Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why hide what happens in the first two weeks after vaccination?

Hiding part of the data leads to wrong conclusions

Health Advisory and Recovery Team | December 1, 2021

There have been numerous papers published showing how well the vaccines protect people after the second dose. Some of this effect is an illusion. The effect happens as a result of inaccurate measuring and a phenomenon called survivorship bias.

Survivorship bias happens when a group is compared at two time points, but the members of the group change between the time points. It would be like assessing the quality of a swimming school which favours the technique of throwing people into the middle of the ocean, leaving them for a couple of hours and claiming credit for how well the remaining students can swim. After two hours, the only people left would be the ones who could already swim and possibly a few who learnt to swim the hard way! The poor souls who drowned in the interim don’t even make the count. Attributing the remaining people’s swimming ability to the coach who turned up 2 hours later would obviously give a very misleading picture. Pointing out that no-one drowned in later lessons would be equally misleading in determining the success of the ‘teaching technique’.

With covid vaccination there is a two week period after vaccination that is not included in the data. The rationale given for this is that vaccines take a while to induce antibodies and therefore the first two weeks’ data are not relevant. Obviously this is flawed. What if the vaccines have deleterious effects that are visible straightaway, that have nothing to do with antibody production? An example is the high rate of shingles seen after covid vaccination, suggesting there is a problem with viral reactivation. This may explain why Sars-CoV-2 infection rates are actually higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated in the first two weeks after vaccination.

The effect of eliminating the first two weeks is a misleading data bias. If people become infected and are dying during that period, this needs to be included. The possibility that the vaccine itself may exert an effect on infection rate cannot be overlooked and the entire dataset needs to be included in order to accurately assess effectiveness. By only measuring the period after the higher risk of infection (0-14 days) it is possible to be deceived. Any signal would be missed.

Aside from it being nonsensical in terms of individual risk to remove this period of time, there will also be an impact on the wider community. If the vaccine in fact causes a spike in infections during the first two weeks, this will inevitably increase spread and will lead to an increased number of infections in that community during that time. Therefore, the assessment of the impact of the vaccination programme must include not only the effect on the individual, but the impact on the wider community.

This point is of particular relevance for close-knit communities where many are being vaccinated at the same time, such as schools and in particular communities with a high number of vulnerable people such as care homes and hospitals. What we are effectively doing is ‘speeding up’ the wave of infections (and deaths). Ultimately at the end of the viral season, the same number of people died. Because of excluding the earlier deaths (1-14 days), we are misled into thinking that the vaccines were more effective than they actually were. By only looking at the later period and seeing fewer deaths during that time, the illusion was created that lives were saved. This is evident in data from many countries following vaccine roll-out. The graph below showing the UK versus Europe illustrates this point, as the UK was the fastest to roll out the vaccine. The total number of deaths, represented by the area under the curve, was similar to other countries, but is just compressed into a shorter time period.

Figure 1: Covid Deaths in winter in UK and the European Union

Let’s now examine some specific examples, e.g. this study of nursing home residents in the United States. The results show that over the course of the study 6.8% of the vaccinated population were infected and 6.8% of the unvaccinated population were infected. However, by deciding that the first 14 days after vaccination should be excluded, the grey area for the vaccinated group is compared to the black and grey area combined for the unvaccinated. Doing so could lead to the claim of 66% vaccine efficacy against infection. The authors of this study were honest enough to share the raw data and did not claim 66% efficacy.

Figure 2: Data from US paper showing the percentage of the nursing home population to be infected by time after the clinic came to their home and by vaccination status

However, numerous studies have relied on this trick to make claims of vaccine efficacy. The most obvious examples of this are the original Pfizer trial study and the AstraZeneca trial.

Figure 3: Graph from AstraZeneca trial showing censorship of early period (‘Exclusion Period’)

To take a second example, a Danish paper measured infection numbers in healthcare workers and care home residents. Prior to the beginning of the vaccination programme 4.8% of the healthcare workers had been infected and 3.8% of the care home residents had been. The study ended at the end of the Danish winter wave after 95% of the care home residents had been vaccinated and 28% of the healthcare workers had been. Given the worse position at the start and the lower vaccination rate in healthcare workers you might expect that they were worse off overall. However, the percentage infected by the end of the wave was 7.0% among healthcare workers but 7.7% among care home residents.

Figure 4: Data from Danish paper showing percentage of population infected among care home residents and healthcare workers

How much of the vaccine efficacy reported in covid research is really a measure of survivorship bias coupled with naturally acquired immunity? This is a critical question. No claim of vaccine efficacy should be made without first addressing this.

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Researchers Acknowledge SARS-CoV-2 Is Gaining Vaccine Resistance

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | December 3, 2021

Looking at the viral evolution of SARS-CoV-2, researchers from the prestigious universities Harvard and MIT have found that the virus not only will continue to mutate and create new variants in the future, but will become resistant to the vaccines as it adapts to humans.

Their study, published December 2, 2021, in the journal Science, shows that the mutations serve as bridges to conferring resistance to neutralizing antibodies. “The severity of the phenotypes we observed in vitro suggest that further evolved variants will more adeptly escape therapeutic antibody neutralization than currently circulating variants of concern, with potential resistance to two-component antibody cocktails,” the study authors wrote.

The scientists urged that “proactively examining the consequences of further viral evolution before the next highly antibody resistant strain emerges is of utmost importance.”

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

“Post Pandemic Stress Disorder”… seriously?

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | December 3, 2021

There’s a reason heart attacks and blood clots are about to become a LOT more common… but the vaccine has nothing to do with it. Apparently.

Doctors are warning that hundreds of thousands of people in the UK could be at increased risk of heart disease or cardiac events.

Speaking to the Evening Standard, psychological therapist Mark Rayner and vascular surgeon Tahir Hussein said that the UK could see “300,000 new patients with heart issues” in the near future.

What’s to blame? Well, that would be “Post Pandemic Stress Disorder”. A new condition “yet to be recognised”, even though “many experts believe it should be”.

It’s a totally real thing. They didn’t just completely make it up. Don’t be cynical.

You see, all the “pandemic” related anxiety and stress has taken such a toll on the public that doctors are predicting a 5% increase in heart disease, nationwide, and not just in the elderly or infirm.

According to Dr Hussein, he is already seeing…

a big increase in thrombotic-related vascular conditions in my practice. Far younger patients are being admitted and requiring surgical and medical intervention than prior to the pandemic.

Now, some of you demented anti-vaxxers out there might be asking crazy questions like “could this increase in blood clots and heart disease be linked to injecting millions of people with an untested vaccine?”

But that’s absurd. And I told you to stop being cynical.

Yes, fine, in the interests of fairness, we should mention it was recently reported that the Astra Zeneca jab can cause blood clots.

It turns out all the people saying that back in March weren’t just conspiracy theorists spreading misinformation after all. They were totally right. But the clots are only rare, so don’t worry. And they sort of know what causes it now, so future batches might be fine.

And yes, also in the interests of fairness, it’s true that both the Pfizer and Moderna shots can cause heart issues too. Both, according to the CDC, can cause pericarditis and myocarditis, the complications of which include heart attacks, heart failure and strokes.

The UK government has even produced special guidelines for dealing with myocardits, “following Covid19 vaccination”.

But, just like the blood clots, this is very rare. Obviously not so rare you don’t need a special guiding document on how to deal with it, but still very very rare.

… the point is, yes, all the major Covid vaccines are known to have cardiac-related side effects, and yes, some doctors are now predicting a major spike in heart-related health problems, but these are totally unrelated.

Frankly, the very idea this could be a media psy-op designed to do pre-emptive damage control is ridiculous.

Stop. Being. Cynical.

Any connection between heart problems and vaccines is just bad luck or a coincidence. It’s really just the stress.

Don’t ask questions about the vaccine. Don’t decide to not get the vaccine. And certainly don’t worry about what’s in the vaccine. Worrying causes stress which, unlike vaccines, causes heart problems.

Just get the shot. And the second dose. And the booster, every three months. And the updated doses, for the variants.

Just to be safe, get four shots a year, every year, for the rest of your natural life, and/or until you drop dead of a heart attack.

… due to stress.

Don’t be cynical.

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

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. 

December 3, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

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).

December 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

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.

December 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

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:

  1. Face coverings work and should be used.
  2. COVID recovered people who have not been fully vaccinated still face a grave danger from workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
  3. 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:

  1. The scientific evidence (Danish mask study, Bangladesh mask study) shows that face coverings are completely ineffective.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

December 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave 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.

Full article

December 3, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

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

December 3, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

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?

They have no idea.

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.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

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:

Austrian Police, Army Reportedly Refusing to Enforce ‘Health Dictatorship’, Will March in Protest Against It

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.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »