This is the same Stephen Colbert who almost every night took great joy in making fun of people like myself, the national vermin who never got one shot.
But the joke is on Stephen Colbert. I’ve never had Covid and I’ve never gotten one jab.
Actually, I think I probably had “early Covid” in January 2020, which we can’t talk about. Still, this non-Covid did produce stellar natural immunity for myself and my two kids, who were also sick before they were supposed to be and who also have never contracted official (PCR-test) Covid.
And I think Jimmy Kimmel is a Covid multi-timer too.
Anyway, it’s good to see Late Night Karma at work.
… This short post also gives me an opportunity to share this fun graphic that Covid contrarian scientist Dr. Harvey Risch posted at the Brownstone Institute’s Writer Group. One good graphic is worth a thousand words.
The White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) knew in April 2021 that the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was linked to heart damage on an unprecedented scale for a vaccine — but they hid that knowledge from the public while pushing vaccine mandates, according to emails obtained by DailyClout through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The emails show the White House communications team struggling to craft a cover-up message on email chains that included Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to President Biden; CDC Director Rochelle Walensky; Dr. Janet Woodcock, then-acting commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Dr. Francis Collins, then-director the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
A number of high-level public health officials worked with upper-echelon leadership to craft a “Myocarditis Email” that minimized the relationship between COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and myocarditis,” said Amy Kelly, program director for the War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Project.
According to Kelly, the officials included: Ian Sams, COVID-19 response and special assistant to the president and senior advisor and spokesman for the White House; Abbigail Tumpey, then-associate director for communication science for the CDC’s Public Health Infrastructure; and Dr. Dana Meaney-Delman, CDC lead on maternal immunization and CDC chief of Infant Outcomes Monitoring Research and Prevention Branch.
The FOIA emails were obtained by Edward Berkovich, one of 250 volunteer attorneys Kelly oversees on the DailyClout and War Room Project to analyze the court-ordered, FDA-released 450,000 pages of Pfizer’s records on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine — records the drug maker tried unsuccessfully to keep private for 75 years.
The War Room-DailyClout Project was founded by bestselling author and journalist Naomi Wolf, a former advisor to the Clinton campaign, in collaboration with Steve Bannon, former advisor to President Trump and podcaster on “The War Room.”
In addition to volunteer attorneys, Kelly oversees approximately 3250 volunteer doctors, nurses, scientists and others who are reviewing the documents. They’ve issued 89 investigative reports, including the Oct. 18 report on the myocarditis cover-up evident in FOIA emails.
“Astonishingly, the emails reveal that the most senior of leaders, all the way up to the White House, knew about heart damage linked to mRNA vaccines,” Kelly said. “Yet they “colluded behind the scenes to conceal this side effect from the American people.”
Anyone can study the three FOIA releases of emails at dailyclout.io, Kelly said.
“What I think most important is to see who all is involved,” she said. “I believe 105 different people are on the emails, a whole slew of people at the White House, CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIAID, Pfizer, some children’s hospitals and organizations and some other external people,” Kelly said.
“My takeaway from seeing this is that everyone, all over the public health agencies, knew there was an issue” with myocarditis dangers linked to the COVID-19 vaccines, Kelly said. Yet “when you read through the emails, you see they are crafting messages to downplay the significance of myocarditis and the vaccines, all the the way up to the White House.”
“They said, ‘We’re seeing a myocarditis signal and we’re happy to share information with you,’” she said. “The CDC actually didn’t even respond to the first email as far as I can tell. So the Israeli Ministry of Health emailed again March 2, ‘Hey we’re seeing this myocarditis signal, we’re concerned, let’s discuss it if you want.’”
White House created 17-page script to ‘keep everyone on message’
The FOIA email trove was a frequent topic of discussion Saturday at the “Summit for Truth,” which brought together leaders of the health freedom movement at the Bethel Christian Fellowship church and community center in downtown Rochester, New York.
Wolf was the keynote speaker in a lineup that included Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Ryan Cole, attorney Bobbie Ann Cox, and Brownstone Institute publisher and writer Jeffrey Tucker.
Wolf spoke about her journey from feminist icon to outcast from the liberal media establishment when she questioned the safety of the COVID-19 shots.
She has written two books on her experience investigating and reporting on the pandemic. They include, “The Bodies of Others: The New Authoritarians, COVID-19 and the War Against the Human,” and the forthcoming “Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith, and Resistance in a New Dark Age.”
During a panel discussion Saturday, Wolf called the White House involvement in a cover-up of vaccine dangers “absolutely shocking.”
Berkovich’s FOIA request was aided by “a whistleblower at the CDC,” Wolf said, who was “throwing the White House under the bus.”
“In addition to the pages he had asked for, he got 46 pages he didn’t request that showed the White House communications team was “freaking out at the highest levels in April of 2021, because news of blood clots and heart damage had reached them,” Wolf said.
“Instead of coming clean with the American people and pulling this injection off the market, they looped in Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, Dr. Walensky and created a script,” she said.
It was “a 17-page script, their word, which is wholly redacted, to keep everyone on message and downplay the dangers. And in fact if you recall from 2021, rather than pulling this injection off the market, they mandated it. They doubled down and mandated it.”
Wolf said the emails reveal “a massive crime.”
They show a template was prepared to email to “POTUS, which stands for president of the United States,” to keep the president up to date on the email discussions among the top U.S. public-health officials on myocarditis and vaccines, Wolf said.
“Dr. Wallensky was on the emails, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins,” she said. “The entire White House communications team was driving the discussion.”
“They were reacting to the fact that blood clots and heart damage had been presented to them at scale and that the American Association of Pediatrics was warning them about myocarditis in teens, a serious, sometimes fatal disease that needs constant management. Instead of coming clean with the American people… they doubled down and made a strategy to cover it up.”
Public-health officials went ahead with mandates for the Pizer COVID-19 vaccine, “knowing it was killing people,” Wolf said.
Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most highly published cardiologists in the world, said the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines should have been pulled from the market in January 2021, after “no more than 50 deaths” — the previous government standard to guarantee the safety of a biologic product.
McCullough said FDA records show the agency expected a myocarditis risk from the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as early as Oct. 22, 2020.
“If they had reported these deaths, there would have been a three- to four-fold excess cardiovascular risk with Pfizer in the core slides at the Dec. 10, 2020 meeting and Pfizer would never have been approved,” he said.
McCullough said the myocarditis cover-up has killed untold thousands of Americans.
He pointed to his research paper with other scientists including Dr. William Makis. They performed a systematic review of “all published autopsy reports involving COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis” through July 3, 2023.
The paper concluded “there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from suspected myocarditis in cases where sudden, unexpected death has occurred in a vaccinated person.”
McCullough and colleagues concluded that “urgent investigation is required for the purpose of risk stratification and mitigation in order to reduce the population occurrence of fatal COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis.”
Dr. Bruce Boros, a Key West, Florida cardiologist who was one of the first American physicians to use ivermectin for early COVID-19 treatment based on his resarch of the emerging literature, said recent studies show that the RNA from the COVID-19 vaccines “goes right to the heart.”
A study that applied the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine to heart muscle cells in culture “showed direct evidence that within 48 hours there was heart dysfunction, mechanical and electrical chaos,” Boros said.
Young athletes dropping dead from heart failure at unprecedented rates are “almost assuredly suffering” myocarditis symptoms brought on by the shots, he said.
“Everybody who received the shot had some damage to the heart muscle,” Boros said. “They knew it in the preclinical studies and they covered it up. All the signals were there, the FDA went ahead and approved it anyway.
“It’s all a money game, a eugenics game, and they’re continuing to say you need to get a booster,” Boros said. “Now every child in the world should get this shot for a virus that has been falsely normalized as dangerous when the risk, especially for children, is essentially zero when it comes to death,” he said.
“It saddens me,” Boros concluded. “We need to remember this was created as a bioweapon, and hold our government accountable.”
Mike Capuzzo is the managing editor of The Defender. He is a former prize-winning reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Miami Herald, a science writer, and a regional magazine founding editor and publisher who has won more than 200 journalism awards as a writer, editor and publisher.
People commonly ask me for “comprehensive” publications on vaccine side effects. It is fair to point out that the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein is contained in the virus and it is uncontrollably produced by the mRNA and adenoviral DNA COVID-19 vaccines. Because the vaccines failed to stop COVID-19, most vaccinated persons have had the illness, thereby having multiple Spike protein exposures.
Parry, et al, published a comprehensive review on the litany of Spike-protein diseases that occur after its widespread distribution in the body. Here are some of their evidence based teaching points:
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is pathogenic, whether from the virus or created from genetic code in mRNA and adenovector DNA vaccines.
Biodistribution rodent study data show lipid nanoparticles carry mRNA to all organs and cross blood-brain and blood-placenta barriers. Some of these tissues are likely to be impervious to viral infection; therefore, the biohazard is particularly from vaccination.
Lipid-nanoparticles have inflammatory properties.
The modification of mRNA with N1-methylpseudouridine for increased stability leads to the production of spike proteins for months. It is uncertain how many cells and from which organs mRNA spike proteins are produced, and therefore, the exact effective dose delivered per vaccine vial is unknown.
The long-term fate of mRNA within cells is currently unknown.
The mRNA and adenovector DNA vaccines act as ‘synthetic viruses’.
In the young and healthy, and even in many older individuals with vulnerable comorbidities, the encoding-based COVID-19 vaccines will likely transfect a far more diverse set of tissues than infection by the virus itself.
Evidence suggests reverse transcription of mRNA into a DNA copy is possible. This further suggests the possibility of intergenerational transmission if germline cells incorporate the DNA copy into the host genome.
Production of foreign proteins such as spike protein on cell surfaces can induce autoimmune responses and tissue damage. This has profoundly negative implications for any future mRNA-based drug or vaccine.
The spike protein exerts its pathophysiological effects (‘spikeopathy’) via several mechanisms that lead to inflammation, thrombogenesis, and endotheliitis-related tissue damage and prion-related dysregulation. Interaction of the vaccine-encoded spike protein with ACE-2, P53 and BRCA1 suggests a wide range of possible biological interference with oncological potential.
Adverse event data from official pharmacovigilance databases, an FDA-Pfizer report obtained via FOI, show high rates and multiple organ systems affected: primarily neurological, cardiovascular, and reproductive.
Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ clinical trial data independently interpreted has been peer-review and published to show an unfavourable risk/benefit, especially in the non-elderly. The risks for children clearly outweigh the benefits.
Repeated COVID-19 vaccine booster doses appear to induce tolerance and may contribute to recurrent COVID-19 infection and ‘long COVID’.
“The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has revealed deficiencies in public health and medicines regulatory agencies. A root cause analysis is needed for what now appears a rushed response to an alarming infectious disease pandemic. Treatment modalities for ‘spikeopathy’-related pathology in many organ systems, require urgent research and provision to millions of sufferers of long-term COVID-19 vaccine injuries. We also advocate for the suspension of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines and lipid-nanoparticle carrier matrices, and other vaccines based on mRNA or viral-vector DNA technology. A safer course is to use vaccines with well-tested recombinant protein, attenuated or inactivated virus technologies, of which there are now many for vaccinating against SARS-CoV-2.”
Did Pfizer deliberately deceive regulators about contamination of its COVID-19 vaccine? Yes, according to Kevin McKernan, chief scientific officer and founder of Medicinal Genomics.
Appearing on CHD.TV with Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD’s senior director of science and research, McKernan explained how Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is contaminated with plasmid DNA, which should not be present in an mRNA vaccine.
He said this raises concerns that the plasmid DNA could lead to cancers or autoimmune issues in some vaccine recipients.
McKernan said that annotating Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine sequence with a simple online tool — which any trained person can do — reveals the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40).
But in the data it gave to regulators, Pfizer deleted the annotation of the SV40 DNA and did not disclose its presence. That deletion, McKernan said, shows “intent to deceive.”
This raises serious questions about the vaccine’s safety that must be investigated, McKernan said. It also suggests major problems with the mRNA vaccine regulatory process.
After McKernan’s lab made its findings public, and other researchers confirmed them, Health Canada also confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine contains this DNA. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has neither confirmed nor denied the presence of these billions of plasmid DNA fragments in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The FDA told reporter Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., who questioned the agency on the issue, that it remains “confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of these vaccines.”
McKernan and his team stumbled accidentally on what Holland called an “incredibly important finding” when they used the RNA from the Pfizer vaccine — which they assumed was a functional pharmaceutical grade RNA — as a control to test the RNA purification system they were using in other work the lab was conducting.
In the process, they tested vaccines and found that instead of only containing mRNA, the Pfizer vaccines also contained DNA plasmids — small, circular, double-stranded DNA molecules distinct from a cell’s chromosomal DNA.
How did the contaminant DNA get into the vaccines?
McKernan explained that to synthesize the RNA for the vaccines, labs use a process called “in vitro transcription” whereby an RNA-making enzyme called an RNA polymerase uses a DNA template to synthesize RNA molecules.
“It’s like the ink for your Xerox machine,” McKernan said.
But the DNA first has to be amplified. For the clinical trials, Pfizer amplified the DNA using PCR (polymerase chain reaction), a method it called “Process 1.” McKernan said this process is ideal because it amplifies the DNA a millionfold. As a result, “There’s no residual background. You get a really clean piece of DNA that you can make your RNA from.”
But to scale up the process to mass produce vaccines for the public, McKernan said, Pfizer did a “bait-and-switch,” producing the vaccines using “Process 2.”
Process 2 includes “changes to the DNA template used to transcribe the RNA and the purification phase, as well as the manufacturing process of the lipid nanoparticles,” Josh Gueztkow and Retsef Levin wrote in a letter, published in the BMJ, which raised concerns with the process.
For Process 2, rather than amplifying DNA with PCR to make the template, vaccine makers amplified the DNA by plugging it into a bacterial plasmid vector, which uses E. coli for rapid amplification, but runs the risk of introducing sequences not present in the initial DNA, McKernan said.
This creates a practically infinite supply of DNA much more cheaply and easily than using PCR, he added.
But this DNA template comes with additional risk because the DNA of the plasmid used to create the template has to be removed from the vaccine before it can be injected into people.
He said it is clear the vaccine makers tried to get rid of that DNA by “chewing it up with an enzyme” called deoxyribonuclease, or DNase, which breaks down DNA, but they failed to eliminate it completely.
Why didn’t the DNA-destroying enzymes eliminate the DNA?
McKernan told Holland and Hooker the DNase failed to fully eliminate the contaminant DNA fragments from the vaccines delivered to the market because of the modifications they made to the RNA in order to make the mRNA vaccines function, and because of “blind spots” in how they measured the amount of residual DNA.
To make the mRNA vaccines work the way they wanted to, the vaccine designers had to make the RNA slightly more durable than usual, he said.
DNA, he said, is like a hard drive — it’s a long-lived form of information storage. RNA is temporary — like the task manager of the programs that are opening and closing on the hard drive.
Those programs and the RNA itself, get turned on and off. For RNA, an enzyme called RNase functions as an on/off switch.
The makers of the mRNA vaccines added a nucleotide, N1-Methylpseudouridine, that stopped the RNA from turning off right away so it would remain present to ensure the spike protein was produced “long enough to matter,” McKernan said.
That made the RNA “extraordinarily sticky,” so when the RNA polymerase copies the RNA off of the DNA template, it accidentally makes some RNA-DNA hybrids, a triple helix.
In that context, the DNase enzyme that was supposed to get rid of the template DNA can’t function properly.
McKernan said it was likely that the vaccine developers didn’t anticipate that would happen and they would therefore need to develop different enzymes.
“I think with the Warp Speed program, they didn’t really have time to investigate this,” he said.
The second reason the DNA is still there, he said, is because of the tools Pfizer used to measure the DNA and the RNA. Pfizer could measure them both with a single tool, called fluorometry, which can identify very tiny pieces of DNA and RNA.
But, he said, instead Pfizer is using fluorometry only for the RNA, which will give the vaccine developers inflated numbers, and the vaccine maker is using a different tool, called qPCR for the DNA, which can’t identify such small pieces of DNA and so will produce deflated numbers.
“They are playing some games” with these measuring tools, McKernan said, because regulators will want them to have high RNA numbers and low DNA numbers — and by measuring RNA and DNA with different tools, that’s exactly what they get.
That, he said, suggests “intent to deceive.”
What’s in the DNA and why should we be concerned?
Hooker asked McKernan to explain what “is hiding” in this remnant DNA and why people should be concerned.
McKernan said “hiding” was an apt term, because Pfizer gave the whole sequence to the regulators, but only annotated certain parts of it, which allowed it to hide some of the contents.
He said anyone can plug the sequence into a standard annotation software tool like SnapGene, and it automatically annotates the entire sequence — and he wrote a Substack post showing people how to do this.
He also showed Holland and Hooker a side-by-side comparison of the software’s annotation and Pfizer’s annotation, and he showed them where a key annotation was missing in Pfizer’s regulatory submission.
McKernan said that annotation marked the location of the fragments of SV40 virus— which Pfizer used as the necessary promoter and enhancer to drive gene transcription during the vaccine manufacturing process.
Someone had to delete those annotations before giving them to the regulators, he said.
SV40 is controversial because it was an artifact of the live polio vaccine and some experts say it is a cancer risk due to potential integration with the human genome.
To really understand the possible risks, McKernan said, more data have to be collected.
“We have a lot of reasons to believe this is a bad idea. They don’t need this DNA in there. They didn’t tell the regulators about it.”
He added:
“So all of that is a train wreck. If you’re putting in 200 billion of these molecules per shot and you’re doing them five times a year … I don’t know how many times people are taking them, but if you think of your schedule, you should be past your fifth by now. So there’s a cumulative dosing problem here. There’s a high number of these fragments in there.”
Even though the amount of DNA overall may be small, McKernan said, it has been fragmented into tiny pieces that make it “like a buckshot,” meaning it scatters like a shotgun bullet, hitting a broad area, which makes them “much more potent as integration tools because you have more active ends of DNA.”
Concerns beyond SV40: gene therapy and ‘open reading frames’
The U.S. regulatory structure is completely outdated, McKernan said. The current regulations allow for fairly high quantities of DNA because they are based on the idea that the DNA takes the form of a dead virus.
Hooker said, “We were told this [mRNA] would not target the nucleus. Is the nuclear targeting sequence the SV40 enhancer?”
McKernan said it is. In fact, he said, SV40 has been successfully researched as a gene therapy tool.
“There’s just no debate anymore. The plasmids that are in there are gene therapy tools, and they’re injected into billions of people,” he said.
Holland asked, “So not only was there no informed consent for anybody, and this was Emergency Use Authorization, so, by law, they weren’t able to give truly informed consent, but it looks like this was a gene therapy, and people were not told that this was a gene therapy. Is that right?”
“That’s right,” McKernan responded.
Holland asked McKernan whether, now that Health Canada acknowledged the presence of SV40, he thought all governments should take the vaccine off the market until this issue is investigated.
“I would think so,” McKernan said. “If they don’t do this, what are they there for?”
McKernan said he also identified other concerns in Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine sequence.
For example, he showed Holland and Hooker that the sequence contains an Open Reading Frame — a DNA sequence with no “stop codon” or stop signal — that is 1,252 amino acids long on the reverse strand of the spike protein in the Pfizer sequence.
Despite extensive research, he said, he can’t identify what it is. “I don’t know what this does, but I know that this is an artifact of their codon optimization that should not be there and is a massive risk and they should get rid of it.”
Hooker asked what the implications of that might be. McKernan said it was unknown, but regulators should never have let it through because it is “risk with no gain and it’s unnecessary.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
A whistleblower has come forward and given Liz Gunn of the NZ Loyal Party (NZL) documentation showing that tens of thousands of New Zealanders have died within a short time of vaccination. Remember, NZ has just over 5 million people so tens of thousands of deaths are significant in anyone’s book.
In this video, she describes one clinic where 30 people received the COVID jab and all 30 of them died soon after.
Ms Gunn is demanding a criminal investigation – not an inquiry – and I think that’s what we need here in Australia too.
Would our stats be any different than those in NZ? I doubt it very much. And a Royal Commission or Albo’s Clayton’s inquiry will do nothing to stop the carnage taking place all around us.
I clearly remember when the VaxXed Bus was in Lightning Ridge last year – a town of about 3,000 people. We spoke with 25 locals and every single person we spoke with could name at least 3 people they personally know who died after a COVID jab and 6-10 who were injured.
These jabs – actually ALL jabs – need to be stopped today! Until they are proven to be safe, effective and necessary, we should not be forcing, mandating or even using any medical products which are essentially untested.
I applaud Liz Gunn and pray she will be successful in her appeals to Winston Peters.
We need Senators Malcolm Roberts, Alex Antic, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babbet and Matt Canavan to join together as one and make the same demands here in Australia.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
“We have experienced more excess deaths since July 2021 than in the whole of 2020.
Number of excess deaths according to Office for Health Improvements and Disparities
Mar-Dec 2020 (there were fewer deaths than expected in Jan and Feb 2020 according to ONS)
69,293
Jul 2021 – Sept 2023
76,554
Unlike during the pandemic, however, those deaths are not disproportionately of the old. In other words, the excess deaths are striking down people in the prime of life… Full text with graphs
Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies ranged from a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout, from then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since.
The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red, but no one’s looking.
Payments for Personal Independent Payments (PIP) for people who have developed a disability and cannot work, have rocketed with the vaccine rollout and have continued to rise ever since.
The trial data showed that one in eight hundred injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning the risk of this was twice as high than the chance of preventing a Covid hospitalisation.
There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds before vaccination, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths in this age group alone.
There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 – 19-year-old males, but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included.
I am really sorry to have to do this to long-established TCW readers, who must be weary of the mass of scientific evidence we have reported over nearly three years about the ineffectiveness and dangers of the Covid jabs – and the continuing lack of response from regulators. But a peer-reviewed study out last week in the British Journal of Pharmacology provides an important piece of the puzzle of why heart damage has emerged as prominent among side-effects from the mRNA gene injections.
It shows for the first time that rat heart cells, isolated in the laboratory, become disordered 48 hours after exposure to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in ways that correlate with heart muscle damage in humans. The scientists involved, at the Giessen Institute of Physiology in Germany and the National Heart Laboratory of Semmelweis University, Hungary, say the findings mean the policy of giving people mRNA vaccines should be reconsidered. This adds even further weight to Professor Angus Dalgleish’s call for the mRNA vaccines to be banned once and for all made in these pages three weeks ago.
The vaccines were designed to induce our bodies to make a specific protein, the toxic ‘spike’ of the genetically engineered Covid virus, in the hope that this would increase our immunity to the virus. It was originally claimed that the genetic material would act only at the site of the injection, and that it would soon disappear. Both claims have been disproved, with studies showing that the nanoparticles carrying the genetic instruction for ‘spike’ travel all over the body, and can be long-lasting.
In the new study, the Moderna and Pfizer products had different, specific effects, but both altered heart cell function and structure in ‘hidden’ ways that ‘may significantly increase the risk of acute cardiac events’, the researchers say.
Commenting on the study, the US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough said yesterday: ‘There have been many drugs that have never made it to the market because they cause heart rhythm disturbances. Because the Covid-19 vaccines were rushed in development, pre-clinical cardiac toxicity studies were skipped. Now, three years into the disastrous Covid-19 vaccine campaign, we are learning that probably every person sustains some degree of heart dysfunction or damage within 48 hours of the shot . . . This and many studies support a complete moratorium on mRNA research, given these very serious findings.’
Mathematician and businessman Igor Chudov, who closely monitors Covid vaccine science, also drew attention to the study, commenting: ‘I wish this research had been done before billions of people were poisoned. Sadly, little will change now – but the truth is finally coming out.’
The finding comes after a long line of warnings about heart damage from the jabs. As early as December 2020, US physician Dr Patrick Whelan, a paediatric specialist, wrote that vaccines based on the spike protein may themselves trigger symptoms of severe Covid, including blood clots, brain inflammation and damage to the heart, liver and kidneys. He urged particular caution over giving the vaccine to children and young adults, who normally fight off the coronavirus infection in its early stages.
The following May, an international group of doctors and scientists published an appeal – the first of many – to halt mass vaccination programmes until safety issues were resolved.
A month later, in June 2021, pathologist Dr Roger Hodkinson said the vaccine should never have been released, warning that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – was being seen increasingly in the wake of the jab, especially in young men. The long-term consequences, he said, were ‘totally unpredictable’ and never ‘mild’, as regulators were describing it. ‘It may only present 20 years later because of the reserve of the heart having been destroyed. We are talking here about cardiac arrhythmias, abnormal heartbeats, heart failure and so on . . . The bottom line is that this vaccination of everybody should stop immediately.’
The same month Dr Byram Bridle, associate professor of immunology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, said it had become clear that ‘the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation’.
And in November 2021 Dr Steven Gundry, a renowned American heart specialist, reported ‘dramatic’ biochemical changes predictive of heart trouble in most of his patients after their second mRNA jab. ‘These changes persist for at least two and a half months post second dose of vaccine,’ he wrote in an alert to the American Heart Association.
More recently, another biochemical signal of hidden heart damage in the wake of the jabs was reported last month in the journal Radiology. Patients known to be suffering from post-vaccination myocarditis show this abnormality, and a study on hundreds of symptomless patients, who were in hospital for check-ups and other reasons, found the same signal to be more common among the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. The effect was seen for up to 180 days after their second jab.
McCullough has given evidence supporting his call for a moratorium on the jabs at hearings in the US Senate and European Parliament. He has published a ‘note of concern to colleagues’ in which he says that as of August 25 this year, the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has recorded 18,015 deaths reported under the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) by healthcare professionals or pharmaceutical companies who believe the vaccine is related to the death. The largest autopsy study to date indicates that 73.9 per cent of deaths are directly caused or significantly contributed to by the Covid jabs, he says. Around 1,100 deaths occurred on the same day as vaccination.
His statement continues: ‘There are around 3,400 peer-reviewed manuscripts in the medical literature concerning fatal and non-fatal Covid-19 vaccine injuries including those recognized by regulatory agencies around the world such as myocarditis, neurologic injury, thrombosis, and immunologic syndromes.
‘The World Council for Health, June 11, 2022, has produced a pharmacovigilance report which is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven, calling for global market withdrawal of Covid-19 vaccines based on lack of safety.’
Citing other similar calls, he says the evidence indicates that not only are the vaccines not safe for human use, but ‘no large-scale, conclusive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated reduction in infection transmission, hospitalization or death as primary endpoints.’
Elsewhere, he has said that the moratorium should apply to all mRNA vaccines, including those being developed for other purposes, until the effects on the heart are fully studied.
In June, a group of doctors, some of whom are general practitioners (GPs), initiated legal action against the General Medical Council (GMC). The basis of their claim was the GMC’s alleged failure to address misinformation about the Covid vaccines.
The doctors, who prefer anonymity – cowards – delivered a pre-action protocol letter to the GMC, signalling their intent to pursue legal action. Earlier in January, this group had urged the regulator to assess Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s suitability to practice medicine, citing his alleged “prominent dissemination of misinformation regarding Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.”
Dr. Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist, activist, and author, boasts over half a million Twitter followers, with his latest content primarily centering around the safety, or the lack there of, of the Covid vaccines.
Prior to receiving an official denial from the GMC, the doctors contended in an April letter that the regulator should determine if Dr. Malhotra’s professional conduct had been compromised by his alleged “anti-Covid-19 vaccine stance”. They stressed that inaction could jeopardise patient safety and public trust in both the medical field and the GMC.
Professor Trish Greenhalgh, an Oxford University GP, highlighted the GMC’s reluctance to tie perceived “anti-vaccine statements” to direct harm inflicted upon a patient. She emphasised the expansive reach of “misleading statements” in the era of social media, necessitating a reevaluation of the definition of “harm” in this context.
To defray the legal expenses for challenging the GMC, the group embarked on a fundraising campaign, collecting a reported £5,000.
Dr. Malhotra defended his stance, citing a commitment to evolve his position in line with new evidence. He mentioned his own early vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine and efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy, but stressed his belief that the mRNA vaccines present serious risks while noting their approval despite the absence of long-term safety data.
Earlier today, Doctors For Patients UK, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, and Health Advisory & Recovery Team, issued a press release in response to the Good Law Project.
(It constitutes a bit of an ass-whopping in my opinion so I dare not summarise it. Here it is in its entirety):
Dear Editor
We, the undersigned doctors, and the campaign groups Doctors for Patients UK, UK Medical Freedom Alliance and HART, wish to publicly state our support for Dr Aseem Malhotra, a well-published academic and cardiologist who has been a popular commentator on medical and public health matters in the UK media for many years. We condemn the actions of a group of (mostly anonymous) doctors, supported by the Good Law Project (GLP), in seeking to silence and punish Dr Malhotra for speaking out about his concerns about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. This is a serious and chilling attack on the freedom of speech of a senior doctor.
Dr Malhotra is the son of the late BMA stalwart and NHS campaigner, Dr Kailash Chand. Following the unexpected death of his father from previously undetectable heart disease, Dr Malhotra made public statements highlighting his concerns that his father’s Covid-19 vaccinations were a causal factor in his death.
Despite initially endorsing and promoting the Covid-19 vaccines on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on 5th February 20212 he is now calling for an immediate suspension of the novel mRNA Covid-19 vaccines and a full investigation into their adverse effects, for reasons detailed in the 2-part, peer-reviewed paper he wrote, published in September 2022 in the Journal of Insulin Resistance. This is entirely in line with his duty as a responsible doctor, to protect the British public from the harm which he believes his family have suffered and to uphold the fundamental principle of medical ethics to “First do no harm”.
Dr Malhotra presented his concerns to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Vaccine Damage, on 20th October 2022 at Portcullis House, Westminster. His impassioned call to prioritise patient safety resulted in a group of anonymous doctors reporting him to the General Medical Council (GMC) for ‘high-profile promotion of misinformation about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines’, demanding they investigate his fitness to practice. When the GMC refused to carry out a Fitness to Practice (FtP) investigation, Dr Matt Kneale, a junior doctor in the group, instructed The Good Law Project (GLP) to begin crowdfunding for a legal action against the GMC’s decision, and launched a judicial review against the GMC in the High Court.
Dr Malhotra is a senior cardiologist, a well-established commentator and campaigner on public health issues, and a long-standing advocate for patient safety. His previous campaigns have raised awareness about heart disease, obesity, the harms of sugar, and corruption within the pharmaceutical industry. As an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, he was the lead author in this joint initiative with the BMJ to tackle the harms of overprescribing and unnecessary medical interventions. It is a mark of Dr Malhotra’s high regard for medical ethics that he felt compelled to speak publicly about his new and growing concerns of a link between Covid-19 vaccines and heart damage, despite initially endorsing the mRNA jabs.
It is deeply unsettling that the GLP, an entity funded primarily by the public, would turn its legal machinery toward silencing an ethical doctor. This is especially troubling given the organisation’s stated commitment to transparency and a better world. Rather than exerting legal force to silence professionals, should they not focus instead on compelling the full release of the Covid-19 vaccine trial data? The absence of such vital information from public and medical scrutiny is not just a lapse; it’s a serious breach of trust and a blow to patient safety.
By contesting the GMC’s decision to support Dr Malhotra’s right to free speech and not to carry out a formal FtP investigation (on the grounds that his statements were not sufficiently egregious to merit action), the legal action supported by the GLP risks undermining the resolve of medical professionals to speak candidly on serious health issues, a move that would have profound consequences for patient safety and the ethical practice of medicine.
The GLP challenge against the GMC decision is misconceived, misguided, and threatens doctors’ individual right to free speech and proper scientific debate on matters relating to protecting the public from dangerous products. It is deeply regrettable in a democratic society that instead of being applauded for his courage in raising the alarm, Dr Malhotra is being persecuted in this way.
Thousands of doctors worldwide and in the United Kingdom11 share Dr Malhotra’s reasonable concerns regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety. Many have spoken out on this issue, including the eminent US cardiologist, Dr Peter McCullough, who called for an immediate withdrawal of these products in a speech made in the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023. The undersigned doctors and organisations are aware of multiple harms associated with the Covid-19 vaccines; among them frontline doctors who have reported vaccine-associated injuries and deaths in their own patients.
The list of signatories and co-signatories is something to behold:
Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, MRCGP (2014)
Dr Clare Craig BM BCh, FRCPath
Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA, MBBS, DRCOG
Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, former Consultant in Public Health Medicine
Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, University of London; Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy
Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS, BMed Sci, FRCS, FFSEM(UK), Professor Emeritus, Honorary Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Ali Ajaz, MBBS, BSc, MRCPsych, PGCert, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
Dr Victoria Anderson, MBChB, MRCGP (2016), MRCPCH (2013), DRCOG, General Practitioner
Dr Lucy Apps, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Michael Bazlinton, MBChB, MRCGP, DCH, General Practitioner
Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine
Dr Gill Breese, BSc, MBChB, DTM&H, DFFP, General Practitioner
Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Rachel Brown, MBChB, LLM, CFMP, MRCPsych
Mr John Bunni, MBChB (Hons), Dip Lap Surg, FRCS [ASGBI Medal], Consultant Colorectal and General Surgeon
Dr Selena Chester, MBBS, Medical Practitioner
Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General Practitioner
Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist
Dr Phuoc-Tan Diep, MBChB FRCPath. Consultant Histopathologist
Dr Jonathan Eastwood, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LLB
Dr Bob Gill, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Catherine Hatton, MBChB, General Practitioner
Dr Tony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant Surgeon
Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired Consultant Paediatrician
Dr Tim Kelly, MBBCh, BSc, Hospital Doctor
Dr Caroline Lapworth, MBChB, General Practitioner
Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
Dr Andrew Lees, MB BS, MRCGP, DCH, retired General Practitioner
Dr Imran Malik, MBBS, MRCP (2006), MRCGP (2007), General Practitioner
Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Janet Menage, MA, MBChB, retired General Practitioner
Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH, retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
Dr Campbell Murdoch, MBChb, General Practitioner and PCN Clinical Director, Somerset
Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
Dr Angela Musso, MD, MRCGP, DRCOG, FRACGP, MFPC, General Practitioner
Dr Sam McBride, BSc (Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP(Edinburgh), NHS Emergency Medicine & geriatrics
Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, FRCP, retired Consultant Physician
Dr Fairoz Miller, BSc, MBBCh, MRCP (1999), MRCGP (2016), General Practitioner
Dr Alistair J Montgomery, MBChB, MRCGP, DRCOG, retired General Practitioner
Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician, UKMFA Director of Medical Ethics
Dr Dean Patterson, Consultant Cardiologist and General Physician, MBChB, FRCP
Dr Jessica Robinson, Bsc (Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom
Dr Susannah Robinson, MBBS BSc MRCP MRCGP General Practitioner
Dr Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), MRCGP (1981), DRCOG (1980), retired General Practitioner
Mr T. James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal and General Surgeon
Dr Magdalena Stasiak-Horkan, MBBS, DCH, MRCGP (2003-2017), General Practitioner
Dr Rohaan Seth, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP (2012), retired General Practitioner
Dr Jannah van der Pol, iBSc, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
Dr Lucie Wilk, BSc, MD, FRCPC (2013), Consultant Rheumatologist
You can find a full copy of the press release here.
Currently working on a new exposè concerning the coordinated attempt to tarnish “conspiracist” celebrities. It is, however, proving to be more time-consuming than I originally expected. I should have it up in the next few days.
Headmaster Mike Fairclough was the darling of primary school education after creating an unorthodox forest school in a council estate in Eastbourne, East Sussex. Alongside the usual lessons, from 2004 Mr Fairclough provided an extraordinarily rich rural curriculum that you would never expect in a state school. He leased 120 acres of marshland opposite West Rise school, the site of a former Bronze Age settlement. The children learned how to build fires and how to whittle wood with knives to make arrows. They learned fly fishing, how to skin rabbits and pluck pigeons. They tended beehives, sheep and even water buffalo.
Mr Fairclough won the admiration of his peers, and in 2015, the Times Educational Supplement ‘Primary School of the Year’ award. Dame Judith Hackitt, chairman of the Health & Safety Executive, said more school head teachers should be following Fairclough’s example. The underperforming school’s Ofsted rose from ‘Satisfactory’ to ‘Good’ and for 19 years, West Rise thrived. The number of pupils doubled from 179 to 360, as did the number of staff from 30 to 60.
Mr Fairclough enjoyed a good relationship with his staff and his local authority East Sussex County Council but resigned last month after a witch hunt using anti-terrorism legislation left him feeling a broken man. In his resignation letter he said: ‘I feel that I have been discriminated against, harassed, and bullied for exercising my right to lawful free speech and for expressing my philosophical belief in the importance of critical thinking, free speech, and safeguarding children.
‘As a headteacher, I have had a legal duty to safeguard children against harm. My professional field of expertise is child development and education. I have publicly shared my opinion that lockdowns harm children, that I disagree with masking children, and that I feel that the risks from the Covid vaccines for children outweigh any possible benefits. It has therefore been entirely reasonable and relevant for me to express my lawful opinions on these matters in the interest of safeguarding children against harm.’ Other heads agreed privately but 50-year-old Mr Fairclough, a father of four, was the only headteacher of 20,000 in the UK to say so publicly.
‘I first started to lose heart during the pandemic,’ he said. ‘The fear of Covid trumped learning, so children weren’t sitting next to each other and couldn’t share resources. Some schools were having children learning outside in the cold, so they weren’t able to concentrate, and it felt like adults’ fear of dying, which was irrational because we were told early that we were at minimal risk of dying of Covid, meant they were using children in their care as human shields. That made me think that the Department for Education weren’t really bothered about kids at all.’
His lawful response put him under scrutiny at the highest levels. Mr Fairclough found out through freedom of information (FOI) that he had been monitored by the government’s Counter-Disinformation Unit (CDU) and their Department for Counter Extremism, although he was cleared of any wrongdoing by East Sussex County Council.
Some people objected to his negative views on vaccinating children against Covid, opinions expressed outside the school setting, on social media and in podcasts. They fell into four main points, all of which are hard to challenge:
· Healthy children were at low risk of serious illness from Covid. (Office of National Statistics figures show that just six under-tens died between January 2020 and May 2021. They do not say whether the children had underlying health problems. For context, around 1,000 children die on the roads each year.)
· Covid vaccines posed known and very serious risks. (Potentially fatal myocarditis, and pericarditis, inflammation of the heart, are known risks.)
· A child can still catch Covid and spread Covid when vaccinated. (Covid vaccinations were not recommended by the Joint Committee on Vaccination (JCVI) for under-16s, a decision overridden by the chief medical officers in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.)
· There was no long-term safety data, trials do not finish until this year, and the potential risks outweighed any benefit.
Mr Fairclough said: ‘I tried to communicate with parents who were undecided in a way that didn’t make me sound like I’m mad. I do think there are some in the freedom movement who say things in a way that doesn’t endear themselves to people with a different view.’
In the end 89.4 per cent of five to 11-year-olds remained unvaccinated although the numbers are hard to find and are not reported by the BBC.
So, who complained about this popular and effective headmaster? The first investigation was launched in June 2021. It was made by a group of retired NHS workers on Twitter (now X) whose mission it was to find anyone in education who appeared to be antivax and anti-lockdown. Mr Fairclough does not know who made the second complaint but the third was made by a concerned group of parents and teachers. ‘No parent came to me,’ Mr Fairclough said. ‘I have an open-door policy and they know they can talk to me at any time. I don’t know exactly which staff complained, but I have my suspicions. There was a small group within the school who did not agree with me although most were aligned with my thinking.’
It was December 1 2022 when the third complaint arrived, reported under the Prevent duty, the government initiative that requires all education providers to safeguard learners from extremist ideologies. Mr Fairclough was also reported to the DfE’s Counter-Extremism Division and was being framed as an extremist and potential terrorist, an intimidating move by the local council that left Mr Fairclough traumatised. He was signed off suffering with stress. He said: ‘I found sleeping difficult. I kept dreaming about what was happening and woke up thinking about it. I’m not a terrorist, all I was doing was discussing the alterative narrative.’
We know utopia does not exist and Mr Fairclough had his run-ins. ‘It wasn’t that I never fell out with parents. Say for example they felt like a teacher hadn’t dealt with a bullying issue, then of course they would come in and kick off and I’d have to look into the matter. But what surprised me with the resignation is that even parents that I’d had that kind of fractious relationship with have actually contacted me personally to say, “we’re really gutted that you’re not here any more”. That surprised me. I thought at least one would say good riddance.’
His absence has sent the school into freefall. An Ofsted report carried out in July, seven months after he was signed off, saw West Rise downgraded from ‘Good’ to ‘Requires Improvement’.
Our education system is increasingly focused on learning by rote rather than teaching critical thinking, a skill Mr Fairclough thinks is essential. He said: ‘Education is highly political under the Conservative government, it’s all about acquisition of knowledge to be retained and regurgitated for a memory test on the other side.’
His unusual approach had the full support of parents, the Health and Safety Executive, Ofsted and the media. Some of his pupils gained places at the local agricultural college and now run their own herds in the Sussex South Downs. A number entered media in film, art, and drama, mainly thanks to his ‘Room 13’, where children could go and have complete creative autonomy.
He is not sure what comes next, but he is sure of one thing: advocating for children cost him his much-loved career in our inverted world. He said: ‘Critical thinking and lawful free speech are not dangerous; they go hand in hand in safeguarding children. Open debate on important matters is the bedrock of any democratic society and no one should be pursued for speaking out.’
Mr Fairclough is not giving up on free speech and is crowdfunding to take his former employer to court. You can donate here.
He hopes his future will include writing more books like Wild Thing, which is about how embracing childhood traits into adulthood can lead to happiness. He recently started a Substack which you can see here.
One of the most-important of these professions is Plaintiffs’ Trial Lawyer firms. These are attorneys and law firms that are supposed to exist to represent people who suffered grave harms from malfeasance or nefarious (and illegal) acts.
First questions: Where are these fearless, justice-seeking lawyers today? What are they doing with their lives and careers?
We know what they are NOT doing: They are not suing any person or company whose activities directly or indirectly injured or killed hundreds of millions of possible plaintiffs who are pleading for justice.
Potential lawsuits might expose (and give some compensation or “justice”) to tens of millions of people who suffered harm from lockdowns, iatrogenic deaths and injuries, vaccine deaths and injuries and/or vaccine mandates that resulted in people losing their jobs and incomes.
FWIW, such lawsuits might also stop these horrific practices, saving countless people from pain, suffering and even death.
So why aren’t these lawsuits being filed? Why won’t 99 percent of these firms even consider representing a potential plaintiff class that’s so massive in size?
Nobody wants to leave the safety of the herd
Or: club membership bestows benefits
My answer is that plaintiff trial lawyers are part of a “club” that’s now completely captured. It’s more important to these attorneys to remain in this privileged and protected club than it is to do the job lawyers were created to do.
Basically, to remain a member in good standing of this club, these attorneys know what lawsuits they can file … and, more importantly, what lawsuits they cannot file.
I also note that the members of the Plaintiff’s trial bar are among the wealthiest people in the world. If they file a case and win, they pocket at least 40 percent of the financial judgement.
I also understand most of these lawsuits never even go before a jury. They are settled long before that point – so plaintiff lawyers don’t even have to fully try a case, which, with appeals, could take years to adjudicate.
In short, if you become part of the group that can file authorized lawsuits … and identify enough winnable cases, this is a lucrative gig.
You are going to be a member of the best country club in town and your family is going to be able to take vacations to the south of France.
Why jeopardize your inclusion in a profitable profession?
A key point is that this group never runs out of “winnable cases.”
Every day, an 18-wheeler (owned by a trucking company with deep pockets or good liability insurance) is going to be involved in a fatal traffic accident. Asbestos lawsuits are still making lawyers millionaires decades after asbestos was identified as a potential killer.
If “contaminated water” at a military base might, decades later, have made some people sick that’s a potential windfall for lawyers who recruited enough possible victims.
If you were perhaps discriminated against because of your LGBT status or maybe because of your race, this could produce enough money for a lawyer to live like a king for a couple of years.
Even hospitals or surgeons can be sued for malpractice … if they commit malpractice that is on the authorized “sue list.”
In short, no plaintiff trial attorney needs to file Covid-related lawsuits to continue to make a great living. There’s enough easy judgments out there to keep suing lawyers happy and content.
A thought experiment …
However, what would happen to these lawyers and their law firms if they suddenly started filing lawsuits against Pfizer, or Moderna or their local hospitals and doctors, people who are the most respected people in their towns?
What if they sued a random scientific expert, and their employers at the local university, who evidence showed were intentionally producing harmful and bogus science and who were retaliating against individuals who were trying to tell the truth?
What if they sued a big local employer, led by “civic-minded” and well-respected CEOs, who nonetheless helped enforce all the harmful and discriminatory Covid mandates?
If any of these things actually happened – if some serious lawsuits were filed – I don’t think the attorneys or law firms that brought these cases would remain in this exalted club for long.
Lawyers are smart. My guess is they understand all of this.
They know how cancel culture works. They saw that even Tucker Carlson, who had the No. 1 rated TV news show in the world, could be fired in retaliation for trying to expose club members.
Attorneys, more than most citizens, can probably tell which way the wind is blowing and who really possesses the most power in society. (The same dynamic applies to mainstream media “journalists,” who know what stories they can write … and which ones they can never write).
In a way, it makes sense that attorneys wouldn’t want to get sideways with certain people and organizations. It’s now been confirmed repeatedly that sociopaths, or those who covet status, are not amused when someone breaks ranks and challenges their status and control.
Here’s the lawyers’ go-to defense …
It would be interesting if some real journalist surveyed some of the most prominent plaintiff trial firms and asked their managing partners why they are not representing millions of gravely injured citizens.
I can guess what their answers would be.
The common answer would be that potential defendants in lawsuits are immune from liability.
This is no doubt true in some cases, but definitely not all possible cases, involving all victims.
As noted, lawyers are smart. If they wanted to file a case, they could find myriad legal grounds to bring said cases.
But, IMO, the real reason would be unspoken.
“Are you crazy? We’re not going to agitate the most powerful and politically-connected organizations in the world. They’d retaliate and put us out of the lawsuit-filing business.”
This is no doubt true, so the world’s elite lawyers are not suffering from paranoia.
Which brings me to my main point …
But what these attorneys would really be admitting is they are not the “fearless,” justice-seeking lawyers they depict in their TV commercials.
If you were injured in an accident involving a big-rig truck, they’ll talk to you. But if your case would involve debunking the claims of Anthony Fauci or any of the non-pharmaceutical interventions endorsed by every important organization in the world … go talk to Robert Kennedy Jr’s law firm.
What these lawyers in their $5,000 suits are really admitting is that they do fear repercussions from the most powerful entities in the world.
They are either scared as hell of getting on the wrong side of the “Powers that Be” … or they are admitting they’d prefer to remain a member in good standing of the club that rules the world.
The Operative Quid Pro Quo
For the third time in this essay, I’ll note that lawyers are smart.
Lawyers, hypothetically, can represent any plaintiffs who’ve suffered unnecessary or avoidable injuries. Many key attorneys also represent big companies that want to eliminate or minimize the possibility they’ll have to pay vast legal settlements for corporate malfeasance.
When I think about the machinations of “club” members, it occurs to me that many of the best and brightest lawyers in the world have spent decades re-writing laws and regulations that will protect certain companies from lawsuits brought by millions of possible victims.
I’ve come to believe there was a quid pro quo with plaintiff trial lawyers: If you guys don’t sue the wrong defendants, we’ll make sure there’s enough people left in the world that you can sue and still make a great living.
Remaining a member of “The Club” is far more important to 99 percent of attorneys than representing victims … if said victims happened to be harmed by the policies embraced by the Club.
Why this matters …
None of this would matter if lawyers and successful lawsuits didn’t or couldn’t make a difference. But they can and could … if we had many more attorneys who were genuinely fearless justice seekers.
In fact, society probably wouldn’t need a large number of attorneys who were brave enough to bring these cases. Once one jury returned for the plaintiffs, armies of lawyers would probably want to get their piece of this justice pie.
It’s possible legions of members of Plaintiffs Trial Bar are waiting for one brave lawyer in their group who does say, “Damn the torpedoes” and starts suing away.
Of course, this scenario would entail a handful of judges who would allow good cases to go to trial … and this possibility is being blocked as well.
It turns out that the judges are lawyers too. This makes one think everyone who could make a difference …. won’t … because they’re all members of the same captured club.
On 2nd October 2023, Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman were awarded a Nobel Prize for their contribution to the design of the mRNA vaccines. Notably, the original inventor, Robert Malone was not included. Karikó and Weissman’s main contribution was to include a synthetic nucleotide – pseudouridine – to reduce immune attack, increase protein production and to increase the longevity of the mRNA. How long did they make it last you may ask? Nobody knows!
Dr Drew Weissman wrote in 2018 of his concerns regarding the “non-trivial” safety concerns of the mRNA technology. He included concerns about:
1. Where in the body mRNA would act
2. How long it would last
3. Autoimmunity
4. Toxicity of recycled pseudouridine nucleotides
5. Lipid nanoparticle toxicity
6. Clotting issues from naked RNA
Since 2020, he failed to raise concerns about any of these issues and instead advocated as if every single one of these concerns had been remedied.
They received their prize while both wearing large white face masks indicating their total lack of faith in the product.
The vice chair of the Nobel Committee claimed:
“giving a Nobel Prize for this COVID-19 vaccine may make hesitant people take the vaccine and be sure it’s very efficient and safe.”
This rather implies that the latest stunt is nothing more than a publicity/marketing exercise to ‘nudge’ consumer confidence. It is hard to imagine that anyone who resisted the billion dollar advertising campaign and behavioural nudges of 2020/2021 will be susceptible to this cheap trick. It is interesting how Ivermectin could be smeared by the FDA as being horse paste despite scientists being awarded a Nobel Prize for its use in medicine, specifically against parasitic diseases in humans. People’s thinking on these subjects is being constantly manipulated by those in power and is nothing if not entirely inconsistent.
Until recently, the most shameful Nobel Prize was awarded to the inventors of the lobotomy procedure. To avoid another similar disaster the committee has waited at least ten years before awarding a prize to ensure that breakthroughs stand the test of time. For some reason, that rule was ignored in this case. Perhaps the motivations were political. The question has to be asked as to whether these two characters are being set up to be the fall guys in due course.
Dr. Janci Lindsay & Dr. Phillip Buckhaults testify that the Pfizer shot has been found to be contaminated with DNA, which can permanently alter your genetic code, and SV40 sequences which can infect the E.coli in your gut, turning you… pic.twitter.com/bVqkS1TNc7
The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.
Dr. Toaff is uniquely qualified to write this book, being thoroughly familiar with the derivative literature in English, French, German and Italian, as well as the original documentary sources in Latin, Medieval Italian, Hebrew and Yiddish. This is not something he worked on in secret. On the contrary, he worked on it openly with his university students and colleagues in Israel for several years; one of his students was even going to publish a paper on the subject. The author is extremely careful about what he says, and his conclusions must be taken seriously. It reads like a detective story.
If it had been published in Israel, in Hebrew, no one would have cared. There are large bodies of literature in Hebrew that Jews do not wish Gentiles to know about. But Dr. Toaff’s announcement of its publication in Italy, in Italian, raised a worldwide firestorm of fury.
Under unbearable pressure, the book was withdrawn from publication. Come in out of the darkness, and strike a blow for the light.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.
Aletho News
Aletho News 