By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 13, 2023
Independent journalist Alex Berenson has filed a lawsuit against President Joe Biden, a Pfizer board member, and others for pressuring Twitter to ban his account.
His account was banned after posting a tweet questioning COVID-19 vaccines.
Initially, Twitter resisted the calls to ban Berenson. However, eventually the social media platform caved to the pressure.
Berenson sued Twitter in a federal court in California, accusing the company of violating its contract with him. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement and Twitter admitting it should not have banned him.
The defendants in the new lawsuit, filed on April 12, are President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, former White House COVID-19 official Dr. Andrew Slavitt, Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and the White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty.
In a meeting with Twitter, Slavitt and other White House officials asked why Berenson had not been “kicked off” Twitter. Slavitt has previously called Berenson a conspiracy theorist.
Flaherty recently said that he remembered Slavitt “expressing his view that Twitter was not enforcing its content guidelines with respect to Alex Berenson’s tweets, and that employees from Twitter disagreed with that view.”
Gottlieb also asked Twitter to suspend Berenson. He has also previously called for the suspension of other people, including former acting FDA commissioner Dr. Brett Girior.
In the offending tweet, Berenson wrote, “It doesn’t stop infection. Or Transmission. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”
According to his lawsuit, the defendants violated his First Amendment rights.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
“The government Defendants specifically targeted Mr. Berenson’s constitutionally protected speech and journalism,” the suit states.
“Members of [the Biden] administration engaged in a nearly unprecedented conspiracy to suppress Mr. Berenson’s First Amendment rights.
“Through 2021, they—and a senior board member at Pfizer, Inc. which has made more than $70 billion selling COVID-19 vaccines—worked together to pressure Twitter to suspend Mr. Berenson’s account and mute his voice as a leading COVID-19 vaccine skeptic. The White House and the Biden Administration did this at the same time government officials promoted their views on the necessity of COVID19 vaccination on Twitter, effectively blocking Mr. Berenson from commenting on their own statements or making his own.”
It adds that the permanent suspension “harmed both Mr. Berenson and a clearly identifiable class of nearly 100 million Americans whose interests he helped represent—Americans who either had questions about the vaccine or did not want to be forced to take a shot that they feared had been rushed through development and lost its ability to prevent COVID-19 infections within months.”
The suit is asking the court to stop the government from targeting the journalist and to award him damages.
Explains Why Some Have Severe Side Effects and Others Do Not
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | April 13, 2023
I am routinely asked: why are so many people who took the COVID-19 vaccines apparently fine while others are suffering heart damage, strokes, blood clots and are ending up disabled or dead? It has been suspected for many months that there may be variations in vaccine lots or batches that could partially explain these observations. In other words, not everyone is getting the same dose of mRNA.
Under Emergency Use Authorization, the vaccine companies and their subcontractors do not have any inspections of the final filled and finished vials. This is unprecedented for a widely used product of any type. It is possible that lipid nanoparticles aggregate in suspension and so some batches may contain more mRNA than others. Likewise, since lot size has varied over time, it is possible that contaminants from the manufacturing process may be concentrated in some smaller lots compared to larger ones. Finally, there may be product transport, storage, and use factors that denature mRNA including heating, air injected into vials, and multiple needles dipped into the suspension.
The contaminant issue came to light as Japan returned millions of doses when visible debris was seen in the bottom of the vials. Additionally, since metallic beads are used by the biodefense contactors, it is possible that smaller initial lots could have had magnetic debris that explained “magnetism” in the arm where the shot was given as reported early in the vaccine campaign.
A report from Schmeling and coworkers using Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine found that 71% of serious adverse events came from 4.2% of doses (high risk batches) conversely <1% of these events came from 32.1% of doses (low risk batches). The variation explained for the high and moderate risk batches was 78 and 89%, respectively. Thus as more doses were given out of those vials, the greater the number of side effects were reported. This means that the majority of risk is in the shot and not the person who received it.
These are critically important results. They imply the COVID-19 vaccine debacle is indeed a product problem and not due to patient susceptibility in most circumstances. Additionally, the lack of inspections has led to a safety disaster. Some unfortunate patients are getting too much mRNA, contaminants, or both and thus are exposed to damaging and in some cases, lethal injections.
Reuters Aug 2021, Japan suspends 1.6 mln doses of Moderna shot after contamination reports
By Madhava Setty, M.D. | The Defender | April 11, 2023
Last week I attended the 23rd World Vaccine Congress in Washington, D.C. — which bills itself as “The Most Important Vaccine Event of the Year”:
“Our event format allows for whole-sector topics, giving an opportunity for people to find out more about their specific area of research and their job-function. By running parallel niche conference channels over the 3 days, it increases the relevance of the whole event for everyone who attends.
“During the sessions you will learn how cutting-edge research efforts can be integrated with
“to produce more and better vaccines to the market.”
More than 3,100 people, largely from the pharma and biotech industries and regulatory affairs, attended the event.
Keynote speakers included prominent figures from public health agencies, including Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); various directors of research at BioNTech and Moderna; and academic bigwigs like Peter Hotez, M.D., Ph.D., dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine and co-director of Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development at Baylor College of Medicine (my own alma mater).
During the three full days of the conference, neither I nor Dr. Elizabeth Mumper encountered another physician presently in clinical practice.
The event was open to anyone willing to pay the entry fee, which started at $495 for students and went up to $1,000+. But from what I could tell, this was largely a gathering of big and small pharma, biotech and leaders in regulatory affairs.
General impressions
I was able to attend only a fraction of the hundreds of presentations and panel discussions during the conference. Below I summarize the most important points from the sessions I attended and key conversations I had with the presenters.
Note: Throughout this article I have quoted myself and others. I do not have access to any audio or video recordings from the sessions, if there are any. Quotations are paraphrased from my own recollection and are not to be taken verbatim.
Introduction to the conference: Anti-vaxxers are dangerous, expect annual COVID vaccinations
Dr. Gregory Poland, director of vaccine research at the Mayo Clinic, delivered the opening remarks. He then moderated a panel discussion with Marks; Paul Burton, chief medical officer at Moderna; Isabel Oliver, chief scientific advisor transition lead at UKHSA; and Dr. Penny Heaton, vaccines global therapeutic area head, Johnson & Johnson.
This first session was possibly the most fascinating 90 minutes of the entire week. Poland, I learned in a brief conversation with him after the conference, is also a pastor. His oratory skills were on full display during his opening and closing remarks. He also is vaccine-injured.
In February 2022, Poland reported suffering from significant tinnitus after receiving the second dose of “an mRNA vaccine.” At the time, Poland described his symptoms as “extraordinarily bothersome.” Nevertheless, he chose to receive a third dose (monovalent booster).
Poland’s commentary on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was extremely positive. He said the rapid deployment of the new therapy saved millions of lives and would have saved millions more if it weren’t for the disturbing trend of growing vaccine hesitancy.
I assumed that his vaccine-induced tinnitus had resolved over the last year. It was only at the end of the conference, several days later, when he told me personally that his symptoms were still debilitating, making his unmitigated support of these products even more astonishing.
Poland set the tone for the four-day conference in the first 10 minutes. In his mind, the COVID-19 pandemic was halted through the hard work of our regulatory agencies and the remarkable products borne of the mRNA platform.
The only failure came in the form of “inexplicable” vaccine hesitancy, a phenomenon driven by anti-vax pseudoscientists who are profiting from spreading baseless, fear-driven propaganda.
Combatting vaccine hesitancy is as big a challenge as protecting the world from the next deadly pathogen. Indeed, a significant portion of the events focused on strategies to dismantle the troubling “anti-vaxxers.”
Marks supported Poland’s position that the vaccine-hesitant are irrational, “It’s crazy that they don’t get how great vaccines are,” he said. “I am past trying to argue with people who think that vaccines are not safe.”
I found this remark to be particularly disquieting. What is it going to take for the director of the FDA’s CBER to reassess the safety profile of the mRNA shots?
The panelists expressed shock that some states (Idaho and North Dakota) are considering bills making the administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines illegal.
“How can we get the public to understand that science is iterative?” Heaton asked. “COVID vaccines save lives!”
Poland responded: “Can we get an amen?!!”
Marks, flanked by his partners — I mean counterparts — in industry let the audience know what the future would look like. “I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a sterilizing vaccine, protecting against severe disease is enough,” he said.
Marks predicted COVID-19 vaccines would be administered annually or even biannually.
He noted that the challenge will be to identify the strain of interest in June so that we can have a vaccine by September. A 100-day turnaround is possible as long as we have manufacturing ready to go, he said. Heaton (J&J) and Burton (Moderna) nodded in response.
To summarize, leaders of the vaccine industry and the regulatory agencies are, in my impression, convinced that they have offered the world an amazing product and are frustrated that it is not being readily and universally accepted.
They cited the fact that although 70% of Americans received the primary series, only 15% have chosen to receive the bivalent booster that became available in September 2022.
The reluctance of the public to accept the shot, they think, is due to the perceived reduction of threat of the disease, which can be overcome by “proper messaging.”
Of course, the public is correct. The pathogenicity of the strains now circulating is less than the original ancestral strain from 2020. The possibility that reduced uptake could be linked to a poor safety profile was never mentioned.
In their minds, vaccine injuries and serious adverse events are extremely rare. Their incidence has been exaggerated by anti-vax rumor mills. Poland joked that “maybe we should start a rumor that microchips are in ivermectin!”
His rejoinder was met with only sparse, nervous laughter.
Roundtable discussion: ‘Insights and tools to counter vaccine hesitancy’
Though the speakers at the introductory session were clearly entrenched in the “safe and effective” position, they acknowledged that there was a strong and growing swath of the population that was vaccine-hesitant.
More importantly, they were interested in dismantling this movement and not ignoring it. It was an opportunity to engage with them, perhaps in smaller groups or individually. I made my first attempt at a roundtable discussion where people could offer ways to convince the “anti-vaxxers” that they were wrong.
I found myself sitting next to Dame Jennifer Margaret Harries, a British public health physician and chief executive of the UKHSA. The UKHSA has been publishing U.K. health surveillance data with more granularity and frequency than our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
I let her know that I appreciated the data coming from her agency and that I began following the agency’s regular surveillance reports two years ago. She was grateful for the acknowledgment and appreciated my interest in her work.
It was the UKHSA that offered the first glimpse of negative efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in a public dataset in September 2021.
I asked Harries about that and her tone immediately shifted. She said she was aware of no such thing and that she would have to look into it before commenting.
I was surprised by her response. The report from September 2021 wasn’t an aberration. Subsequent reports from the agency over which she presides indicated there was a large and growing incidence of COVID-19 among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.
The UKHSA stopped making that data available several months later. I wanted to know why, but she was unwilling to answer.
I changed tactics and asked her about Tess Lawrie, Ph.D., of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy who notably saw safety signals in the U.K.’s Yellow Card system and, in an open letter in June 2021, urged the director of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to halt the British vaccination campaign.
Harries looked at me sternly and said, “There are a number of prominent physicians in my country who are gaining fame for their unfounded positions around vaccine dangers, most recently a cardiologist.”
“Do you mean Dr. Aseem Malhotra?”
“Yes. He has gotten a lot of attention of late.”
Harries didn’t think Malhotra or Lawrie held credible opinions, or at least that’s what she told me. It wasn’t easy for me to accept this. We didn’t have a chance to speak about this further. I had another brief interaction with Harries later in the week (see below).
An American pediatrician chaired the roundtable. He opened the discussion with a request for ideas on how to counter vaccine hesitancy.
I had one:
“It’s obvious that the Krispy Kreme doughnuts and travel restrictions are carrots and sticks that have only partially worked. Those that remain hesitant are steadfast in their position because they have looked harder than most.
“They aren’t believing rumors. They are listening to credentialed physicians and scientists who have authored numerous peer-reviewed papers and who happen to be COVID-19 vaccine critics. Why don’t we engage them openly and see what they have to say?”
Katie Attwell, Ph.D., a professor from the University of Western Australia whose interest is in vaccine policy and uptake, shot down that idea. I didn’t know who she was at the time. I did manage to speak with her personally later in the week. Her rebuke was curt and to the point, “We cannot give any voice to the critic,” she told me. “Once the public sees them on equal footing with us they may believe what they are saying.”
Implicit in her strategy is the idea that the public cannot separate information from misinformation. Truth, in her mind, cannot stand on its own. It needs to be identified by those who know better.
Of course, there is another possibility. Perhaps she knows what the truth is and wants to hide it. My initial impressions were that she was earnestly doing her duty to protect the public through whatever means necessary. It would all come down to assessing her breadth of knowledge on the topic.
Chris Graves, the founder of Ogilvy Center for Behavioral Science, supported Attwell’s position. He was a smiling, gregarious fellow, who, I found out later, was hired by Merck to analyze different personality types and value/belief systems among the “anti-vax” camp.
Once a person is properly categorized, “personalized messaging” can be used to bring them back to “reality.” According to the abstract of his study:
“Just as precision medicine treats individuals, this study of 3000 parents (inclusive of all demographics) in the USA sought to identify the most effective personalized messaging to address vaccine hesitancy among parents. First, it sought correlations between: demographics; stated specific reasons for vaccine hesitancy; cognitive biases; cognitive styles; identity-linked worldviews; and personality traits.
“Second, it tested 16 messages in the form of mini-narratives, each embodied with a behavioral science principle, to find if certain messages resonated better than others depending on the many factors above.”
I later asked him how he would respond to someone who looked at the trial and observational data and found that it told a different story about the vaccines’ safety. He smiled, “Oh, those are the ones that have a higher need for cognitive closure. Yes. They are stuck because they cannot move forward if there is any uncertainty.”
Graves couldn’t describe what the “personalized messaging” would look like for this group specifically, only that it existed and had been proven to be more effective than the other types of messaging
I asked him if he was aware of how many reports of adverse events had been registered in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. “No,” he said, still smiling.
Panel discussion: ‘What vaccines and COVID have taught us about the science of immunology’
The panel included Ofer Levy, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital and VRBPAC member.
This discussion centered around the lack of good biological markers for vaccine efficacy. According to the consensus position of the VRBPAC, antibody levels are not a surrogate for protection.
In other words, an immune response to the vaccine in the form of antibodies should not be used to judge whether the vaccine will do anything useful. Nevertheless, pediatric trials of the original formulation used them as proof of efficacy.
One of the expert panel members was Sharon Benzeno, Ph.D., chief commercial officer of Immune Medicine at Adaptive Biotechnologies, who offered encouraging information. She felt that our approach was too centered on antibody responses and that it would be possible to identify biochemical markers of vaccine-induced cellular immunity in the future.
Levy agreed that this would be an important addition to our fund of knowledge moving forward.
When it came time for questions, I asked the panel:
“As we all know, uptake of the bivalent booster is very low. People are unwilling to subject themselves to another shot because there are no trials that look at outcomes, only immunogenicity, which you yourself are saying is insufficient. Why not insist on trials that can prove an outcome benefit?”
Levy responded that the advisory panel had no say in what kind of studies were required. His advisory committee could only vote yes, no or abstain with regard to approval/authorization.
Another panel member, Alessandro Sette, doctor of biological science, head of Sette Lab and professor at La Jolla Institute for Immunology, piped in, “It wouldn’t be practical. The signal is too small because we are no longer dealing with a non-naive population.”
Sette had taken the bait. He was saying that most people have either been vaccinated or exposed to the virus already. The booster would have little benefit, if any, on a population that was already protected.
I asked the obvious follow-up: “So why then are we insisting that everyone get boosted?”
Harries, the moderator, immediately stepped in, “Okay, we have veered off topic. Next question.”
I was beginning to understand how this conference was being managed. I don’t believe the sponsors of this meeting expected to encounter many probing questions about the quality of the COVID-19 vaccines from the audience who paid for their expensive tickets. When and if they arose, moderators were quick to intervene.
Was it possible that others in the audience saw what was happening? I believe it to be so. Every time I asked a question, people seated near me told me that they appreciated the question and wondered why it went unanswered.
Even a non-scientist from Moderna approached me several times throughout the conference to let me know she agreed that responding to these issues would be the best way to “increase uptake” and that she was planning on forwarding my questions to her scientific staff.
Panel discussion: How does vaccine law impact uptake and access?
This group was moderated by a lawyer, Brian Dean Abramson, “a leading expert on vaccine law, teaching the subject as adjunct professor of vaccine law at the Florida International University College of Law.”
His opening remarks demonstrated his contempt of the vaccine-hesitant:
“We didn’t get to herd immunity because of these anti-vaxxers.
“They are dangerous. In 2021, they received $4 million in donations. It is estimated that in 2022, more than $20 million have been funneled to their movement.”
The panel included Attwell, whose position was clear from her flat response to my suggestion earlier. Her public page indicates that she has received approximately $2 million in funding for her research into increasing vaccine access and uptake.
Attwell is not a physician or a medical scientist. However, also on this panel was a public health physician from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Chizoba Wonodi, Ph.D., who has 27 years of experience in Africa, Asia and America.
I was encouraged by the flexibility in the audience from my prior challenges and when offered the microphone, I opened with a more aggressive salvo directed at the moderator:
“‘Anti-vax’ is pejorative and reflects ignorance about who the vaccine-hesitant are and why they believe what they believe. This is further reflected when you insert terms like ‘herd immunity’ with regard to this pandemic. Without a sterilizing vaccine, or even one that can prevent infection, herd immunity is an impossibility.
“Rather than inflaming the situation, why don’t we engage with the doctors and scientists who are vaccine-cautionary and hear their arguments in a fair, open and public discussion?”
Once again, Attwell politely but sternly warned the audience that this would be too dangerous in her opinion. I expected that. And I also was again encouraged that the three people sitting around me acknowledged that my point was valid and that it was puzzling that the panelists would not address the merits of my position.
Afterward, Chizoba approached me and let me know she appreciated my question. In her work, she has found that education is the most important thing. She was kind; she believed that many of the vaccine-hesitant physicians could be reached by providing them with the proper information.
I asked her how she would address a physician who simply felt that authorizing a therapy where the double-blinded trial demonstrated a greater all-cause mortality than the placebo was not only unprecedented but illogical.
She stared at me blankly. “Is this from a new study?” she asked.
I told her that this was from the published interim results from the Pfizer/BioNTech trial, the trial that launched the worldwide vaccination campaign. She was not aware of the results.
To her credit, she admitted that she hadn’t looked at the paper but planned on doing so.
The final day
I attended a session titled “Let’s Talk Shots” where Daniel Salmon, Ph.D., presented the work being done at Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety.
“LetsTalkShots is designed to support vaccine decision-making. It shares engaging animated content based on a person’s questions or concerns.”
Suffice it to say that there is a lot of thought, money and energy behind the campaign to vaccinate the public. The approach once again is around targeted messaging, which acknowledges that different people need to hear different types of information.
Attwell also presented to the same audience. In this forum, she pointed out that the U.S. government was more tolerant of the vaccine-hesitant than in her country. She suggested that our religious and philosophical exemptions should be eliminated entirely. Only the strictest medical exemptions should be permitted. This will lead to better outcomes.
After her talk, I approached her. She looked up as if she was expecting me to ask her some questions. I asked her if she would be willing to have a more open conversation about her research and opinions. She was.
I let her know that I thought she was smart enough to realize that I was, in fact, a vaccine skeptic. She nodded her head.
“So,” I said, “the number one disinformation spreader may be running for President of the United States. What do you think should be done?”
She smiled uncomfortably and said, “Yes, it’s going to be hard to keep him from getting oxygen.”
In other words, her proposed approach to suffocate the anti-vax spokespersons becomes much harder when they are running for the highest office in the land. I thought she might be willing to reconsider her strategy. She wasn’t.
I tried a different approach. I explained that in my investigation, I haven’t found enough evidence that the COVID-19 mRNA shots were safe or effective, however, I was open to the possibility that the mRNA platform may eventually prove to be a powerful way to create therapies that are safe and effective in the future.
What good would it be to have this technology if half of the public no longer trusts it or the people who are shoving it down their throats while denying them an opportunity to debate them?
“Yes. That’s a good point.”
I told her that in this country, doctors are unwilling to write religious or philosophical exemptions to COVID-19 vaccines for fear of backlash. Many employers won’t accept them anyway, so her position is moot.
“Yes. That’s true.”
I asked her what would be a cause for a medical exemption. She didn’t know. I explained that medical exemptions are considered valid ONLY if the person has evidence of a prior reaction to an mRNA vaccine or to one or more of the ingredients in them. Nobody but a handful of people on the planet knows what exactly is in these things.
How would a doctor (or anyone else) know whether a given person was at an increased risk for an untoward event?
“I don’t know.”
I asked her if she was aware of the evidence of medical fraud around the Pfizer vaccine trials. She said she read something about it a while ago but didn’t think it was important.
Finally, I asked her why she thought vaccinating everyone was the right thing to do.
“Vaccination rates in my country are higher than in yours and we fared better.”
But there are countries whose vaccination rates are much lower than both countries and mortality rates are even lower. How could she explain that? She couldn’t.
Observations from Dr. Elizabeth Mumper
Mumper attended “Partnering for Vaccine Equity Program,” chaired by Joe Smyser, Ph.D., CEO of The Public Good Projects.
She shared this with me:
“This lecture was about vaccine acceptance and demand, specifically social and behavioral drivers, and how to link action and policy through the use of the social sciences.
“The strategy was to empower community leaders to take public health messages to communities. The research showed that disparities in vaccine acceptance decreased in black and brown communities which had the program. Research shows that now the most vaccine-hesitant are white, rural and right-wing.
“In the program described, they worked with social media influencers (like young women who did beauty blogs) to repeat public health messages to their audiences. They identified 212,700,000 disinformation messages about vaccines, most of which came from the United States.
“In this project, they worked closely with Twitter and facilitated the removal of what they deemed misinformation. They recruited 495 influencers who would share information voluntarily with their followers. As a result, they reached 60 million people.
“They know that so-called ‘anti-vaxxers will not come after social media influencers.’ The program provided training and webinars to educate how to compose effective public health messages.
“This public health social scientist called anti-vaxxers ‘idiots and jerks.’
“During the question and answer period, I said that in my experience, many parents who were vaccine-hesitant were very smart and had advanced degrees. People like doctors and lawyers and engineers knew someone in their family who had an adverse vaccine reaction. I suggested it would be more effective to engage with the vaccine-hesitant and discover what data they are relying on rather than using vitriolic name-calling.
“I am paraphrasing the speaker’s response below. He said, ‘We work upstream. We want to know where they are getting their misinformation. I can call people idiots and jerks if they are giving out misinformation. If you even raise questions like about the HPV vaccine, you will get speaker invitation and book deals. People are getting rich from spreading misinformation. We know what the right information is.’”
Mumper summarized:
“It was profoundly disturbing for me to hear details about how social scientists and public health officials worked directly with Twitter to remove content they deemed to be misinformation. Their assertion ‘that we know what is true’ did not ring true. Their efforts were directed at increasing vaccine uptake in all age groups for which emergency use authorization had been granted.
“The speaker did not seem to take into account the First Amendment rights for free speech of those who posted data questioning the effectiveness of COVID vaccines.
“I was surprised by the vitriolic rhetoric directed at those who reported side effects from the vaccine or who questioned the risk-benefit ratio.
“It was unsettling to hear how public health officials courted social media influencers to spread messages for their followers to get vaccinated. Yet they scrubbed messages from doctors and scientists who posted inconvenient data about COVID-19 vaccines.”
The last question of the symposium
The final day wound down with another plenary session. Once again, Poland moderated a panel of vaccine researchers who discussed how to quickly manufacture more durable vaccines, i.e., ones that would have longer-lasting protection.
One of the researchers made a remarkable observation. Early in the pandemic, prior to vaccine availability, young infants who contracted COVID-19 were found to have robust and enduring immunity by every measure even three years later. Perhaps some clues lay within this interesting cohort.
Mumper saw a great opportunity to pull the rug from under their feet. She said:
“I am a pediatrician in Virginia. I have been shocked at how well my infant patients did with COVID-19. The CDC has told us that the survival rate from COVID-19 is 99.997% in these infants. Now you, too, are telling us that we know these kids have great protection two years after infection.
“I am wondering why I should be pushing these vaccines on a 6-month-old when I don’t have any long-term data on what things like lipid nanoparticles do to babies. So convince me!”
(Laughter from audience.)
Poland to the panelist: “You have 30 seconds to answer.”
(More laughter.)
Panelist: “That would require more time and a bottle of wine.”
(Laughter.)
Panelist: “I don’t think I can answer that question.”
Mumper: “OK, Anybody else?”
Panelist Andrea Carfi, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at Moderna, took a shot at it, pointing out that Mumper is under the “misconception” that long-term effects of COVID-19 are less than that of the vaccines while admitting that he didn’t know what the long-term sequelae of infection were either.
Poland accepted Carfi’s response as sufficient and closed the discussion.
Those sitting next to us once again noted the merits of Mumper’s concern. Moreover, Carfi’s response didn’t resolve the issue at all. If the long-term effects of both the vaccine and the infection are unknown, on what grounds are we pushing the jab on these children?
Final thoughts
This was a rare opportunity to engage with vaccine proponents in their own house on their own terms. In my assessment, their foundation is crumbling and their structure will eventually collapse.
The big players must see this, which is why they are quick to squelch any lines of inquiry that will expose the hypocrisy.
This wasn’t lost on the audience. As I mentioned, some of them were able to realize that simple questions were not met with clear answers.
It is clear to me that the “pro-vaccine” camp is not as monolithic as we often think. There is a spectrum of skepticism amongst them. They also recognize that the vaccine-hesitant range the full continuum from “SARS-CoV-2 virus deniers” to the “wait and seers.”
They have the means to construct sophisticated “information” campaigns that target the vaccine-cautionary with specific messaging.
I suggest we use their model to at least acknowledge that we can be more precise in how we bring them to their senses.
In my first open comment in a roundtable discussion, I summarized the situation as follows:
“There are many people who are vaccine-hesitant that do not have the capacity to read scientific papers and analyze data. They see two groups who are mirror images of each other. Both sides think the other side is incredibly gullible, that they are listening to misinformation spreaders and are endangering the rest of us for their own personal gain.
“They can also see the one big difference between the two. One side is asking for an open discussion around this important issue. The other believes that only their side should have the right to express themselves while the other needs to be silenced.
“How do you think this is going to play out? Why would the undecided ever choose to follow the group that advocates censorship over open debate?”
By refusing to engage us in any meaningful exchange they may be able to bring over a few of the vaccine-hesitant to their side by what can be best described as “conversion therapy.”
However, in the end, their tower will topple because it is not based on logic, the scientific method or the unassailable facts. It relies on censorship of the voices of those who are qualified to speak on the matter to manufacture “consensus.”
It is incumbent on us to decide what should be done to hasten the inevitable emergence of sensibility around this matter.
I am quite certain there are people who know vaccines are causing incalculable harm but advocate their widespread use anyway. A few of them were likely at the conference. They won’t be swayed by open debate, however, they represent only a tiny minority of all vaccine advocates.
I suggest that we begin by not regarding every vaccine proponent as an engineer of mass murder. Most are woefully uninformed. In attempting to achieve herd immunity they have succumbed to herd mentality. They need to be reached.
In my recent experience, I see that it is possible through open dialogue. This is precisely why the engineers of this pandemic and its response want to make sure this never happens. Despite what they say publicly, I don’t think they are worried about the vaccine skeptics remaining hesitant — they are worried about losing members of their own herd to the truth.
Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 11, 2023
The federal government and insurers incentivized healthcare providers in Kentucky and California to vaccinate Medicaid patients against COVID-19 by offering bonuses based on the percentage of patients successfully vaccinated.
“[This is] truly sickening and I am embarrassed for my profession by this,” Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist, wrote on her Substack, where she posted several documents relating to the COVID-19 vaccine provider incentive programs.
The documents help to draw a picture of the broader effort at the federal, state and local levels to unleash a range of strategies targeting low-income and people-of-color communities, which tended to have lower vaccination rates.
The strategies included providing hundreds of millions of dollars for the creation of “culturally tailored” pro-vaccine materials and for training “trusted” and “influential messengers” to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines to communities of color in every state.
Nass’ revelations showed these efforts went beyond advertising, fear campaigns, payments to patients and payments to trusted community actors and included, in some cases, direct financial incentives to healthcare providers.
Kentucky: Medicaid paid doctors up to $250 per vaccinated Medicaid patient
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid in Kentucky told physicians in 2021 it would “recognize your hard work by offering incentives for helping patients make the choice to become vaccinated.”
The more people vaccinated, the higher the per-person incentive.
For physicians who treated an Anthem Medicaid cohort with a minimum of 25 patients in their practice, Anthem Medicaid offered incentives for vaccination by Sept. 1, 2021, that ranged from a $20 bonus per vaccinated person for physicians who vaccinated 30% of the cohort, to $125 per vaccinated person for those who vaccinated 75% of the cohort, with several incremental steps in between.
As time went on, the rates increased.
Between Sept. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, physicians received payments ranging from $100 per newly vaccinated person for those who vaccinated 30% of their patient cohort, to $250 per newly vaccinated person for those who vaccinated 75% of their patient cohort.
In 2022, the Anthem provider incentive program changed to a flat rate. Providers received $50 per newly vaccinated Medicaid patient. This included children ages 6 months to 4 years and kids 12 and older vaccinated between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2022, and children ages 5 to 11 vaccinated between June 1 and Dec. 31, 2022.
Medi-Cal: $350 million in incentives to vaccinate low-income children, people of color
The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on Aug. 6, 2021, announced $350 million in incentive payments — $250 million to providers and $100 million for direct non-monetary payments, such as gift cards, to vaccine recipients — to encourage vaccination among Medi-Cal’s 14 million beneficiaries.
Of the $350 million, $175 million came from state general funds and $175 million from federal funding. The funding period lasted from Sept. 2, 2021, through Feb. 29, 2022.
The program offered incentives to managed care plans in the name of “health equity.” In the press release, DHCS Director Will Lightborne said that raising rates among Medi-Cal beneficiaries was essential because “California will only be safe when everyone is safe.”
Nass noted that this program was rolled out one day after Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky told CNN the vaccines don’t prevent virus transmission. “That’s clearly a contradiction,” Nass told The Defender.
The funding targeted Medicaid recipients with low vaccine uptake — the homebound, communities of color, youth ages 12 to 25 and people ages 50 to 64 with multiple chronic conditions — and incentivized outreach and vaccination activities for providers and pharmacies.
At the time of the announcement, only 45.6% of Medi-Cal beneficiaries age 12 and over had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, compared to over 76% of Californians overall.
The DHCS funding included payments to community-based organizations, food banks, advocacy groups and faith-based organizations. This key strategy of funding grassroots leaders to act as “grassroots” proxies spreading the federal government’s vaccine message was widespread throughout the pandemic.
Providers could also couple this grant with a CAIRVaxGrant, which offered providers up to $10,000 to enter all of their historical electronic health record immunizations into the California Immunization Registry (CAIR).
The grant stipulated that after startup costs, payments would be directly tied to “meeting specific vaccination goals,” similar to the Kentucky program.
The incentive payment structure under the California plan was complex, paying a financial reward to healthcare providers who met particular benchmarks that varied by county and demographic but overall increased the percentage of vaccinated patients among their Medicare beneficiaries.
Under this incentive structure, providers had to meet particular vaccination targets in order to get paid. Those who were especially successful in increasing vaccination rates in the target groups would be entered into a “high performance pool,” receiving extra money for substantially moving the vaccination rates for Medicaid recipients 75% higher than baseline or within 10% of a given county’s general rate.
In the equation that determined the incentive payment structure, different demographic groups were weighted differently. For example, vaccine recipients ages 12 to 25 were weighted more highly than older recipients and those in the two racial/ethnic groups with the lowest uptake were also given greater weight.
By Jan. 21 of this year, despite this $250 million push, Medi-Cal vaccination had only increased to 52.9%.
Medicaid pays doctors more to administer COVID vaccines than other shots
As part of the American Rescue Plan Act, the Biden administration fully funded the COVID-19 vaccination program, making vaccines free regardless of health insurance status.
To cover the costs of the uninsured and underinsured, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) paid provider costs of vaccine administration through an Uninsured Program and a COVID-19 Coverage Assistance Fund.
Reimbursements were based on national Medicare rates, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which sets those rates, increased the reimbursement rate over time. Through March 14, 2021, HRSA paid $28.93 for a single-dose vaccine or for the second dose in a series of 2, and $16.94 for the first dose in a series of two.
On March 15, 2021, those rates increased to $40 per dose and $75.50 for an “in-home” dose of the vaccine.
Nass said the initial payments were in line with Medicaid payments for other vaccines, but the increased payment marked a departure from the usual reimbursement structure.
Usually, all CMS changes to Medicare payments for specific services must go through notice and comment rulemaking, but “to save time during the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency bypassed that route before increasing payments for administering the vaccines,” JAMA reported.
CMS said the higher payments were meant to help expand COVID-19 vaccination, supporting “actions taken by providers, such as growing existing vaccination sites, conducting patient outreach and education, and hiring additional staff,” Healthcare Finance News reported.
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.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
They charged Kirk Moore with a crime. Dr. Moore is allowed discovery to prove his innocence. JACKPOT!
By Steve Kirsch | April 9, 2023
Executive summary
The US Attorney in Utah issued a criminal indictment against Dr. Kirk Moore for “running a COVID-19 Vaccine Scheme to Defraud the Government and CDC.”
But what if Dr. Moore was actually saving lives instead and is a hero?
Since this is a criminal proceeding in federal court, Dr. Moore cannot be denied discovery to show that the vaccines are deadly.
This is relevant due to the opportunity for jury nullification where a jury has the right to issue a “not guilty” verdict if they believe the law is unjust.
If the judge denies Moore the discovery, he can appeal because there is no country in the world that has correlated the death-vax data and released the records for public analysis. They all keep it hidden behind closed doors and all attempts to get that data have been rebuffed.
A federal court has jurisdiction over all 50 states and can order the CDC and all states to turn over COVID vaccination records and death records. You know, the records that the states and CDC don’t want to be made public for some reason. Those records.
So Dr. Moore is now empowered to do something that nobody else in the world can do: access the secret public health records of every state in the US that will finally show to the entire world what everyone in power wants to hide from the public: the truth.
Kirk is one of my followers on Substack and I reached out to him today to suggest the records he should request to aid in his defense.
The judge can allow these records to be made public if they are in the public interest, which they will be.
Finally, it is the job of the courts to find the truth. And thanks to the US Attorney in Utah, we are finally going to find the truth!
Introduction
Not a single country, state, or even county health official anywhere in the world has correlated the vaccination data with the health data. I wonder why?
But now, courtesy of the US Attorney in Utah, Dr. Kirk Moore will have the right to do that.
And people are going to be stunned at what it will reveal. I can promise you that.
More about jury nullification
Some background on Jury Nullification, for those unfamiliar with it:
Department of Justice discussion (1993)
NY Times discussion focus on marijuana, but applies to all (2011)
Vox discussion focused on race, but applies to all (2016)
Jury nullification is a powerful check on abusive government and unjust laws. But most Americans aren’t aware of it and lawyers aren’t allowed to inform a jury of their right to nullify a law. It will take a massive public education effort to make enough Americans aware of the power they hold in jury duty to make a difference in trials. So spread the word!! Tell two friends.
You can follow Dr. Moore on Twitter
You can follow Dr. Moore on Twitter here.
You can donate to help his defense here
If you are a lawyer and want to help out on this case
Fill out the form here.
Why the court has to allow the discovery
There is a necessity defense. The discovery is crucial to showing that this defense is justified.
Also, the prosecution has to show criminal intent to harm the US government. Could it be that Dr. Moore’s intent was to save the life of his patients? Is that a crime in America today?
Summary
The bottom line is the US Attorney in Utah has given Dr. Moore the ability to end the narrative worldwide. And I have a feeling that Dr. Moore will take full advantage of the opportunity.
I leave you with this post Dr. Moore recently made on my Substack:
This is the biggest opportunity ever to end the narrative. The US government has literally opened up the secret books in every state (aka our public health data) for inspection. I could not be happier that the truth will finally be known.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | April 6, 2023
Bombshell vaccine safety surveillance data out of Western Australia shows it was reactions from the Covid vaccine that were overwhelming local hospitals. Data shows Australia’s zero-Covid plan was for nothing, as cases have spiked.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | April 6, 2023
In March 2022, Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, faced significant criticism for advising against the COVID-19 vaccine for children under 17, citing reported risks outweighing the benefits. Now, W.H.O. has rolled back its own recommendation on the vaccine for healthy children and teenagers. Dr. Ladapo joins Del for a nice ‘I told you so’.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | April 6, 2023
No matter what political affiliation, American’s are now entertaining the idea that someone in their family may have died from a Covid jab. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and others now approach the 2024 elections, vaccine safety and mandated medicine have become a top issue.
By Anonymous | TCW Defending Freedom | April 3, 2023
Immediately following my Covid vaccination, in July 2021, I had a strong and strange sensation that felt like freezing liquid entering my veins and slowly spreading throughout my body.
That night I was awoken by an agonising pain in my left calf; it kept me awake for several hours. The following day I realised the pain was coming from my lower back into my hip and down my leg. I had fierce pins and needles up to my knees and up to my elbows, they were fizzing furiously. In the following days and weeks I noticed that my lower back was numb and pains were in both sides of my body in lines down my legs. My right shoulder was in excruciating pain which ran down to my elbow and hands.
My continuing symptoms also include pressure headaches, ice-pick headaches, light sensitivity and migraines, nausea, heart palpitations and disabling fatigue.
These physical symptoms affect what I am able to do with my children, my ability to do housework, to work, to walk my dog, to engage in daily life. By far the worst thing for me has been the cognitive impairment, and I pray that this is only temporary. Every second word is one I can’t find in my brain. My children are talking about friends or teachers they have had for years and I know I should know who they are but at that moment my brain can’t find them. I constantly use the wrong words and don’t even know it. I miss several sentences in conversations.
I have become extremely forgetful; my poor dog has got used to being forgotten about in the garden when I’ve let him out to do his business. I can’t be trusted to cook alone, that’s if I have the energy. I set alarms for everything and then often can’t remember what the alarms are for. I can drive past streets I’ve driven on for most of my life and suddenly one day I don’t recognise them and I often forget where I am going and what for.
My days are a stream of forgotten and half-finished tasks, my brain is like soup and I wander around in a black fog trying to make some sense of my day. But when people see me, they just see the old me: they have no idea what lies beneath the surface, my daily struggles. They say ‘you just need to get out more’, ‘you just need to get back to work’, ‘lose some weight’, ‘be more positive’. Truth is I’m the most positive person I know because despite these symptoms I carry on with life and make sure I make the most of each day and enjoy my children every day that I can. I am hopeful that one day I will heal, but until then I will just keep going, keep the smile on my face for my children and keep hoping.
Weren’t the vaccines supposed to REDUCE deaths from COVID? Oddly, there was no press coverage on this.
By Steve Kirsch | April 7, 2023
Executive summary
The official government numbers show COVID deaths are up in Ontario by nearly 40% since the vaccines rolled out and hospitalizations due to COVID are up by 31%!
Both hospitalization and deaths from COVID were up dramatically.
You can see it yourself (see the red box below):
Deaths went from 5,485 in 2021 to 7,625 in 2022.
Could that be statistical noise? Not likely. Sigma is 74 so it’s a 29-sigma increase. In other words, this increase in death didn’t happen by chance; something caused it.
The data from the Ontario website
We know the vax makes you more likely to get COVID. If you had 3 shots, the Cleveland Clinic study showed you are about 2.5X more likely to get COVID. So that big spike in cases in 2022 is totally expected: it was our own doing. The more people who got COVID, the more people who died from COVID.
You’re less likely to die from a COVID case in 2022 than in 2021 because the variant is less deadly, not because the vaccine worked.
Possible explanations
Was this because the virus was more deadly in 2022? I don’t think so.
Let’s look the world’s least vaccinated countries: Yemen, Haiti, and PNG. As you can see, deaths are way down in 2022 because the variants are less lethal:
These numbers show that the “it would have been worse if people weren’t vaccinated” excuse won’t hold any water.
Furthermore, we know the vaccines are super deadly. Consider the following recent post which is based on CDC data:
If it wasn’t the vaccine that caused this dramatic rise, what caused it?
Also, even the US data shows a decrease in 2022 vs. 2021, so it’s hard for Ontario to argue that the virus was more deadly in 2022:
So there is no rock they can hide under.
Of course, this is embarrassing for the narrative which is why nobody is talking about it.
Even Professor David Fisman is silent about the report. I reached out to him for an explanation and he ignored it, exactly as expected.
This is why there is no press coverage of this: because the numbers are inexplicable if the vaccine worked.
I just thought you’d like to know.
Summary
It’s unfortunate that the mainstream press isn’t covering this.
I can’t figure out why. The press is supposed to report this and get comments from both sides. Instead, they ignore the story.
A nearly 40% increase in COVID deaths and the mainstream press ignores the story!?! WTF is going on here?
But I thought people would want to know the truth.
Concerning increase in mortality in New Zealand
By Ian Miller | Unmasked | April 7, 2023
COVID has unfortunately created any number of repetitive stories.
Jurisdiction imposes mask mandates, population complies, masks prove ineffective, media claims masks didn’t work because of lack of compliance.
Another example would be when countries with extraordinary compliance, such as Singapore or South Korea, would see increases ignored entirely, or blamed on the population not wearing masks of a correct level of quality.
Yet as a general rule, the most consistently predictable repetitive storyline has been the media and expert community declaring that a country was a pandemic success, only for their results to dramatically change in a relatively short period of time.
This was the case with the Czech Republic, with Australia, with Taiwan and many other locations.
Even within the United States adjustments showed that states like California – heralded as pandemic winners – actually had significantly worse results than previously realized.
But few places on earth have been as heavily praised as New Zealand.
Their science-following leadership was repeatedly hailed, honored, and praised for their effective communication, endless lockdowns, tyrannical response to protests, and prolific commitment to mandates.
All of the above, combined with their strict border controls, should have meant that New Zealand would avoid the significant increase in negative outcomes seen in other parts of the world.
At least, that’s what the media and activist public health authorities claimed would happen.
The reality is far more complicated.
Throughout 2020 and into 2021, New Zealand saw very little COVID transmission.
Unsurprisingly, the BBC praised the country for their efforts, explaining in detail how the country had become “COVID free.”
Jacinda Arden, now former prime minister, was once so completely committed to maintaining an illusion of infallibility that she claimed that the only source of accurate information available to the public was the government.
Of course, Arden then made the provably inaccurate claim that those who were vaccinated would net get sick and would not die.
The ridiculous over-confidence in the proclamations of public health authorities led to Arden convincing New Zealanders that strict mandates and interventions could stop the spread of the virus.
As winter and new variants arrived in 2021, Arden and local leaders predictably enforced increasingly strict measures. Mask mandates, lockdowns and “red traffic light” policies include vaccine passports.
Surprise. None of it worked.
After several months of completely unchecked spread, even the country’s cumulative metrics, once seemingly so impressive, exploded in dramatic fashion.
Consistently and exceptionally high mask wearing rates were also entirely ineffective.
And yet defenders of New Zealand’s authoritarian policies still believed that the country’s strategy was warranted, for one specific reason.
They had delayed the spread of the virus until the COVID vaccines became widely available.
In theory, that was supposed to prevent a substantial increase in deaths, especially considering their extraordinary rate of uptake.
That didn’t work either.
While these rates were generally lower after adjusting for population than many other countries, they still represented an obvious, significant surge compared to previous time periods.
But COVID related deaths only tell a part of the story, often influenced by attribution methodology and testing.
In theory, New Zealand’s exceptional vaccination rate and consistently high mask compliance should have meant that all cause mortality would also remain low.
So did it?
Fortunately, thanks to the New Zealand government’s own data, we now have an answer. And just as the country’s failure to stop omicron, it presents another contradiction to the endless media praise.
Despite the exceptionally high vaccination rate, despite their exceptionally high booster rate, despite vaccine passports, strict lockdowns, “red traffic light” policies and border controls, the pandemic came for New Zealand as well.
The government’s own data shows that all cause deaths in New Zealand jumped significantly in 2022, to the highest level in recorded data.
The country universally praised for their dedication to following The Science™, whose leadership told the public that following her dictates would keep them safe, stop the spread and control outcomes, has seen a record level of all cause mortality.
Exactly the same as other countries who were criticized for their supposedly less effective response.
Even after adjusting for population, the scale of the surge in 2022 is exceptional.
In fact, it represents an over 17% increase from 2020.
Not to mention that the one year increase, over 10%, represented the largest single year increase in New Zealand since the 1918 flu.
So why didn’t their policies prevent this? Why didn’t waiting for widespread vaccination to open up prevent this?
The New Zealand government themselves blame COVID for at least a portion of the increase. So why were so many people dying of COVID given the country’s exceptional vaccination and booster uptake and masking?
After all, ~95% of the population over 12 had been fully vaccinated by the middle of 2022, with over 90% fully vaccinated by early 2022. Similarly, adult booster rates were nearly 80% by early in 2022.
Why didn’t it work?!
Some may try to claim that their results would have been worse had they not had such policies.
But countries like Sweden thoroughly debunk that theory. Sweden had one of the least restrictive responses anywhere on earth, yet their results were among the best in their region.
Even throughout 2022, excess deaths remained low.
So why did New Zealand fail?
Compared to other countries, New Zealand’s cumulative COVID mortality rate still remains low. But the all cause mortality tells a different story.
Their strict policies and delayed opening were supposed to prevent this exact situation from occurring. All because the government put their faith in experts.
The experts mistakenly believed that vaccinations would prevent virtually all deaths, as Jacinda “we are your sole source of truth” Arden explained.
Obviously that was not the case.
It’s not clear what percentage of the excess mortality rate came from vaccinated people. But even more importantly, the majority of the increase was entirely unrelated to COVID.
Nearly 6,000 more people died in 2022 than did in 2020, despite a relatively small population increase. Yet the government says just 2,400 were associated with COVID.
So what caused the other 3,600 unexpected deaths?
In raw numbers, nearly 7,500 more people died in 2022 than in 2016. Accounting for population increases, that meant virtually 100 more people per 100,000 died in 2022 than in 2016.
What happened?
Whatever it was, it’s almost certainly related to New Zealand’s mistaken assumptions. Ancillary lockdown-related causes, missed health screenings, side effects — any or all of it could have contributed to the dramatic increase.
And all of it was because the government mistakenly proclaimed that they could control COVID. Instead, they delayed the inevitable.
Governments have many lessons to learn from the pandemic, but the first should be to never, ever, put blind faith in “experts.”
All too often they’re flying blind themselves.
2nd Smartest Guy in the World | April 5, 2023
As this substack had predicted years ago, the slow kill bioweapon injections may cause SADS or they may render the injected feeling “fine” for years, until their biology finally succumbs to the mRNA poison triggering a whole host of delayed adverse events from turbo cancers to infertility and unprecedented miscarriages to prion-based diseases to heart conditions, strokes and God knows what else…
As this substack had also predicted, at some stage it will be impossible to deny the bioterror eugenics that was perpetrated against humanity — even WEF-run nations like Australia will have no choice but to concede to the death and destruction by injection; to wit:
And right on cue yet another BigPharma insider makes a devastating admission:
No, the “vax” is certainly not a real one, not that any vaccine is really real in terms of safety or efficacy.
What this substack and most everyone else did not see coming was that these “not a real one” injections would also act as endocrine disruptors. The below article states:
Since hormones can have slow and systemic actions, a dysfunctional or damaged endocrine system will generally be slow in its symptom onset and recovery.
What we have here is yet more evidence of the slow kill nature of these “vaccines,” as the “glands have reserves and the decrease of the reserve will not be clinically seen right now, but it may be in the future.”
This is truly horrifying. It literally flies in the face of those that have been walking around claiming that everyone is a conspiracy theorist simply because they feel “fine” for x amount of time post “vaccination.” It’s akin to walking around with undiagnosed stage 4 cancer, or being exposed to lethal radiation, and claiming that you feel just “fine.”
As an aside, last week a friend informed yours truly that his healthy sister in her early 50s who happens to be married to a doctor that runs a small hospital was feeling perfectly “fine” for more than two years after getting “vaccinated” only to suddenly suffer a massive stroke. She is feeling much better after undergoing brain surgery. Her MD husband concluded that, “these things just happen.” Suffice to say, they will more than likely both be getting additional boosters. Another friend that same week told me that his parents had five different friends “suddenly” die the previous week, with one of them being a healthy mid-30s male.
This “vaccination” situation is akin to famous turkey Thanksgiving chart:
Consider a turkey that is fed every day. Every single feeding will firm up the bird’s belief that it is the general rule of life to be fed every day by friendly members of the human race ‘looking out for its best interests,’ as a politician would say.
—Nassim Taleb
In other words, every single day that goes by when the “vaccinated” feel just “fine” will firm up their beliefs that it is the general rule of life to not suffer any adverse events by friendly doctors and “experts” of the “Trust the Science” mafia ‘looking out for their health’ as a bureaucrat like Dr. Mengele 2.0 aka Dr. Fauci would say. Never mind that these injections offer zero inoculation, do not prevent spread whosoever, nor attenuate symptoms.
Slow kill, until it hits hard and all at once; genetically modified humans or walking spike protein factories are in and of themselves Black Swan events waiting to happen.
While certainly anecdotal, it all gibes with the bigger picture bio-horror show that the data is clearly presenting.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Ali Haydar | Al-Akhbar | October 9, 2013
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a series of threats toward Iran and its interlocutors in the West, including the US, as serious negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program seem more plausible.
As a possible rapprochement looms between the US and Iran, Netanyahu has attempted to impose impossible Israeli conditions on the negotiators, such as the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, not to mention threatening military force.
Whatever the deal that could materialize between Iran and the West, Israel is going to find itself before an open-ended path. One can foresee three possible scenarios… continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 