By Rhoda Wilson • The Exposé • March 14, 2023
UK Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen and Dr. Richard Fleming have jointly called on the UK Houses of Parliament to hold the USA government accountable for their violation of the Biological Conventions Weapons Treaty resulting in the covid pandemic and unprecedented use of experimental genetic vaccines.
In a press release dated 13 March 2023, Mr. Bridgen and Dr. Fleming – a Physicist, Internist, Cardiologist and Nuclear Cardiologist – encouraged the US Congress to investigate the US funding of covid and highlighted that British citizens were paying the price for the US biological viral weapon and genetic vaccine programme funded by the US NIAID and Department of Defence. “Either the US will hold its criminals accountable or we should.”
“The world death count from the viral bioweapon is over 6.7 million, including more than 203,000 deaths in the UK. Based upon information as of 3 months ago (October 2022) there have been more than 2,400 deaths in the UK following the use of the genetic vaccine products, which are copies of the US biological viral bioweapon,” the statement said.
The statement also noted that there have been 1.6 million adverse effects reported to the Yellow Card system after being injected with the “genetic vaccines.” It continued:
“We call upon the Houses of Parliament to demand accountability on the part of the US Government for their violation of the Biological Weapons Convention Treaty resulting in the Covid pandemic and unprecedented use of experimental genetic vaccines that turn red blood cells grey and cause blood to clot upon contact, thus causing heart damage including prion disease (amyloidosis) and myocarditis, strokes, cancer, miscarriages and death.”
We have included an image of the full press release below.
The press release follows a tweet from Mr. Bridgen on Sunday where he confirmed that during his visit to Washington DC at the end of last year he was “informed that the US DoD were responsible for both the virus and the vaccines. Fort Detrick was named. Also, a facility in Canada. By the end of the month, I expect to see the start of criminal proceedings against the many politicians and officials who are responsible around the world.”
Thanks to German-speakers’ orderliness, we now have written proof of collaboration between gov’t, doctors, and legacy media–time for tribunals!
By epimetheus – Die Fackel 2.0 – March 13, 2023
This is literally ‘hot off the ‘presses’: Austrian alternative media outlet Der Status published leaked documents from the Austrian Chamber of Physicians (Ärztekammer ) that show, beyond reasonable doubt, the grand conspiracy between government, the Chamber, and its protagonists.
Without much further ado, here’s my translation; as always, emphases and bottom lines mine. The below text has been lightly edited for clarity.
The Austrian Medical Association, under the ousted red [i.e., Social-Democratic] president Szekeres and its current president Steinhart, worked closely with the Health Ministers for years. And in doing so, it betrayed the interests of doctors. [to say nothing about patients]
Spring 2020: Collaboration with the Politicians Commences
In April 2020, Szekeres, Steinhart, and Minister Anschober [Greens, since retired] signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding Concerning COVID-19 Vaccinations’. That is, at a time—more than half a year—before the conditional approval of these injectable products, this Memorandum dealt with, among other things, advertising campaigns by doctors for the vaccinations, the vaccination of health-care workers and their family members, vaccinations in homes and schools, and reimbursement agreements.
Yet, secretly, an additional deal was also negotiated: it was literally agreed that ‘clear blanket vaccination recommendations will be made via the National Immunisation Consortium (Nationales Impfgremium, or NlG) on the suitability of the various vaccines and their applicability, esp. for various high-risk groups’.
Explosive: the Minister of Health and the Austrian Medical Association leadership signed a contract in which they go over the head of the National Immunisation Consortium—and they did so long before the injections were even available—to determine what the National Immunisation Consortium will recommend.
[this means, in other words, that the NIG never had anything to say about the data or the underlying clinical trials; this much we already knew, but now we have the receipts: these people have failed the public, betrayed the trust of patients, and soiled themselves]
It was never about Facts or Truth
Until now, the public was not aware of any document that so clearly showed that various ‘expert panels’ and ‘commissions’ obviously only served to obligingly recommend what politicians and the medical association leadership wanted. It was never about expertise, about advice, about objective science, about health.
Long before the beginning of the mass vaccination campaign, when vaccines did not even exist (!), it was only about one thing: vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate! The various ‘expert committees’ and doctors served only as Komparsen [extras, in German, one may also use the term Statisten, which literally implies undue influence of the state]. And it is obvious that the medical association leadership was ‘bought’ off with the reimbursement fee agreement [I’ve omitted the screen shots of some original documents, which can be checked out, if you read German, in the original article; it suffices to say that the fees are extraordinarily high, esp. in light of the incidence of injection: 25 Euros for the first jab and 20 Euros for every successive jab; this piece of evidence is reproduced below in the same position as in the original article]. April 2020 thus was the decisive moment in the history of the Medical Association in which its leadership handed the soul of the medical profession to politicians for the equivalent of thirty pieces of silver.
The Persecution of Doctors is Decided Upon
That was not all: in an ‘Amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding on COVID-19 Vaccinations between the Austrian Chamber of Physicians and the Ministry of Health, concluded in April 2020’, dated 2 Sept. 2021, the medical association leadership ‘promised action with respect to the services rendered by the medical profession’. These, too, signed off by both parties:
The Chamber of Physicians will conduct a media campaign as well as a campaign among the medical profession to increase the willingness of the population to be vaccinated. This includes raising the vaccination issue at other medical appointments (e.g., regular health check-ups) and the promise to take stronger action against doctors who spread misinformation.
As is well known, what constituted ‘misinformation’ was left to the arbitrary whims of the leadership of the Chamber of Physicians. This disgraceful agreement formed the basis for the persecution of critical doctors, which continues to this day. The medical disciplinary law was, in fact, misused for intimidation and propaganda purposes. In doing so, the leadership of the Chamber of Physicians had turned against its paying members [membership is mandatory in Austria as the Chamber also certifies physicians, much like these boards and associations in the U.S.], which cemented into place the persecution of doctors in the style of the Inquisition.
Disciplinary Proceedings by the Medical Association Were (Are) Illegal
The behaviour of the leadership of the Chamber of Physicians’ leadership in recent years is now coming back to haunt them. For months, the medical association has been attacked, ridiculed, and had its very existence openly questioned by politicians. Having done their duty for politicians in the last three years without a peep, the Chamber is apparently no longer needed and may well be let go of. The Chamber of Physicians is sinking more and more into political insignificance. According to insiders, it is now even regarded as a political opponent, a situation that can also be seen in legacy media. After having served as a ‘doormat’ for politicians of all stripes for years, the Chamber of Physicians is now also being treated as such. Various scandals internal to the medical association reinforce this tendency. [talk about Karma, eh? Those who don’t have self-respect will have a hard time getting others’ respect… ]
In the meantime, the Regional Administrative Courts of Vienna, Lower Austria, and Vorarlberg have petitioned the Constitutional Court to repeal parts or the entire Disciplinary Law in the Physicians’ Act [Ärztegesetz, these parts of the Act permit the Chamber of Physicians to enforce standards] on grounds of their suspected unconstitutionality; it is possible that the Constitutional Court will rule even the entire Physicians’ Act unconstitutional. The Chamber of Physicians is a self-governing body. All its committees are to be selected from among its members, i.e., from medical professionals. However, the Disciplinary Commission consists of two medical assessors and a ‘judicially competent chairman’ who is appointed by the Minister of Health in agreement with the Minister of Justice, i.e., someone who must not be a trained physician and who does not come out of the Chamber of Physicians. Thus, the composition of the Disciplinary Commission is a violation of the Federal Constitution. This is the unanimous legal opinion of three state administrative courts [Verwaltungsgerichtshof] and countless jurists.
[I’ll have more to say about this particularity below, for time being: this is potentially huge—and it would be akin to completely re-writing the rules of medicine]
The Chamber of Physicians has unintentionally awakened sleeping dogs with its wave of ill-advised disciplinary hearings against critical doctors. The consequence may be that it now has to be completely re-imagined. But this could also be an opportunity for the medical profession after all the repression of doctors in recent years. For in its current form, the Chamber of Physicians is a politically superfluous enemy and, for its members, the doctors, a very expensive mandatory association whose dues are used to finance the functionaries’ luxury salaries.
From time immemorial, we’ve all known that a man’s—or woman’s—price is about, in purely monetary terms, 30 pieces of silver, to say nothing about the amorality and, yes, cowardice of most physicians everywhere.
The notion of buying off support has been well-established in the U.S. (see, e.g., here).
Here, we’re talking individual doctors who are paid handsomely for jabbing people.
Yet, this isn’t even the worst part of this.
The Three Axioms of Governance-by-Bureaucracy
You’ve gotta love them German-speakers for being so stupid to actually put these things into writing.
We now have definitive proof that the subsequent shenanigans—first and foremost the obnoxious Covid Passports — were based on the unholy trinity of questionable medical ethics (ahem), government coercion, and arbitrary definitions.
Remember that ‘fully vaccinated’ used to be two injections? Now it’s at least three, with the fourth jab ‘optional’ (haha, see above), and the Covid Passports come with expiration dates varying from 3-6 months, irrespective whether you’re ‘vaccinated’ or ‘recovered’.
Thus, we may formulate whatthe first axiom of governance-by-bureaucracy is: everything leaks.
In other words: arbitrary categories by government fiat, arrived at with the collaboration of the overwhelming majority of the medical profession.
If history is any guide, the Covid Passports are the functional equivalent of the Aryan Certificate deployed by Nazi Germany: both documents were clearly politically motivated and based on sham ‘The Science™’.
Yet, Covid is revelatory: we’ve seen the abject lack of integrity, morality, and compassion on part of the political caste, its willing executioners in legacy media, and its perpetrators among medical professionals.
Don’t ask what’s wrong with individuals. It’s the bloody ‘system’ that stands exposed.
Thus, we may formulate the second axiom of governance-by-bureaucracy: everyone has his or her price.
We’ve known this for quite some time; sure, I could cite the Nazi and Stalinist atrocities here, but I’d like to point you also to the Asch Conformity, the Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Experiments. Or the book The Wave.
And yet, despite all of this, there’s also a bright spot in all of this: contrary to the claims of postmodernist woke-fied agents-provocateurs, not everything in human society and relations is ‘socially constructed’ or about ‘power’.
A sizeable share of people everywhere has resisted the pressure to ‘get vaccinated’.
A group of doctors have resisted the pressures and temptations—remember the 30 pieces of silver—of collaboration and compliance with government tyranny.
If ‘booster’ uptake is any guide, more and more people are realising that they’ve been had.
Thus the third axiom: incentives and coercion work, until they don’t.
Our highly complex societies are, of course, more than the sum of their moving parts. Yet, given the highly integrated structures, it would be far-fetched to believe that anyone is able to control everything.
True, a lot can be dominated, but in the end, the ‘normative power of the factual’ (Georg Jellinek), in combination with individual experiences, is a powerful antidote to tyranny.
Still, this ain’t over yet, far from it.
If history is any guide, all that humans have ever been able to do is punish the perpetrators in the (vain) hope of establishing deterrence.
It has happened before, it is happening again, and it will happen again.
The next step is to see this through, re-establish the rule of law, and hold these people to account.
This is the moment. This is the time.
US Government Spends $31.9B to Develop Failed Products over Three Decades
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | March 11, 2023
Approximately 92% of Americans who took a COVID-19 vaccine have mRNA injected into their bodies with absolutely no idea on where it would go, how long would it last, and what price would be paid for having foreign genetic code loaded on lipid nanoparticles in human circulation. Its now known that mRNA is circulatory for at least 28 days and can be found stuck in lymph nodes for at least two months. Both of these may be short estimates.
A recent paper by Lalani et al, from Harvard, summarizes the very intensive and expensive US government investment in mRNA technology. Normally pharmaceutical companies front the cost of drug development and then have to win FDA approval and later recover those costs through product sales over the next 20 years. Not the case with mRNA, here NIH BARDA and the DOD DARPA has paid for development using taxpayer dollars to the tune of $31.9B!
The paper does not indicate why mRNA over other technologies nor why the pharmaceutical companies have not picked up the tab. The extensive government involvement implicitly hints at military objectives for the genetic technology. While Lalani falsely claims mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives, the reality is just the opposite with estimates of US vaccine causalities topping half a million deaths usually within the first few days of taking the shot.
Lalani along with public statements from vaccine companies forecast many mRNA products in American lives for the future still with no understanding of biodistribution, pharmacodynamics, autoimmunity, reverse transcription, and lack of control over antigenic exposure driving fatal side effects.
I have over three decades of drug development experience. I can tell you first hand that without the government crutch, mRNA would have died as a biotechnology long ago. The fundamentals of mRNA-LNP characterization remain incomplete and the companies appear to have no concerns over safety as long as Uncle Sam is picking up the costs and shielding them from liability.
By Emanuel E. Garcia, M.D. | NewZealandDoc | March 9, 2023
You will forgive me if from time to time I find myself silent and stymied in the doldrums. The past three years, in our Corona Epoch, weigh heavily on us all, but there is more: these past three years have revealed to those with eyes to see and ears to hear the rank depths of corruption within virtually every institute of government and within virtually every formerly honorable profession.
To have witnessed Medicine undermine itself in such a way as to make itself unrecognizable – in, for example, its sudden enthusiasm for masks, it sudden forgetfulness about early treatment and natural immunity, its sudden acceptance of a novel therapeutic agent that had been inadequately tested, its mania to subject children to this agent, its sudden scorn for informed consent and its equally sudden disregard of the founding principle of the Hippocratic Oath, at first not to harm – is to recognize outright self-destruction. That so many so-called medical practitioners abandoned their fundamental duties to their patients and themselves is a disgrace for which I can find no adequate word except prostitution – bearing in mind that in using this word I am doing sex workers a disservice because their form of prostitution represents an honest exchange.
There is more to the weight of these three years of deception because these three years have carried the culminating weight of ages of hypocrisy, oppression and falsehood from the Powers that have ruled over the common man and woman.
A friend recently opined to me that he has begun to question the veracity of State utterances or, as is fashionable now to say, its ‘narratives’, and I responded by saying that I believed one should adopt the attitude that everything we are told by governmental authorities is a lie until proved otherwise.
They lied about the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X. They lied about the war in Vietnam. They lied about 911. They lied about the Middle East invasions, the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, the various coups instigated by ‘intelligence’ agencies around the world and, naturally, they lied about covid in a way that would make Satan proud for the comprehensiveness and cleverness of the ruse. They are lying about the Ukraine and Russia at the moment too. The effect of these relentless and blatant falsehoods is to corrode the very tissue of legality and fairness that keeps societies together under an aegis of justice, and consequently to fashion a world whose only law is Power.
I’ve written about Power and its role and the sober expectations we must possess regarding those who wield it, yet the scale of sadistic and murderous campaigns throughout history pales in comparison to the war within which we find ourselves now: global, savage, ingeniously devious and, to date, fairly successful.
The ways and means of killing have assumed a sophistication that makes Nazi concentration camps appear cumbersome and inefficient. Is it not ‘cleaner’ and far more effective to render populations infertile, to accelerate cancers, to foster strokes and cardiomyopathy and autoimmune conditions in age groups hitherto unaccustomed to suffer such phenomena, and to create, even in these early years post-jab, what is euphemistically called ‘excess mortality’ – a term that sanitizes and obscures the calculated enfeeblement and killing that is unique and unprecedented?
And is it not a macabre form of genius to have persuaded so many many people to accept it all, to refute the evidence of their senses, and to attack those of us who challenge their perceptions with frightful vehemence, vehemence that overrides the bonds of friendship?
In a recent exchange with a friend of nearly five decades, I was told that he scorned my ‘alternative’ sources and that he was through with me. For the past year we had maintained our friendship – a friendship that included wonderful times together and frankly beautiful shared experiences – on condition that I not dare to speak about anything that contradicted his MSM conception of all things covid or Ukraine.
It was like sitting across from someone while the proverbial elephant in the room had placed its bulk right between us. We could exchange pleasantries and reminisce about anything and everything except the large creature with its imposing trunk and tusks and head and limbs that stood in our way, the immense pachyderm that was the bloated embodiment of historically accumulated falsehood.
Can friendships survive with such strictures?
Can friendships survive the chasm between those who have swallowed the propaganda of mainstream news outlets hook, line and sinker, and those who seek for truth from ordinary citizens not beholden to advertising revenue or governmental coercion?
Should friendships survive a chasm that separates those who condone mandates, lethal universal inoculations, outright kinetic war when it suits their purposes, climate change fanaticism, the suppression of debate, and a centralized global governing ‘order’ – from those who cherish free speech, individual responsibility, and human choice?
Well, however difficult and painful it may be to accept, there is a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing …
Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand.
The tragic case of a 31 year old New Zealand nurse who died 4 days after her COVID-19 booster shot
By Dr. William Makis MD | COVID Intel | March 11, 2023
Doctor and nurse deaths from COVID-19 vaccines were always going to be the focus of cover-ups. The reason is practical: the state needs doctors and nurses to enthusiastically push COVID-19 vaccines on their patients, and it needs these same doctors and nurses to stay silent about COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths.
Doctors and nurses mustn’t know that their colleagues are dying suddenly from the same COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that they are pushing daily on their own patients.
31 year old NZ nurse died 4 days after booster shot
Divya Simon, 31, a rest home nurse, had her third COVID-19 booster vaccination four days before suffering a massive heart attack, according to a decision from coroner Luella Dunn released today. (click here)
“She had the booster on January 25 last year, and took the next day off work because she felt unwell. She complained of pain in the left side of her neck and shoulder.
Simon, who had two children aged 4 and 2, worked a night shift on January 28 returning home early the next morning and went to sleep at 10am. After she woke mid-afternoon she went to have a shower and told her husband she felt dizzy and had chest pains. That evening she had a cardiac arrest.
Ambulance arrived and Simon was given adrenalin, shocked and taken to Waikato Hospital. There she was intubated and taken to ICU but was not responsive and continued to deteriorate, dying the next day at 11am.
Dunn said an angiogram was unable to determine the cause of the cardiac arrest and there were no medical records to indicate why Simon would suffer a heart attack.
The pathologist who conducted her autopsy told the coroner Simon’s death was most likely related to an underlying weakness in her coronary arteries.
The pathologist found no evidence to suggest Simon’s vaccination contributed in any way to her death and the Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring came to the same conclusion.”
That’s it. Case closed. A healthy 31 year old nurse had a massive heart attack 4 days after her COVID-19 booster shot and it was definitely not the booster shot, although the pathologist had no idea why she died.
New Zealand does not perform autopsies with immunohistochemical staining of tissue samples for the COVID-19 vaccine spike protein.
So when the pathologist said he “didn’t find evidence” of COVID-19 vaccine damage, that was a lie. He “didn’t find evidence” because he didn’t look for it – he did not conduct the proper staining of the pathology samples, because no one in New Zealand does.
“There is no current test (in New Zealand) that will show the Covid-19 vaccine in the heart tissue” as reported by One News New Zealand (click here)
Let’s look at a different case where the pathologist linked a sudden death to the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine – the case of 26 year old NZ man Rory Nairn (click here)
Rory Nairn died of myocarditis after 1st dose of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
Coroner Sue Johnson opened an inquiry into his death. After hearing evidence from pathologist Dr Noelyn Hung, Johnson said she is satisfied that the COVID-19 vaccine caused the myocarditis from which Nairn died.
Hung carried out an intensive pathological examination of the heart. She stated that the cause of the myocarditis came down to a diagnosis by exclusion.
There is no current test that will show the Covid-19 vaccine in the heart tissue, but Hung was able to exclude other causes of myocarditis. Hung also excluded all other known potential causes including certain medicines.
There was no sign of any infection or any other reason for Nairn’s death except in the myocardium (the middle muscular layer of the heart). Johnson accepted Hung’s medical opinion that the direct cause of Nairn’s death was acute myocarditis – consistent with vaccine-related myocarditis.
If there is no test available to check for COVID-19 vaccine injury to body tissues, you cannot exclude the vaccine as the cause of death. In the case of the 31 year old nurse Divya Simon, the pathologist cannot conclude “the COVID-19 vaccine didn’t do this” or “there is no evidence the COVID-19 vaccine did this”. It is not possible to come to this conclusion, because the pathologist had no way of proving this.
In the case of 26 year old Rory Nairn, COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis was declared the cause of death because every other possibility was excluded. It was the diagnosis of exclusion.
Notice the difference?
The 31 year old nurse death was a cover-up. The pathologist lied. New Zealand’s Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring lied. They covered-up her death. Almost certainly because she was a nurse.
It should not surprise anyone by this point, that deaths of doctors and nurses will be treated very differently and will be covered up at all costs.
When 3 Canadian doctors died within days of each other in the same Trillium Health Hospital in Mississauga, Ontario, days after the rollout of the 4th COVID-19 vaccine (2nd booster shot), mainstream media called it a coincidence (click here) (click here)
That’s why my reporting on 132 Canadian doctor sudden deaths since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines has been so “controversial”.
The fiercest attacks I have faced from mainstream media so far, were about me exposing the sudden deaths of fully COVID-19 vaccinated Canadian doctors.
I was attacked by Global news (click here), Toronto Star (click here), Reuters (click here), AAP (click here), Politifact (click here), Logically (click here), Lead Stories (click here).
So whenever you see a case like this where a coroner or pathologist declares that “COVID-19 vaccine didn’t cause this death”, you will know they are lying, and you will be able to explain exactly why they are lying.
They can allow the occasional citizen’s death to be linked to the COVID-19 vaccine. But they cannot and will not allow a doctor or nurse’s death to be linked to the vaccine.
Again, another statistical illusion of efficacy was manufactured by simple miscategorisation
By Norman Fenton | Where are the numbers? | March 7, 2023
By late 2021 it was already clear in the UK that the covid vaccines did not stop infection or transmission. And there were also already plenty of concerning safety signals. So, even though the “vaccine pass” was then required in the UK to participate in daily life, ‘vaccine hesitancy’ was on the increase.
Switching narrative to counter vaccine ‘hesitancy’
Given this increasing resistance against the vaccine programme, the official messaging was changed from “vaccines stop you getting covid” to “vaccines stop you being hospitalised and dying from covid”.
To push this new narrative the Government started pumping out ‘data’ to support the claim that almost all of those ill in hospital with covid were unvaccinated. Here is an NHS text that was sent to everybody registered with a GP in the UK in November 2021:
At the time the text was sent out, “fully vaccinated” in the UK was defined as: “at least 14 days since 3rd jab” or “between at least 14 days and less than 6 months of 2nd jab”. So, the official figure of 8 out of 10 “not fully vaccinated” might have been right but was totally misleading since almost ALL of those who were vaccinated (i.e., had at least one jab) at that time were “not fully vaccinated”.
This creates a false semantic equivalence between ‘unvaccinated’ and ‘not fully vaccinated’.
Many media sources, including the BBC, pushed the 80% unvaccinated claim without even mentioning the ‘fully vaccinated’ criteria:
Similar claims were made about covid deaths among the vaccinated such as this one in the Independent :
and this one in the Guardian :
With respect to patients in ICU claims that high proportions of those with covid were unvaccinated were widely cited – and never challenged – in the mainstream media:
A particularly serious example was the ludicrous claim made in the BBC documentary “Unvaccinated” by Dr Mehool Patel (Consultant, University Hospital Lewisham). His statement – unchallenged in the programme – was:
“We looked at about 550 patients that were admitted in our trust between the 15th December and 15th January 2022, which in effect would mean that most if not all of them were through due to Omicron variant, and of that there were unfortunately 21 patients who had to be admitted to intensive care who were the most severe patients due to COVID. Of the 21 I’m afraid 20 of them were unvaccinated, that’s 95%.
Just one person was vaccinated. And of the 21 who were on the unit, I’m afraid unfortunately seven of them didn’t make it, all of them were unvaccinated, 100%. So that’s one figure to just illustrate the point.”
This was one of the many specific pieces of misinformation that I raised in my formal complaint to the BBC about the programme. I asked the BBC to provide the verified data to support this claim. When I eventually received a response from the BBC’s Complaints Director Jeremy Hayes he said:
“You maintain that this claim was “either false/exaggerated or an unbelievable outlier”.
I have approached the programme makers for information about the data which were quoted by Dr Patel. I have been advised that the figures were compiled by Dr Patel himself for the purposes of research.
“Lewisham and Greenwich Hospital Trust does not record the vaccination status of patients in ICU so Dr Patel’s figures cannot independently be verified.”
But the scam was based on something even more ludicrous than classifying “not fully vaccinated” as “unvaccinated”.
As a result of Freedom of Information Requests sent to some individual NHS trusts we now know that some hospitals were using the NIMS system to classify vaccine status of patients while others were using their own systems. This meant that, in many cases even if a patient had a vaccination record in NIMS, if the patient was not vaccinated in that particular hospital/Trust they were recorded as unvaccinated. Some hospitals were using a mixture of both systems (NIMS where a death was recorded and an internal system where a covid case was recorded). For those relying on NIMS, since it was not operational until June 2021, all deaths within the hospital would have had an unknown vaccination status between Jan-June 2021. The problem is that some hospitals were classifying “unknown” as “unvaccinated”.
So, deliberately murky record keeping was used to manipulate the data.
To see the implications of this, here are the data on hospital deaths (all deaths, not just covid) from the start of the vaccine programme until the end of 2021 from an undisclosed NHS trust who responded to an FOI request:
Note that every death up until 21 June 2021 was recorded as unvaccinated simply because hospitals in this Trust were using the NIMS system for classifying deaths which was not up and running until then. But, of course, an unknown number (probably most) of these 742 people were vaccinated.
There are plenty of other anomalies in the data. Note the improbable, sudden and dramatic trend changes:
Such changes can only be the result of changes in definition of who should be classified as unvaccinated.
It is easy to see how the Government could cherry pick this kind of data to present the narrative they wanted. When the text messages were being sent out in November 2021 it is reasonable to assume that they were using the cumulative data up to, say, mid-October. Then using the data in the table up to and including 18 Oct 2021 we count:
That gives 74% of all hospital deaths classified as “unvaccinated”.
But this is all an illusion. In fact, counting just the final three weeks of the data (6-20 Dec), just 18 out of the 144 deaths (12.5%) were unvaccinated.
It is also worth noting that the same NHS Trust provided the following information on “new COVID positives” in its hospitals between 19th Jan 2021 and 19th Jan 2022.
Given what we know about national vaccination take-up rates, and this Trust’s own death data, it is likely that the majority of those classified as ‘unvaccinated’ here would have been vaccinated (with the exception of those in the 0-20 age categories the vast majority of whom would not have been eligible for vaccination).
So, instead of the ‘50% of new covid cases’ being among the unvaccinated – the ‘official’ narrative pushed from this data – the true narrative should have been that the vast majority of new covid cases were vaccinated.
It matters a lot because, despite being completely bogus, these kinds of ludicrous figures were so consistently repeated that the message “vaccines stop you being hospitalised and dying from covid (even if they don’t stop infection and transmission)” was almost universally accepted. Even the strongest critics of the Government’s covid response consistently repeated this mantra:
The figures were also used as the basis for the bogus studies claiming millions of lives were saved by the vaccine.
So, yet again, we can see that statistical data was used to create an illusion of vaccine hospitalisation and mortality efficacy by the simplest of means: deliberately murky record keeping ensuring that the vaccinated get recategorized as unvaccinated when they die or are hospitalised.
Update 9 March 2023: Here is a video I made covering this article:
Postscript: A commenter below reports that the USA “was far worse”:
Patients who were vaccinated at pharmacies didn’t show up on the state records. The CDC admitted on a web page that ‘unvaccinated’ just meant they couldn’t find a vax on record. There was no requirement for hospitals to update records and why would they? This bias was described by hospital PA Deborah Conrad in the Highwire episode 233 https://thehighwire.com/videos/episode-233-the-vaers-scandal/ Alex Berenson reports evidence that the rate of overcounting of ‘unvaccinated’ patients was as high as 20x. “More evidence that American data may badly overstate the protection mRNA shots offer against hospitalization from Covid” – Jan 13
By Rachel Marsden | RT | March 9, 2023
Can you create cutting edge “deep fake” videos, spy on people using household appliances, and make massive data dragnets? If so, the Pentagon wants to hear from you so it can amp up its manipulation efforts.
US Special Operations Command (US SOCOM) has issued proposal requests for a whole host of dodgy services, according to new documents obtained by The Intercept.
Specifically, the Pentagon is looking for “next generation capability to ‘takeover’ Internet of Things (IoT) devices in order to collect data and information from local populaces to enable a breakdown of what messaging might be popular and accepted through sifting of data once received.”
For what purpose? “This would enable MISO [Military Information Support Operations] to craft and promote messages that may be more readily received by the local populace in relevant peer/near peer environments,” according to the document.
Despite publicly obsessing over others’ foreign interference and propaganda, Washington is now openly admitting that it is actively seeking these new technologies for its own “influence operations, digital deception, communication disruption, and disinformation campaigns at the tactical edge and operational levels.” You know, exactly the same kind of thing, over which it drums up fear as a threat to freedom and democracy among the general public.
Earlier this year, a Washington-based advisory firm OODA published a report warning that Chinese-made household items could not only be spying on you, but basically fronting for the Chinese government. The report’s author called for the British government to act on claims that Chinese-made Internet of Things appliances, and even car components, can collect and transmit data through cellular 5G networks to Chinese companies, which could then be ordered to pass it on to the government. The story was hysterically splashed across British media.
OODA describes itself as a “global strategic advisory firm with deep DNA in global security, technology and intelligence issues.” The genetics run deep, indeed: straight to the Pentagon and Western intelligence communities where its executives, experts and advisers have past or current working relationships.
So now it looks like calls to ban Chinese household appliances for their spying potential have turned into Washington wanting to get in on the action by obtaining the best possible front row seat as you stand in front of your refrigerator at midnight, chugging chocolate milk straight from the carton.
The Pentagon also wants to be able to create “deep fake” videos that can realistically portray fake events as real, in an attempt to manipulate the target viewer(s). Or, as the Pentagon puts it, to “generate messages and influence operations via non-traditional channels in relevant peer/near peer environments.” It’s hard to imagine a more glaring example of actual fake news, yet the Pentagon wants to produce it in the way that Netflix makes movies and TV shows.
Finally, the Pentagon says that they want to get their hands on “a next generation capability to collect disparate data through public and open source information streams such as social media, local media, etc. to enable MISO to craft and direct influence operations and messages in relevant peer/near peer environments.”
Some might be tempted to just shrug this off as conventional practice because, when the military is tracking down bad guys, they’re obviously going to want to use every possible tool available at their disposal – and constantly seek to expand that tool box. But recent evidence suggests that military-grade collection and subversion tools targeting online and conventional information platforms have largely been turned on the average citizen for the purpose of protecting the establishment and its various narratives from dissent rather than for reasons of national security.
Last December, for example, Twitter CEO Elon Musk worked with a journalist to reveal the collusion between US government authorities and the social media platform to manipulate and censor public debate over the Covid-19 pandemic. According to internal Twitter documents, one of the first meetings that the Biden Administration requested with Twitter executives was on the topic of Covid vaccines and specific high-profile accounts that deviated from the official narrative. According to the journalist, David Zweig, “Twitter did suppress views – many from doctors and scientific experts – that conflicted with the official positions of the White House. As a result, legitimate findings and questions that would have expanded the public debate went missing.” He added that, “With Covid, this bias bent heavily toward establishment dogmas,” and cited examples of various experts, including prominent epidemiologists, whose views were censored as a result of being qualified by the Twitter staff as Covid “misinformation.”
Earlier this year, a British whistleblower also revealed that critics of Covid-19-related lockdowns and vaccine mandates – including prominent journalists and politicians – were monitored by the UK army’s information warfare brigade. The 77th Brigade, created in 2015 and described by the media at the time as composed of “warriors who don’t just carry weapons, but who are also skilled in using social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and the dark arts of ‘psyops’”.
The Canadian military was also caught using propaganda techniques honed on the battlefield in Afghanistan to shape the Covid debate by boosting the government’s narrative and attempting to head off any civil unrest over the harsh mandates.
The Pentagon’s latest wish list raises concerns that these tools will also be deployed on average Americans or Westerners for purposes of control and manipulation. Last September, the Pentagon vowed to review its secret psyops, but only after public outrage when a group of researchers suggested collusion between US government entities and American online platforms like Twitter and Facebook to control online narratives with fake accounts. Was the lesson learned to stop deploying psyops on average citizens? Or was it just to do a better job of keeping it secret?
Not that there’s any shortage of Western establishment cheerleaders demanding even more psychological manipulation efforts by the US government, if only to counter “disinformation” from foreign adversaries.
It seems that we’ve now come to the point where sticking it to Russia and China means actively cheerleading the increasingly militarized efforts by our self-styled defenders of freedom and democracy to brainwash their own people.
By Robert Blumen | Brownstone Institute | March 8, 2023
The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi between the British Crown and Maori chiefs was a landmark event in the history of New Zealand. Drafted in English, a Maori translation was prepared, ostensibly to ensure that Maori could have an accurate understanding of the terms. In retrospect, it is less clear that a meeting of the minds was intended:
The English and Māori texts differ. As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into the written Māori language of the time, the Māori text is not a literal translation of the English text. It has been claimed that Henry Williams, the missionary entrusted with translating the treaty from English, was fluent in Māori and that far from being a poor translator he had in fact carefully crafted both versions to make each palatable to both parties without either noticing inherent contradictions.
“The covid vaccine is 95% effective” is a contemporary Treaty of Waitangi. The original is in the language of clinical trials. It was never translated. The public interpreted this phrase in their native language, normal English. What Pfizer said and what the public heard were quite different. The public would have been far more skeptical of these products had the clinical trial results been translated into normal English.
What we need is a proper translation and an explanation of how miscommunication happened.
The Injections Did Not Stop Infection
By now, everyone knows that the Pfizer and Moderna products did not stop people from getting Covid. Covid disease has mowed a wide strip through the double and triple-masked talking heads who told everyone that the shots would make them immune.
What is less well known is that:
A clinical trial is designed to test a drug for effectiveness, which is strictly defined by one or more endpoints. An endpoint is a measurable outcome that can be assessed for each participant. With that in mind, prevention of infection was not an endpoint of the BioNTech/Pfizer injection clinical trials. And, this was known in 2020 before the products were approved for emergency use and distributed to the public starting in 2021.
In this New England Journal of Medicine research summary, Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine, under Limitations and Remaining Questions, we find that “whether the vaccine protects against asymptomatic infection and transmission to unvaccinated persons” remains unanswered by the clinical trial.
What did the clinical trial test for, if not the ability of the mRNA vaccine to stop transmission and/or infection? The trial was designed to test the ability of the injections to prevent “symptomatic Covid 19 cases” defined as one or more of a number symptoms and a positive test (see page 7 of the supplementary appendix for details).
@pfizer tweeted in Jan 2021 that stopping transmission was their “highest priority”. Their product does not do that, nor did the tweet make a claim that it did so. But it was their highest priority nonetheless. That, and getting as many people injected as possible.
Failure to Prevent Infection Was Known Before the Rollout
In October 2022, a Pfizer executive testified to an EU body that Pfizer had not tested the ability of the vaccine to stop transmission. This story was shocking to some and generated accusations that Pfizer had lied about the capabilities of the shots. But this information had been available since the trial results were released early in 2021. Pfizer had already been criticized for this.
Dr William A Haseltine PhD, wrote in Forbes in September 2020:
What would a normal vaccine trial look like?
One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.
On October 21, 2020 the editor of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) Peter Doshi asked:
Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us
Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”
Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus….
Is It Even a Vaccine?
A vaccine that prevents infection is known as “neutralizing” or “sterilizing”. I am a software engineer with no training in medicine, pharmacology or clinical trials. I consider myself a good barometer of what the average untrained person would think about such things. Prior to 2021 I had thought that immunity was a necessary condition for a drug to earn the title of “vaccine”. If anyone had asked me, I would have told them that the Covid injections were a treatment, not a vaccine.
The Wikipedia article about vaccines (Mar 5 2023) aligns with my untrained understanding:
A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease. … A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body’s immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future.
Cornell Law provides the following legal definition of vaccine, sourcing 26 USC § 4132(a)(2), which is consistent with the above:
The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases.
The definition published by the CDC prior to 2021 said much the same. But the CDC website changed the definition on or after August 2021. The older version found on the internet archive is here (emphasis added):
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.
Here is the new version (emphasis added):
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.
The earlier pair of definitions is quite easy to understand. The latter, much more difficult. What exactly is a “preparation”? Does a vaccine stimulate the body or only prepare the body? What is or is not a vaccine according to the new definition?
While the CDC may think that they can change the meanings of words whenever they like, public memory retains the original meaning. The assumption of immunity permeates almost all non-expert level discussion of vaccines. A web search for “why are vaccines good” shows results that assume or imply immunity.
Even the CDC did not finish the job of memory-holing the old language. On the very same CDC website, under 5 Reasons It Is Important for Adults to Get Vaccinated, we read “By getting vaccinated, you can protect yourself and also avoid spreading preventable diseases to other people in your community.” And then, “Vaccines Can Prevent Serious Illness”.
The timing of the CDC’s edit suggests to me that prior to 2021, the CDC had the same understanding of vaccines as I do. I believe that they wanted a new definition because they knew that the products being developed at warp speed were not vaccines in the original sense of the word. And it was important that those products be called “vaccines” for reasons that I will explain later. This incident brings to mind a meme that I no longer have a link to. captioned: “We changed what ‘definition’ means so you can’t say that we redefined anything.”
What Does “95% Effective” Mean?
The “95% effective” message was repeated in nearly all reporting on the clinical trials. But the question, “effective at doing what?” was rarely asked. To answer this requires walking down the links of a chain of terminology from the world of clinical trials.
The first link in the chain is “risk”. Risk is the probability of a bad outcome. These are assumed to happen randomly within a group. A clinical trial must define in advance the bad outcomes that the drug intends to avoid. The next link is “endpoint”. Each distinct bad outcome is an “endpoint”. The trial compares the endpoints between a control group who did not take the drug and a test group, who did.
The purpose of a clinical trial is to determine the ability of a drug to reduce risk. A drug that reduces risk is “effective”. There are two ways of quantifying risk reduction. From the NIH glossary:
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) or risk difference
the difference in the incidence of poor outcomes between the intervention group of a study and the control group. For example, if 20 per cent of people die in the intervention group and 30 per cent in the control group, the ARR is 10 per cent (30–20 per cent).
the rate (risk) of poor outcomes in the intervention group divided by the rate of poor outcomes in the control group. For example, if the rate of poor outcomes is 20 per cent in the intervention group and 30 per cent in the control group, the relative risk is 0.67 (20 per cent divided by 30 per cent).
The difference between the ARR and RR (also known as “RRR”, to align with ARR) is in the denominator. The ARR divides by the number of participants in one of the groups. The RRR divides by the number of people with bad outcomes in the control group – a necessarily much smaller number.
The ARR is the number most relevant for a drug – such as the Pfizer injections – that was to be given to everyone. But the RRR is the preferred method of presentation for pharma when they want to exaggerate the effectiveness of a drug because it will always be a much larger number. Would you take a drug that could reduce the incidence of a rare disease by 50%? From 10 per 1 million to 5 per 1 million is an 50% RRR and an 0.0005% ARR.
The 95% figure cited for the covid injections is the relative risk. The absolute risk reduction was 0.84%. In a slide deck from the Canadian Covid Care Alliance (CCCA), slide 11 shows how the 91% was achieved (it is 91%, not 95%, because the it refers to an earlier version of the study):
The research paper COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room puts the ARR in the 1% range. The CCCA slide deck gives an ARR of 0.84%, though it is not clear how they reached this number, based on the other numbers in their slides.
A clinical trial finding of a 1% ARR means that 99% of the people who take the drug either did not experience the condition that the drug treats, or they did experience it, but were not helped by the drug. The 1% both had the condition and were helped by the drug. Another way of saying this is the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). NNT is the reciprocal of the ARR and is the number of people who must take the drug to help one person reach the endpoint. An ARR of 1% corresponds to an NNT of 100 people.
We can now answer the question of the meaning of vaccine effectiveness. The endpoint of the trial was a severe confirmed case of covid at least 7 days after the second dose. This endpoint requires the participant in the trial to have covid symptoms and a positive covid test. “95% effective” means that 95% of the patients who had Covid symptoms and a positive test were in the control group. Five percent were in the test group.
Here’s what “95% effective” did not mean: if you take the shots, then you will have a 95% lower chance of getting covid. But that is how most people understood it because that is what the words mean in normal English.
Then the Lying Started
Once the public had their hopes raised by the false translation of the “95% effective” message, the pandemic-industrial-complex went into high gear to amplify it. They stated the incorrect message loudly, frequently, and as if it were fact. The injections would – with 100% certainty (perhaps 200%) – protect you from infection. Many of the people who said this were doctors or scientific researchers who must have understood how to interpret clinical trials.
Here are some choice quotes that did not age well:
Demonizing the Unvaxxed
The public has consistently over-estimated the infection fatality rate of Covid. Some even believed the fatality rate to be above 10%. They believed that we were in great danger. They also believed that the “95% effective” vaccine would bring the pandemic to a quick end, once everyone had taken it. Anyone who refused to do so was therefore risking not only their own life, but everybody else’s as well.
Dr Anthony Fauci estimated herd immunity would emerge when around 60% of the population had taken the vaccine … or perhaps 70, 80, no wait … 85%. Or maybe 100% (which would include large numbers who already had natural immunity). Bill Gates extended that to everyone on earth.
The narrative then turned to demonization of those who refused to submit to vaccine coercion. The selfish anti-social behavior of the anti-vaxxers with their stubborn attachment to “free dumb” that was keeping everyone locked indoors and forcing us all to wear diapers on our faces. Yale University behavioral researchers tested messaging strategies to determine whether shame, embarrassment or fear was most effective.
President Biden said that we the nation was experiencing a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. Later, Biden ominoulsy warned the unvaccinated that he had been waiting a long time for them to get injected, but “our patience is wearing thin”. In December of 2021 the White House issued a cheery year end greeting to the vaccinated. The unvaccinated, on the other hand, were “looking at a winter of severe illness and death.” Merry Christmas.
Even South Park, which I consider a reliable source of contrarian political opinion, ran a storyline set in the year 2050 in which every single character had to be vaccinated for the 30-year pandemic to end. This episode featured one lone holdout who would not get vaccinated due to a crustacean allergy i.e. for “shellfish reasons”. This gag took aim at people who considered the vaccine to be a violation of body autonomy, and those who objected to components used in its development for religious reasons, thereby scoring a “two for one”.
Volumes can, and will, be written about the intense onslaught of propaganda aimed at getting two needles in every deltoid. I will provide one more example that represents no more than the median level of insanity; plenty of people called for the same or worse. @ClayTravis, in February 2023, tweeted the results of a Rasmussen poll from 2022:
Last January 60% of Democrats wanted to lock everyone who didn’t get the covid shot in their houses. Over 40% of Democrats wanted those who rejected the covid shot sent to quarantine camps. Over 40% also wanted anyone who criticized the covid shot fined & imprisoned. Over a quarter wanted those who didn’t get the covid shot to have their kids seized.
While there were many agendas driving the madness, the Treaty of Waitangi effect was a critical part in carrying it out. If the message had been that “everyone is going to get exposed to covid – injected or not”, then it could not have happened. The misunderstanding convinced the public that mass vaccination would stop the pandemic; and that the holdouts were prolonging it. Without this belief, none of the coercion made any sense: employment mandates, school mandates, quarantine camps, or vaccine passports. As the hysteria fades, the last remaining mandates are being dropped as the reality sinks in that the shots do not stop the spread.
Welcome to Waitangi World. I hope that you have a pleasant stay.
Robert Blumen is a software engineer and podcast host who writes occasionally about political and economic issues.
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 6, 2023
The mother of two children who were given COVID-19 vaccines without the mother’s consent is suing the doctor who administered the vaccines.
An attorney representing NaTonya McNeil last week filed a lawsuit in Superior Court for the District of Columbia against Janine A. Rethy, M.D., M.P.H.
According to the complaint, on Sept. 2, 2022, McNeil took her two older children, ages 15 and 17, to the KIDS Mobile Medical Clinic/Ronald McDonald Care Mobile clinic, operated by Georgetown Hospital, to complete their required annual physical exam for the 2022-2023 school year.
The lawsuit alleges Rethy, director of the mobile clinic, held the children in the examination room longer than necessary for a regular check-up and vaccinated them against COVID-19 over their objections and without consulting their mother
In order to attempt to obtain the children’s consent — which they are not legally able to provide without a parent or guardian — the doctor falsely informed the children the COVID-19 vaccine was mandatory for school attendance and told them they could not lawfully decline it if they wanted to attend school.
The suit, filed by D.C. Attorney Matthew Hardin, seeks damages for false imprisonment, battery and fraud.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is financing the lawsuit because, according to CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland, “CHD couldn’t just sit still and not allow this wrong to go unpunished and not bring this to the public’s attention.”
In an exclusive conversation with The Defender, McNeil explained why she is suing the the doctor:
“I just feel like people shouldn’t be able to do whatever they want to do to other people and especially not to children. As a mother, I feel like, ‘You all just took all my rights away from me to do what you wanted to do to my kids.’
“I do want justice to be done in this case. I feel like something needs to be done. This can’t just continue to happen.”
‘I feel violated’
According to the complaint, Rethy’s stated goal is to vaccinate all children against COVID-19. The complaint quotes her statement to the press:
“Our goal is to increase vaccination rates in children here in D.C. . . . For more than 30 years our role has been to be in the community to help address the problem of health disparities, bringing families care where they are.
“For this particular effort, we are glad to be partnering with DC Health to provide both regular childhood vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines to all children.”
In addition to her role as director of the mobile clinic, Rethy is chief of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital’s Division of Community Pediatrics and assistant professor of pediatrics at Georgetown University School of Medicine.
McNeil said that when she took her older children to the clinic, she stayed outside the examination room to care for her infant. As soon as the children entered the doctor’s office, she called her daughter’s cellphone to let Rethy know she was just outside the door if the doctor needed to consult her for anything.
According to McNeil, the doctor did not ask or inform her about any vaccinations, and did not ask her to sign anything. At the end of the physical, Rethy came out to talk to her.
McNeil said the doctor explained her son’s asthma treatment plan, but that’s all they discussed.
As they were heading home, McNeil said she was shocked when her daughter complained that her arm hurt “pretty bad.” When McNeil asked her why it hurt, her daughter said she was given the COVID-19 shot, even though she told the doctor she didn’t want it.
When McNeil asked her why she allowed the doctor to administer the shot, her daughter said:
“When she had the needle in her hand and she was coming towards me, I backed up and I asked her what is that needle, and she said it was the COVID shot and I … told her I didn’t want it and she said, ‘Well it is mandatory, you have to get it in order to go to school.’”
Rethy allegedly administered the shot to her daughter, and then to her son. McNeil said:
“He’s 14 and he said they didn’t even ask him if he wanted it or not, but when they gave it to him, he said he thought he had to get it because his sister got it.”
According to the complaint, both children received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, authorized for emergency use, and the meningococcal vaccine. Her son was also injected with TDaP.
Both children were upset and angry they had been coerced into vaccination, the complaint says.
No school mandate, despite what clinic and doctor alleged
When she got home, McNeil said she called the doctor’s office, and asked them why they vaccinated her children without her consent.
“I would have never consented to you all vaccinating my children,” she said. “I’m not vaccinated and I’m not getting vaccinated and my kids were never supposed to be vaccinated for COVID period, under no circumstances.”
She said the person on the phone said they were supposed to get them for school.
After hanging up, McNeil said she was “so irritated I even started crying” because she couldn’t believe “they put this poison” into her children’s bodies.
In July 2022, D.C. public schools imposed a vaccine mandate for schoolchildren ages 12 and up for the 2022-2023 school year. But on Aug. 26, just weeks after imposing the mandate, officials walked it back, postponing it until 2023.
That means when McNeil’s children saw the doctor, there was no school vaccine mandate in place, despite what the Rethy allegedly told the children.
The age of consent
The District of Columbia in March 2021 enacted the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccination Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Minor Consent Act), allowing children 11 and older to consent to the administration of any vaccine — including COVID-19 shots — recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — without parental knowledge or consent if the medical provider believed “the minor is capable of meeting the informed consent standard.”
The law also required healthcare personnel to provide accurate immunization records to the Department of Health and to the student’s school, but not to parents with religious exemptions.
CHD and Parental Rights Foundation filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to declare the D.C. Act unconstitutional.
A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 18, 2022, granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the D.C. mayor, Department of Health and public schools from enforcing the law.
That means at the time McNeil’s children visited the clinic, they could not legally provide consent to be vaccinated without their mother’s consent.
McNeil said:
“To do that to my little children, my innocent children. They took her rights. When she backed away from you [the doctor] and said she didn’t want it, that should have been the end of it.
“Or you [the doctor] should have called me on the phone to find out what I feel about the situation. But you [the doctor] basically told my child a lie so you [she] could do what you [she] wanted to do to my kid.”
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.
Utah doctor claims federal indictment contains fundamental falsehood
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | March 7, 2023
A week ago I reported the story of Dr. Kirk Moore—a plastic surgeon who was recently indicted by a federal grand jury in Utah for conspiracy to defraud the US; conspiracy to convert, sell, convey, and dispose of government property; and conversion, sale, conveyance, and disposal of government property and aiding and abetting.
The government’s indictment and mainstream media are highlighting the assertion that Dr. Moore and his colleagues received $50 per procedure in which they disposed of a COVID-19 vaccine dose instead of injecting it into the patient, and then issued a fake vaccine card to the patient. This is deemed to prove that Dr. Moore—a plastic surgeon by trade—”benefitted” from his actions.
I initially assumed the federal investigators and prosecutors involved in the case must have found evidence to support their assertion in the indictment that Dr. Moore had “benefitted” from these transactions—that is, that HE received all or part of the $50 per procedure.
However, shortly after I posted my essay, I was contacted by people familiar with the matter who claimed that the indictment’s assertion is false. To check their assurance, I contacted Dr. Moore and conducted a long interview with him.
Dr. Moore insists that never received a single dollar for administering early treatments to COVID-19 patients or for issuing COVID-19 vaccine cards to patients who feared the mRNA gene transfer injections are not safe. A plastic surgeon by trade, he insists he administered early treatment and issued the cards solely as a charitable endeavor—that is, to help the sick stay out of hospital and to help his fellow citizens who were mandated to receive the injections in order to retain their student and job positions.
In other words, according to Dr. Moore, the federal indictment’s assertion that HE benefitted from the $50 per procedure is FALSE. Because most patients expressed their desire to pay him at least some fee for his invaluable service, he adopted the practice of instructing each to make a $50 donation to a medical freedom charity from which he received no funds. He assumed that keeping this practice strictly charitable would protect him from the charge that he received financial benefits for his actions. He claims the evidence presented in his forthcoming trial will prove that he received no benefit.
An especially intriguing detail he related in my interview is the strange fact that—though he knew he was under investigation because HHS and DHS agents visited him at his office and served him a search warrant to seize his cell phone—he was NOT subsequently served with notice that a federal prosecutor had impanelled a grand jury and secured an indictment.
He only learned about this alarming action in a press report, from which he also learned the date and time of his arraignment.
We encourage our Substack readers to learn more about Dr. Moore’s case by visiting his website: https://www.standformoore.com
CDC Falsely Claims To Major Media Outlet That the 7.7% Medical Care Figure Was Wrong!
By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | March 6, 2023
After ICAN obtained the v-safe data and published to the world that 7.7% of v-safe users sought medical care (and that the CDC hid this number from the public for two years), Reuters reached out to my firm stating it had received comment from the CDC regarding this figure.
Incredibly, CDC told Reuters that the 7.7% figure was grossly inflated because it claimed there were 10 million records in v-safe, not 10 million users. Here is the exact email I received from Reuters:
“CDC says v-safe has 10 million records, not 10 million users, and that one person could submit multiple records of seeking medical care for the same adverse event. Which makes the 7.7% statistic problematic… Is that something ICAN was aware of or able to adjust for?”
Based on the CDC’s claim, the major news outlet asked if ICAN would be modifying its claim of 7.7%. But it was the CDC’s claim that was categorically false!
ICAN was correct: there were 10 million v-safe users, not 10 million records; and the 7.7% also did not double-count because it was the number of unique v-users who submitted one or more reports of seeking medical care.
The CDC was plainly pushing the major news to declare ICAN’s claim false and, hence, characterize it as misinformation.
Had Reuters just accepted the CDC’s claim, as typically occurs, it likely would have published a story declaring ICAN’s 7.7% figure to be false information.
Luckily, to its credit and because one of its reporters proceeded objectively and with integrity, this news outlet did not just take the CDC’s word for its claim. It actually gave us an opportunity to respond to this claim. (Albeit not by asking if ICAN believed it was wrong but by asking if it would adjust the figure it published.)
CDC Proven Wrong
Showing that the CDC was wrong was simple. All we had to do was use the CDC’s own data it provided to ICAN!
The data the CDC provided to ICAN clearly and without any doubt showed that ICAN was using the precise and correct number of v-safe users and the number of unique v-safe users who reported needing medical care. Meaning, the 7.7% was absolutely accurate – without any doubt.
We sent this proof and asked Reuters to please ask that CDC substantiate with actual proof, not just conclusory assertions, how ICAN was supposedly wrong and spreading misinformation. And again, to Reuter’s credit, because it demanded proof from the CDC, the CDC eventually relented!
The CDC finally conceded that v-safe did in fact have approximately 10 million users and, hence, the 7.7% figure of those who reported seeking medical care was accurate.
With that, I expected that interaction would be one heck of a story in and of itself! I foresaw a Reuters story that disclosed this CDC behavior – here was the CDC trying to get a major news outlet to publish false information! It was trying to get it to write that the 7.7% figure was incorrect.
That should have been its own major story. And although Reuters did publish a story about v-safe, thus far, these behind-the-scenes communications have not been published. I expect they never will, other than in this article.
CDC Asks Reuters to Ask ICAN for a Copy of CDC’s V-Safe Data
It gets even worse. Making plain that the CDC officials communicating with Reuters were not concerned about the facts, and instead were focused solely on pushing their “safe and effective” mantra which is typically not questioned, they further revealed the agency’s disfunction: the CDC officials asked Reuters if it could get a copy of the v-safe data from ICAN and send it back to the CDC representatives Reuters were dealing with so they can review that data. If that sounds nutty, it is because it is.
Just so you don’t think you misread the foregoing, let me repeat: CDC asked Reuters to get the v-safe data that CDC had given to ICAN days before, and then send that data back to the CDC to review.
You can’t make this stuff up. Mind you, the data had already all been made public on ICAN’s website.
What this shows is that these CDC officials were driving forward to push a major news outlet to claim to the world that ICAN’s claim of 7.7% was false without actually looking at the data to assure their claim was accurate. It also shows an incredible level of disfunction at the CDC; instead of getting the data internally, they had to ask a news outlet to get its own data produced to ICAN to then send it back to CDC.
And these are the folk that have effectively dictated what level of civil and individual rights most Americans would have over the last three years!
CDC Seeks to Deceive Again
When the foregoing gambit by the CDC did not work, it had a new gambit. It tried to get Reuters to publish that the 7.7% figure was misleading by claiming to Reuters that “[i]n the first week after vaccination, reports of seeking any medical care … range from 1-3% (depending on vaccine, age group and dose).”
But as we explained to Reuters, even this is not true. For example, 3.36% of those younger than 3 years old reported receiving medical care within one week of receiving the Moderna vaccine.
Even if all combinations of vaccine, age group, and dose resulted in between 1% to 3% of infants, children, or adults seeking medical care within one week, that is not necessarily an insignificant figure! Why is this somehow comforting? Especially in the context of vaccinating the entire country.
And why should the reports of medical care on days 14 or 21 or 28 be ignored? Is it because the CDC thought it was not relevant information? And, if so, why in the world ask v-safe users to submit this information on these days? Or is it because the CDC did not like what the numbers showed? I will let you be the judge.
As noted above, and a sad irony, when medical care is sought during the first seven days, the CDC presumably attributes that to expected reactogenicity and tells the public to not be concerned. And if it occurs beyond seven days, it pretends as if that data does not exist – even though harms from COVID-19 vaccines, as the CDC well knows, can occur well after the first seven days, as discussed in depth in part 7 of this v-safe substack series.
Also, here, we are talking about a novel medical product, hence heightening the need for assessing its long-term safety – certainly beyond 7 days post-vaccination.
This shows how the sausage is made in mainstream media. But for the actual tenacity – I would even say courageous – pushback from a Reuters reporter, the story around ICAN’s v-safe claims could have ended very differently.
The real story I can only imagine this reporter would have liked to publish, the one I told above, however, would no doubt be a step too far for Reuters as an organization – at least for now, until brave journalists become the typical journalist.
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 
