up arrests nearly five thousand individuals, including Von Stauffenberg were executed. That particular assassination attempt continues to be commemorated in contemporary times on the date of the anniversary. Von Stauffenberg is glorified in the German media as a hero even though he was a German nationalist and purportedly expected to replace Hitler with another authoritarian government, though ruled instead by aristocrats like himself. Moreover, his co-plotters had earlier helped Hitler come to power and shared many of the same policy goals. In other words, the disagreement they had with the government was about methodology and style, along with certain details, rather than wanting to transform society along a new democratic course of redemption. In other words, had their coup attempt been successful, there was likely to be far less ideological change than occurred as a consequence of the coup against John F Kennedy nearly six decades ago in Dallas, in which Lyndon B Johnson was a plotter and beneficiary. From a judicial perspective, it is said, the German government had not blatantly broken any existing laws. In any case, an implicit question that the German media do not appear to have answered in this context is: from what specific time onward in the history of that regime would it have been legitimate, without possessing any benefit of foresight, for Von Stauffenberg to have participated in multiple assassinations, and how many additional functionaries would they likely have executed subsequently?
It is relevant to bear in mind such conjecture because the fourth part in Article 20 of Germany’s Basic Law contains an essential element that explicitly states that all Germans have a right to resistance against anyone who proceeds to eliminate the specific democratic and social order enumerated in the prior three sentences, if other remedies are not possible. The first twenty articles have a special status; they cannot be revoked. What was openly suggested by the next chancellor and successor to Merkel, Olaf Scholz from the Social Democratic Party, was a significant milestone in German post-war history because this unprecedented proposal, which was universally acknowledged by everyone to be unconstitutional and unworkable, would constitute a blatant violation of Article 2, guaranteeing bodily integrity, in case it were ever to be imposed upon the population. This explains why nobody has ever gone this far, to step over the red line. They were previously reluctant to do so, but now they are playing with fire. If legal challenges to this usurpation of the most basic human principles are thwarted under some imaginary and invalid pretext, the circumstances premised in Article 20 will legally enable and authorize Germans to resist against all those who brought about the transgression. It should be noted that exercising such resistance does not – and logically cannot – rule out the use of force.
Understandably there is little legal precedence for how the right to resistance may play out, except for abiding by the general principle of proportionality, which itself is somewhat vague in the context of potentially existential measures being threatened against a substantial portion of the population. It is known that there are clandestine groups who are armed because they have been anticipating a potential situation like this, just as in the United States millions of Americans bear firearms to protect against potential tyranny pursuant to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. One can imagine that the imposition of an illegal law that would essentially force virtually the entire population to get toxic injections, against their will, so that their life span will be shortened, will simply not be accepted by many. Official jurists may claim now that they are not threatening to forcibly inject dissenters, this is just a “cute” technicality, and there is no way to know if that claim will be revoked a few weeks or months later, as the totalitarian escalation continues. Though utilizing violence as a means of exercising the right to resist, as distinct from self defense, is not rooted in jurisprudence, its use is fueled instead by image ideation in the media as well as historical narratives. This can lower the threshold level for some individuals to criminally act out their rage. Only a few weeks ago, in late September, a person not wearing a face mask got triggered at a gas station by being told to wear one, based on a valid ordinance. This made him so angry that he came back with a gun and killed the employee, a student who was working there part-time. While some may act out their resentment impulsively, others might choose to express their resistance selectively. If a top-level politician were to be targeted in a violent way, this would surely provoke a disproportionate and unwelcome response.
An episode in German history highlights how easily and quickly things can get out of control. On November 7, 1938 Herschel Grynszpan, then a 17-year old Jew, assassinated the German diplomat Ernst Vom Rath at the German embassy in Paris, through five shots into the abdomen, on behalf of persecuted Jewry, as he claimed immediately thereafter. Grynszpan was living in Paris illegally as a stateless person and had gained access to the embassy by falsely claiming that he had valuable secret information that he wanted to share with a top official. That was the event that triggered the Kristallnacht in various cities in Germany two days later.
An important prerequisite for introducing and enhancing totalitarianism is to manufacture and cultivate a scapegoat group that is to be reviled by the general population. Over the past few months German media have been denouncing all those who refuse to get toxic shots as somehow being primarily responsible for the fact that hospitals are having to deal with patients complaining of respiratory problems, most of whom, if they are below seventy years old, have a weakened immune system due to overweight or obesity issues. A common media ploy to reinforce this fabricated hatred is to have reporters go around town with camera and microphone and film ordinary people on the street giving their opinion about these awful “unvaccinated” people. The negative attitudes will then be selected to be shown on television, providing a feedback loop to convey that such opinions are perfectly legitimate. The next phase in this perception management scheme then entails presenting the public with skewed opinion poll results, based on undisclosed methodology, which embolden legislators to invoke public support for unpopular and inherently illegitimate measures.
A necessary premise for maintaining democracy is for the population to be properly informed, not brainwashed with lies and hate, so they can make valid decisions based on facts. Yet democracy is in the process of being subverted. Two of Germany’s top weekly publications with a daily online presence, Der Spiegel and Die Zeit, based in Hamburg, have both received generous direct funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to their web site. Not surprisingly, these publications have been among the more vicious disseminators of lies and vituperations against conscientious dissidents. German politicians in conjunction with the media have thus already prepared the stage for future expressions of street violence by disgruntled individuals and may themselves become caught up in such activity due to their undermining of law and democracy. For instance, as in the United States, especially as occurred during riots in the summer of 2020, it is not uncommon for one political group to stage a peaceful public demonstration. An opposing group, virtually always self-proclaimed “leftists”, nowadays including hoodlums with an affinity toward Antifa, will announce a counter-demonstration with the goal of preventing the first group to exercise their right to march along a predetermined route. Police and journalists often get caught up in the violence perpetrated by the second group of counter-demonstrators, for which the first group then gets blamed. Such activity on the streets is representative of an unfortunate societal breakdown on a larger scale. This development is exactly what enemies of Germany, such as the Green Party, which has been characterized by distinctive totalitarian flavors since its inception in 1980, would relish to spread. Its activists seek to capitalize on such situations to attain increasingly tighter control. It will be interesting to see how exercising the right to resistance will play out next year.
• Paramilitary Rejection
In a few cases a ruling elite exercising power through government can become so corrupt and disliked that the military temporarily takes over and becomes welcomed for their intercession by a substantial portion of the population. The best example of this practice is Thailand, where perennial military takeovers have a different manifestation than in African or Latin American nations. In many smaller European countries the military has taken on a more subdued role since the likelihood of fighting defensive wars to defend their own territory has decreased. This may be one explanation for a recent trend toward female defense ministers who lack military experience. Yet this should not mean they should feel or become irrelevant. They can assert themselves in special emergency situations such as natural weather catastrophes but also as a necessary back-up of police force activity. They are also particularly well equipped to secure borders to neighboring countries and airports, as well as their national radio and television broadcasting facilities, just in case a corrupt government were to become carried away with excessively abusing power to the detriment of a large segment of the population. This readiness for such contingencies may be because its leadership and soldiers have taken an oath that they tend to take more seriously than career politicians do.
A few hours after it was announced that the Austrian government would aim to implement a general requirement for experimental gene therapy through toxic shots, and a call by a leading opposition politician for large demonstrations against such plans the following day in the center of Vienna, there was an interesting report from The Free Thought Project under the following headline:
The following is excerpted from the news story:
“The police and the army refuse to control the health pass in the name of ‘freedom and human dignity.’ They will join a large demonstration against compulsory confinement on November 20, 2021 in Vienna” […]
“Austrian Armed Forces Union (FGÖ) President Manfred Haidinger followed suit and joined in a letter published on 14 November. He intends to “defend fundamental rights and freedoms”. The FGÖ specifies that “everyone” is authorized to demonstrate, even in the event of confinement! The obligation of control imposed by the Minister of the Interior, Karl Nehammer has already been rejected by the police union. In addition, the Union of Austrian Armed Forces announces that they will participate in this great gathering in Vienna.”
The chairman of the Social Democratic Trade Unions (FSG) and the Police Union, Hermann Greylinger said in an interview that the police don’t want to carry out these checks.
Legislators in parliaments propose and pass laws with the tacit presumption that such legislation will ultimately be enforced by the state power apparatus. However, if such legislators or judges should step too far out of bounds by attempting to prevent large demonstrations, as was the case in Berlin a few months ago, or by announcing a determination to implement potentially dangerous and transparently illegal mandates, then it is a duty for those who would be encumbered with the repercussions to announce that they will refuse to play along. This public rejection by the union organization, on behalf of the armed forces and police, appears to have been suppressed by the Austrian state media because it obviously represented a slap in the face of governmental overreach.
In Austria a larger segment of the population has refused to get their recommended shots than in Germany, where the population is more compliant toward authority. It remains to be seen whether the current crew of party leaders who went along with the announced mandates will retain their functions in the wake of planned public resistance and police rejection of these government plans.
• Indicting Instigators
Based on numerous media presentations, no group of individuals is more strongly associated with the ongoing totalitarian campaign to push toxic shots onto the world’s population, to bring on a new era, than Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum organization, which has hosted annual assemblies in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos in January, attended by influential business people, economists, top politicians, media, and technical functionaries from non-governmental organizations among others. Schwab provoked much controversy and revulsion for the contents of his book Great Reset, published last year. If the self-contradictory pronouncements in the wake of the fabricated virus pandemic made little sense it was because they were merely part of a larger playbook, according to which the population is to be manipulated to accept a new utopian order referred to as Trans-humanism. A reduced population surviving the envisaged transformation is to merge with new technology and thereby extend themselves. Trans-humanism is the fantasy goal and Technocracy is the ideological basis to get there.
At the end of Session #79 in the weekly Corona Investigative Committee meeting Patrick M Wood, author of Technocracy Rising, explained the genesis of this movement in the early 1930s, which for a while was centered at Columbia University. It has merged with the Trilateral Commission, the UN Sustainability initiative, and runs on a parallel track with the “Climate Change” cult. As a few privileged elitists will be able to extend their lives, everybody else is regarded as cattle. This ideological movement is indeed inhumane, and everybody is supposed to accept this. In this regard one is reminded of the book Animal Farm by George Orwell, or just the most basic Talmudic principles. Wood provides a cohesive explanation detailing how various observed political phenomena, that do not fall within a binary left / right paradigm, fit together within the overarching scheme of Technocracy. Klaus Schwab takes on the role of cult leader, or guru, and attendees of the World Economic Forum are the devotees.
As has been the case with other cultist leaders, affluent people tend to be attracted to the exclusive movement and donate much of their wealth to spread the message. As a totalitarian ideology Technocracy stipulates that the entire world population must become injected with one of the toxic substances being foisted onto the public. Many of the world’s current leaders, such as Merkel, Macron, Newsom, Blair, and many more, began their political careers in the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program many years ago and are now collectively well networked. They have long since become activist devotees serving the Technocracy agenda.
It is not hard to surmise that Schwab is regarded as a most odious individual. A couple of years ago his request to receive regular or at least honorary Swiss citizenship was rejected, even though he has purportedly lived there for six decades from the time he studied at the university in Zurich. (By contrast, pop singer Tina Turner got full Swiss citizenship a few years ago without apparent difficulty.) While at Harvard University, he became a protégée of Henry Kissinger. Under his tutelage Schwab began his career by organizing a meeting for executives. Subsequent gatherings eventually became the annual World Economic Forum.
There are plenty of industry groups that have lost out to both the “Climate Change” and “Corona Pandemic” constructs, including oil and gas, airlines, aviation, automobiles, hotels, casinos, cruise ships, restaurants, and entertainment, among others. The executives from these organizations are not likely to be Schwab devotees and would presumably be happy to see his influence neutralized. In Switzerland, where high-end tourism still plays an important economic role, business has gone down significantly due to measures that restrict personal contacts. It is unclear why all these sectors have not seemed to have been able to organize a coordinated response to the pernicious agenda of Schwab and his cohorts.
Just a few weeks ago, in mid-November, rumors were circulating that Schwab had been arrested at his residence in Cologny in the canton of Geneva, due to a criminal complaint, and was charged with fraud for his involvement in the Covid scandal. The initial report was not officially corroborated, and multiple fact-checker sites then claimed it was a case of false news. The denials were very specific, which left open the possibility that perhaps he may have been subject to questioning in an investigation. However, given that crimes against humanity are serious transgressions, so also are acts that aid and abet such major crimes. In view of Schwab’s central position in this criminal enterprise in association with Nuremberg Code violations, it is hard to conceive that there would not be sufficient evidence upon which to indict Schwab as a titular coordinator or crime boss.
Though the annual meeting early this year was cancelled, as was a planned event in Singapore, the World Economic Forum web site shows the date for its next meeting to be between 17-22 January in 2022, only a few weeks away. The theme is to be “Working Together, Restoring Trust”, which at least tacitly acknowledges a loss of trust. The quickest way to end the loss of trust of the thinking and critical people toward their governments would be to arrest and charge Schwab and his collaborators at the upcoming Davos meeting under criminal charges that would lead to prosecutions. This would be an easy operation since there are only two access roads to the town, from the north and south, when the Flüela Pass, which connects to the Engadin Valley, is closed for the winter. Last Sunday Swiss citizens held a referendum on the issue of a tightened Covid policy proposal, including required documentation, which a majority of voters endorsed. Based on the election results, a majority of voters in many rural regions were opposed. People who join the police forces, which would execute a mass arrest order, tend to come from these more conservative regions, especially in the eastern and central parts of the country.
More likely than such a mass arrest would be for an international tribunal to be held, to collect evidence, in a similar manner that the Corona Investigative Committee has been engaging in fact-finding sessions for over a year. As more people understand the direct link between ongoing totalitarian offensives by numerous governments and the influence that Schwab and his associates have over these totalitarian public officials, it will become increasingly difficult for the remaining people of good conscience who are in a position to act, to do a favor for humanity and help end this new war.
To summarize, everybody concerned about the future of humanity can play at least a minor role in spreading the message of resistance to increase public awareness about what is unfolding and what ought to be done in response.
Australia has recorded 11 times more Deaths in 8 months following Covid-19 Vaccination than it has Deaths following every other Vaccine combined in over 50 years
THE EXPOSÉ | NOVEMBER 25, 2021
Serious questions have been raised as to why medicine regulators have not pulled the Covid-19 vaccines from distribution to the general public after data on the Australian Government site revealed that there have been eleven times as many deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines over a period of 8 months than deaths reported as adverse reactions to every other available vaccine combined over a period of 50 years.
The Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is the medicine regulator for the Australian Government, and as part of the Department of Health, the TGA regulates the quality, supply, and advertising of medicines, pathology devices, medical devices, blood products and most other therapeutics.
However, a Freedom of Information request made by Doctors for Covid Ethics back in February 2021 revealed that the TGA never saw the extremely limited study data for the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 vaccine prior to granting it emergency approval and deeming it safe to be injected into the arms of Australians.
The TGA originally attempted to suppress the FOI request by requesting a 6-month extension in view of the amount of work required to respond satisfactorily. But after a complaint was made to the Office of the Information Commissioner the TGA responded confirming that they had never seen or requested the patient data from Pfizer and simply accepted Pfizer’s report of their study as fact, despite their proven history of fraudulent claims.
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc., have been fined £3,573,465,793.97p since the year 2000 for over 80 offences / violations.
This includes over £26.1million in Kickbacks and Bribery offences, £870million in False Claims offences and £2.5billion in healthcare related offences.
The TGA’s admission that they have never seen the raw trial data for the Pfizer jab prior to granting it approval, and Pfizer’s scandalous history of fraudulent claims and bribes, may go some way to explaining why the TGA have so far refused to pull the Covid-19 injections from distribution to the public, despite 6.5 times more adverse reactions, and 11 times more deaths being reported due to the jabs over a period of 8 months than have been reported to all other available vaccines combined since the 1st January 1971.
The TGA has a ‘Database of Adverse Event Notifications‘ that allows visitors to search adverse events reported for medicines including vaccines. The reports come from a wide range of sources, including members of the public, GPs, other health professionals and the therapeutic goods industry.
By searching the database for ‘Vaccine’ and deselecting the four available Covid-19 vaccines, with a date parameter of ‘1st January 1971 – 11th November 2021‘ the following results can be found –
Source
Over those 50 years and 9 and a half months there have been 76 different vaccines available to the Australian public (excluding Covid-19 vaccines), and there have been 19,205 individual reports to all 76 vaccines combined, including 59 deaths. The TGA state that they think there is a possibility that the available vaccines caused 12,366 of those reported adverse reactions.
By carrying out a new search on the database for ‘Covid-19 Vaccine‘, with a date parameter of ‘1st December 2020 – 11th November 2021’ the following results can be found –
Source
The results shows that there have been 81,318 reports made against the available Covid-19 vaccines, including 656 deaths. The TGA state that they they think there is a possibility that the Covid-19 vaccines caused 79.953 of those reported adverse reactions.
The first Covid-19 vaccine was administered in Australia in February 2021. This means that there have been been 11 times more deaths, 4 times more reports of adverse reactions, and 6.5 times more reports of adverse reactions that the TGA suspects were more than likely due to the Covid-19 vaccines, than have been reported to all other available vaccines combined over a period of 50 years and 9.5 months.
According to the TGA database, the leading cause of death due to the Covid-19 vaccines has been an ‘adverse event following immunisation’. The second leading cause of death has been dyspnoea (difficulty breathing), followed by pulmonary embolism (blocked blood vessel in the lung), then cerebrovascular accident (stroke), and then cardiac arrest.
These numbers raise serious questions as to why the Covid-19 vaccines have not been pulled from distribution to the public when just four separate vaccines for Covid-19 have caused over 11 times as many deaths in just 8 months, than 76 separate vaccines combined have caused over a period of nearly 51 years.
Bavaria Inches Closer to a Vaccine Mandate for Public Sector Employees
eugyppius | December 2, 2021
This one cuts fairly close to home for me.
Employees of the Free State of Bavaria who work in hospitals, universities and related areas have now been asked to submit proof of vaccination. Those who refuse will be required to present the results of two self-financed PCR tests every week, or face termination. The PCR tests of course are expensive and an enormous hassle, and the requirement has nothing to do with preventing infection. All state offices are also subject to so-called 3G rules; unvaccinated employees who aren’t telecommuting already have to submit negative antigen tests every day.
In response to this absurd legal harassment, an employee of the Institute of Pathology of the LMU Faculty of Medicine, here in Munich, released a brief internet video pointing out the boundless absurdity of the new rules:
In less than five minutes, she catalogued all the obvious absurdities we have confronted for months: Corona deaths are a small portion of overall mortality right now; problems with hospital capacity arise from staffing shortages, not Corona; the new rules, which harass unvaccinated healthcare personnel with de facto weekly fines of around 150 Euros, will only make these staffing shortages worse.
After her video had racked up thousands of views, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, her employer, released this astounding statement:
LMU was surprised today to learn of an online video posted by an employee of the Institute of Pathology at the Faculty of Medicine. LMU distances itself in the strongest possible terms from the video contents, and point out that filming or posting video on LMU premises for private purposes and without permission is forbidden. The employee in question has already been banned from the premises; she has also been released from official duties with immediate effect. A termination without notice is also in process. Today’s circumstances require everyone’s prudence and consideration to help the sick as far as possible and to support overburdened healthcare staff. Disseminating videos such as this is surely no help in this regard.
Social media is full of videos taken “on LMU premises for private purposes”; no few of them are histrionic hospital staff hyperventilating about what a crisis Corona is. All that’s fine, but a brief video taken in an empty mortuary is grounds for immediate termination and banning from the university.
Can you Handle the Truth? (If we Tolerate this, then our Children will be Next)
Out of the Mouths of Babes (An Unexpected Lesson in Truth)
By Greg Maybury | Pox Amerikana | November 28, 2021
As you can see my handle is Greg Maybury. Who I am is not that important. But my message is. I’ve a story to tell, and in doing so I’m going to draw on both my professional and personal experience. I hope what follows resonates with some folks.
First, a bit of humour to get us going, if only because if we lose that, we’re really done. In one of my previous lives I was a high school teacher (an experience I’ll touch on again later). Back in those days I had some hair, and according to many folks I could’ve passed for Jack Nicholson’s kid brother. This resemblance didn’t go unnoticed by my students at the time. The would often dine out on this by joking about it, occasionally improvising some of Jack the Lad’s more infamous lines whenever the opportunity presented itself.
Now mostly this was done so as to get a laugh or two from their classmates, ‘take the piss’ out of yours truly, as well as I suspect to distract me from my sense of mission. Which as a teacher was to get the lazy buggers to do some work on occasion! There was a time when one of my more work-shy charges ran out of excuses for why he’d not finished a certain task. In semi-mock exasperation, I began giving him grief. Saying something like: “I’m sick of your lame excuses mate. Why not just tell me the truth for once? You’re a lazy sod, and can’t be arsed!”
Big mistake on my part. Without missing a beat, this kid stood up behind his desk, leaned forward with a cheeky grin and just the right touch of dramatic flourish (and right away I saw what was coming). He bellowed to ensure everyone heard: “Mistar Maybury, you can’t handle the truth!”, copping the indelible line—and mimicking to a tee the demeanour and the emphasis—Nicholson himself used in the hit movie “A Few Good Men”, then doing the rounds in the cinemas.
By this time the class was in uproar. This was not helped by my own inability to stifle the stupid grin on my own dial, even if the ‘comeback’ came at my own expense. Talk about a “Come in spinner!” moment for your humble. It was hard to beat. (As a reward I resolved never to ask the kid again whether he’d finished an activity I’d assigned him. To this day over twenty years later I expect he’s still dining out on the story with all his mates down at the pub in between lockdowns!)
Anyway lest the point of this yarn be lost on anyone, let me move a bit closer to the purpose of this post. Right from the off we have to ask ourselves, “Can we handle the truth?” of what’s going on with this so-called pandemic, this inflated crisis, this beyond purgatorial Malice in Plunderland pantomime which is playing havoc with our world?
Can we handle the truth about what is being done to our friends and families? Our personal and professional relationships? Our communities? Our schools? Our hospitals? Our social and support networks? Our businesses? Our workplaces? Our lives and lifestyles? Our economy? Our country? And last but not least, can we truly handle the truth about what’s happening to our freedoms under our very noses?
You all know what I’m talking about here: The very things that our parents’, our grandparents’, and our great grandparents’ generations were told (or presumed) they were fighting for when they either volunteered or were conscripted to go and fight, kill and/or die in every war since the Boer War going back over 120 years ago. In all these cases they were ‘making the world safe for democracy’ or some propagandist’s mutant variant of the theme, when in truth that was only half the story. They fought, killed, and/or died to “make the world safe” to be sure, but it wasn’t for democracy as such, not as we know it.
It was in fact ‘deocracy’ they were fighting and killing and dying for. This is an obscure political doctrine with which I’ll wager few are familiar. Put simply: If we take the “m” out of democracy, this is what we end up with. A “deocracy” is
‘committed only to the insatiable drive and hunger for maintaining its ascendancy… [A]ll variant of tyrannies and dictatorships rather of a political, economical, social, religious and/or cultural disposition are in essence a form of deocracy.’
That in essence my friends, is the “end-point” for the New Normalites, the Great Presetters (sic), whose hubris and whose pretensions to omnipotence rival that of your preferred deity. An “end-point” which is no less than a barren, lonely, soulless, heartless, disconnected, enervating, mindless, submissive void. And the awe-inspiring tragedy of it all? It could well be one very much of our own making! If that is we continue to acquiesce to their pretensions.
Now I don’t need to bang on too much about those “freedoms”; if you’ve come this far you all have a pretty clear idea of what the loss of those “freedoms” mean, what’s at stake if we allow them to be tampered with in the way they are so blatantly doing now! We do so not just at our own peril, but that of the next generation of Australians, and thereafter. To be sure, this isn’t just about Australia! Clearly many eyes are on us. People across the globe see us as a ‘bell-weather’ for their own futures. If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.
However, we all still need to ask ourselves everyday: Can we really handle the truth about any or all of the above? Because what is being imposed on us is happening all under false pretences. It is being enforced by bullying bureaucrats, both elected and unelected, because politicians are little more than “bureaucrats” when it comes down to it! These people justify all this by telling us they are following the advice of technocrats and assorted “experts”. But we all know the definition of an “expert”: An “ex” is a ‘has-been’, and a “spert” is a drip under pressure!
The Difference Between (Truthers and Trusters)
The key point here is that these people do not—let’s rinse n’ repeat those two words, “do not”—have our interests at heart! They never did really. And they definitely do not now. They are “deocrats” in the purest sense of the concept. At the risk of being unkind, those folks who believe these people have our interests at heart need a check-up from the neck-up! To paraphrase Whitney Webb, one of my ‘go-to’ writers on such matters, in placing our trust in them—either implicitly or explicitly—we might as well hand our brains to the deocrats in a bag!
We need to soak up this cogent reality day in and day out. We must never forget from one sunrise to the next whilst this monstrous charade continues to play out, that for these people, “freedom” is a dirty word. At least our notion of freedom is.
Their own notion of “freedom” however is another matter: they have a far different definition of the word than we do. Their idea of “freedom” is on the one hand the unfettered “freedom” to take away from and/or deny us as many of our existing “freedoms” as they can get away with doing, and beyond that reserve the option of imposing new and even more draconian curbs on the few they begrudgingly leave us with. To rehash the very words of one of their glorified foot-soldiers cum mercenaries, a former CIA Director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, theirs is the freedom to lie, to cheat, to steal. They “even have training courses!” Judging by all that is going down, those “courses” are very effective.
At the same time they are quietly (and not so) amassing for themselves ever greater “freedoms” to do whatever they like without any transparency, without accountability, without so much as a ‘by-your-leave’! Their constitution defying diktats, edicts, mandates, and arbitrarily imposed rules and regulations have nothing to do with our public health in general, or about preserving the personal health, well-being, and welfare of ourselves, our families, and our communities. As we have already seen, these diktats etc., are a moving feast anyway, being made up on the fly.
Ask yourself this question: When was the last time any of you heard a politician say?: “We have too much power in our hands. It’s time to give some of that power back to the punters who backed us into office!” Ask yourself who in fact do these politicians, bureaucrats, policy wonks, advisers, diplomats, experts, and technocrats work for? In whose interests and on whose behalf are they acting in formulating and implementing their ill-conceived, self-serving, destructive public proclamations and policies? I mean, if they’d gone out of their way to mismanage this bespoke crisis, they could not have done a better job. Ask yourself this question. How come the response to Covid was so synched across the globe, when “leaders” never agree on anything sans a lengthy, bitter debate?
Those amongst us who can’t seem to handle the truth about what’s happening to our country are of great concern to the rest of us. There are those who don’t want to know about what is the real driver of events! We all know people like that. They are all around us. Some aren’t returning our phone calls, or answering our emails. Others are perhaps at best tolerating our concerns, our doubts, our fears about what’s unfolding. Some have struck us off their dance card.
We should however, be patient with these people. Insofar as they will allow us to do so, we need to keep them on our dance-card. Let our peaceful, informed, calm, measured resistance be an example to them. Let it stand as a message to them. Perhaps at some point, an inspiration.
In recent posts I’ve referred to these people as “trusters”. They trust their political leaders. They trust the corporate, the establishment, the mainstream media. They trust the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies which ‘oversee’ them! They trust in what their professional bodies and their trade unions and their employers tell them. And in doing so they comply without question with their diktats, their edicts, their demands. When their own common sense, their own past experience should tell them there is no basis in reality for that “trust”. Yet in them they still “trust”—almost two years later!
As for those of us who are attuned to the larger, longer term agenda of the Covid Cultists—the aforesaid “New Normalites”—and are resisting it, I’ve referred to them as “truthers”! You all know who you are!
But there is a third group. And that “third group” is crucial for us to connect with if we wish to send a message to our respective state political leaders and legislators, to our Federal government and indeed, to all our political classes within this once great country right across the political spectrum.
That third group comprise the ones who aren’t as readily compliant or complacent as the trusters, and we all know people in this group too. These are people who do harbour grave concerns about the regime which the ‘Pandoras’ of the pandemic seek to impose on us. Perhaps they haven’t yet fully grasped the implications of their Grand Ambitions. But they smell a rat! They don’t really need the test results back from forensics to know there are carp in the cornflakes!
These are the people who are as yet undecided about what to do, which direction to head, how to respond. My belief is that this group far outweighs those “trusters”. If we can connect with them, we’re in with more than a half a chance. And we have to make a supreme effort to draw them into the fold.
To Those who Stand Tall in the Saddle (We Salute You)
Although this is directed to all, I wish to impart a special message to (and about) those people who have either lost their jobs or are at risk of losing them because you are taking a stand against this #NewNormal nonsense. Those in particular who’ve resigned rather than slip into the submissive void of that aforementioned tyranny earn my deep admiration and gratitude. We know many of them. There are many more we don’t know I suspect.
In particular, those countless folks in the medical and healthcare professions and the broader scientific community are to be greatly admired for the stand they have taken against the Big Machine of their respective bureaucracies. New ones are emerging each day. In their case it is the medical, academic, and public health bureaucracy; as we’ll see shortly, in my case it was the education bureaucracy. Same horse, different cowboy!
There’s no difference between these bureaucratic entities when it comes down to the wire. They are ruled by heartless, faceless, soulless, gutless facsimiles of real people. They spend most of their working and waking hours getting high on their own supply, kowtowing to their fly-by-night political masters when beckoned like ‘cap-in-hand’ courtiers in the courts of medieval kings, whilst building on the QT their own private little fiefdoms, their exclusive empires of enmity. They have consistently demonstrated they haven’t a ‘skerrick’ of interest in our health, safety, security, welfare, well-being, or in that of our families or our communities. Or our country! They are Quislings! Judas Goats! Traitors! Declarations I don’t make lightly.
They ‘mos def’ have no interest in anything remotely resembling democracy, freedom, the rule of law, or adhering to the spirit or letter of our Constitution or our basic civil and human rights. These bureaucrats as a rule are a mutant sub-species all unto their own! They have above all, no integrity, no empathy, no credibility. They treat us with disdain, with contempt, with malice aforethought! We should return the favour in spades.
These people are bought and paid for; they have sold whatever passed for a soul to that tiny, malevolent cabal of obscenely rich and insanely powerful people who, unseen and largely incognito, truly run this world in which we live. If you truly believe otherwise, a check-up from the neck-up might be in order! At no previous point in our history of which I am aware has all this ever been more obvious, more plain to see.
Notwithstanding the propaganda and the censorship to which we’re constantly being bombarded, such insight has never been more easily or readily confirmed by those who do wish to discover for themselves what we’re up against, who’s really leading the frontal assault on everything we hold dear, what their grand, nefarious ambitions are. The only way I see they can prevent this awakening is for them to shut down the internet (it’s on the cards), and herd us all into their internment camps. Which in case you haven’t been looking, they’re real, they’re up, and they’re operational!
As a former teacher of history, I can safely say all this. For that matter, as a former teacher of the only subject that really matters, I can just as safely say virtually everything I taught my students over the years is bollocks! Though I didn’t come to this realisation until well after I pulled up stumps as it were, yet still well before Covid reared its ugly head.
The emergence of this global pandemic ‘economy’—the Covid Thing—has brought this harsh reality into sharp, fearful focus, for all but the most blind, the most ignorant, the most arrogant, the most insular of people to see. To those people I say this to you: your Mr McGoo-like myopia is our dystopia in the making!…’
And to those who have either lost their jobs or are at risk of losing their jobs because you are taking a stand against this tyranny, I know what you’re going through. I get this, I truly do. As hinted earlier, for years I worked for the WA public education department. As an internal whistleblower, I fought numerous battles up the food chain to the highest level against the soulless, faceless, heartless, corrupt, morally bankrupt, and capricious bureaucracy. Now’s not the time for a blow by blow. No names, no pack-drill. No chapter and verse.
Suffice to say this: I fought hard against their hypocrisy, the misuse and abuse of power, their bullying, intimidation and their harassment, their arrogance, their double standards, their presumed—yet ultimately inflated—sense of privilege. At first they ignored me. Then they closed ranks. They engaged in gaslighting, false accusation, character assassination. That’s what they do! And when that didn’t work, they eventually brought the power of the Big Machine of the Bureaucracy to bear on my ass and got rid of me.
In the end I never had a chance. In doing so, they took away my right and my ability to earn my living, my livelihood. The cost was considerable. As a contractor, there was no right of appeal. Any legal remedy was out of the question. The cost of pursuing such would’ve only aggravated the situation for me personally and financially. Success, in any event, was far from assured. I moved on. This explains why I so admire greatly people like Craig Backman and Krystle Mitchell, the two former Victorian police officers who resigned rather than slip into what I call the ‘submissive void’.
Why did I go up against the Big Machine? Why didn’t I just go along to get along? Why didn’t I just suck it up, cop it sweet, keep my trap shut! I did for awhile. But that got to me in the end. See, I despise bullies, liars and hypocrites! I detest those who with supreme arrogance misuse and abuse their power and authority. I reserve a special contempt for those in public office who abuse the privileges and the prerogatives we invest in them.
I particularly detest politicians and bureaucrats who wield power over our daily lives in ways imaginable and unimaginable, seen and unseen, blithely evading at every turn both transparency and accountability. Their sense of entitlement knows few bounds.
Where is all this heading? There’s only one end-point to where this can go if we allow it. It will lead to a destination that almost certainly will not be to our liking nor to our individual or collective benefit. To the extent they’ll even have the freedom to reflect on such, it will leave our descendants wondering why we let it get to this point. And despairing—with a mixture of outrage, fear, and anxiety—at our stupidity, our ignorance, [and] our complacency in doing so. That in essence my friends, is the “end-point”. A barren, heartless, lonely, mindless, soul-crushing, passionless, submissive void.
In summing up, there’s a wonderful meme doing the rounds at the moment. Some of you may have seen it. It goes like this: ‘The time will soon come when every single person who has remained silent will be forced to do one of two things. Get loud and resist. Or stay silent and comply.’ Before we can “get loud and resist”, we have to be able to handle the whole truth, and nothin’ but.
Can we handle the truth? Yes! I believe we can handle the truth! We do not have any other choice! The truth once embraced becomes then our sword, our armour, our shield. To be used defiantly against the Big Lie and those who would perpetrate and perpetuate it. Wield it with precision. With conviction. With valour. As if your life depended on it. It does my friends, it really does.
The following is perhaps a fitting coda. An anonymous person posted this on social media recently:
‘For all the ignorance in the world, we are still a curious species. I have no doubt that many who still have a wall of resistance up, know that something doesn’t look/feel right about all this…and they are paying attention. Keep shining the light you beautiful people!’
For some reason I liked that!…
It is said, ‘curiosity killed the cat, [and] information brought him back’. But a bit more of both—“curiosity” and “information”—might also kill the power and the presumed prerogatives of those who are forcing us to take the poison in it! Because if we don’t, there’ll be more poison to follow. Of that we can be sure! These people don’t give up without a fight. In case you haven’t noticed, they fight dirty!
Amen to that truth pilgrims! Amen I say to all that!
Featured Video
“Trump’s presidency is at risk of being destroyed” Col Douglas Macgregor
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda
Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 9, 2022
“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” is the fourth vaccine-related documentary by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. It tells the story of an intentional infertility vaccine program conducted on African women, without their knowledge or consent.
While it’s been brushed off as a loony conspiracy theory for years, there’s compelling evidence showing it did, in fact, happen, and there’s nothing to prevent it from happening again. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israeli strikes kill 10 in southern Lebanon, including 3 rescue workers
- Israeli military ‘failed on all fronts’: Poll
- US at a crossroads: Iran’s firm positions leave Trump no option but to capitulate
- Iran signals decisive response to end US maritime bullying, piracy
- Trump eager for off-ramp in war on Iran, but Netanyahu has him trapped: Former official
- Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ offers ‘limited’ shield against ballistic missiles: Defense official
- Ukraine Seeks to Provoke a Nuclear Conflict: Zakharova
- US squares up to China over Panama Canal
- Monroe Doctrine 2.0: ‘Great Reset’ for US Imperialism?
- Nuclear Apartheid: Iran’s Rise Exposes the NPT Fraud and the West’s Israel Exception
- If Americans Knew
- How Tony Dokoupil Became the Face of ‘Zionist Fanatic’ Bari Weiss’s CBS
- Far Right Israeli Settler Movement Enters Syria in a Push for “Greater Israel”
- ‘People Have the Right to Be Buried’: In Gaza, Thousands of Palestinians Remain Trapped Under Rubble
- Born during Israel’s genocide: Gaza’s child survivors bear the scars of war
- Who are the women and girls behind Gaza war’s horrific casualty toll?
- Beloved Gaza doctor detained “indefinitely” without charge – Daily Update
- By Week’s End, Trump’s War Will Be Plainly Illegal
- CBS News Reportedly Ousts London Bureau Chief Over Differences With Bari Weiss Over Gaza Coverage
- State Department Says US Is in Conflict With Iran ‘At the Request’ of Israel
- What ceasefire? Israel won’t stop killing in Gaza, Lebanon – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 