Acclaimed filmmaker Mikki Willis documented the disinformation campaign that discredited ivermectin around the world. Now updated and rebranded, the movie exposes their wicked tactics.
Covid may be fading faster than last week’s sunburn (likely to make way for the “next pandemic”), but the war on ivermectin rages on. And it’s no wonder, as we continue to discover its efficacy against increasing numbers of viral illnesses and now, even cancers. Of course, the more ivermectin threatens these insanely lucrative markets, the more enemies it racks up. (If you thought the Covid market was massive, in the end, cancer may be even bigger – the global chemotherapy market alone is expected to reach $330 Billion by 2029.)
Mikki Willis is a bestselling author, investigative filmmaker, and now, a friend. (He also used to be an old lefty/progressive like me – emphasis on the “used to be.”) In 2020, he released the first installment of his documentary series, Plandemic. The micro-budget documentary was watched and shared by over one billion people world-wide, making it the most seen independent movie in history. Plandemic 2: Indoctornation, set a streaming world-record with 2 million viewers attending the online premiere. Plandemic 3: The Great Awakening, was released in June of 2023 and is being hailed by critics as, “the most important movie of this era.” Note that the Plandemic trilogy can be seen for free at PlandemicSeries.com.
More relevant to my cause is that last year, Mikki released a short but powerful documentary detailing how ivermectin, the now infamous Nobel Prize-winning medication, had been slandered during the COVID pandemic. Well, a lot has happened in the year since, so Mikki has masterfully updated the film and rebranded it The War on Ivermectin to selflessly help support my book with explosive new clips and critical legal developments.
Check out the film below:
December 16, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
As life expectancy plummets in Canada, a new government report claims “unspecified causes” have become the fifth leading cause of death in the country after cancer, heart disease, COVID-19 and accidents.
According to the Statistics Canada report, “unspecified causes” in 2022 passed strokes, aneurysms, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, Alzheimer’s and suicide as causes of death.
Statistics Canada, also known as StatCan, released the report on Nov. 27 in The Daily, the agency’s online news bulletin.
The report generated a slew of nearly identical headlines — provided by Canada’s national news service — in Canada’s leading newspapers along the lines of this one in the Toronto Sun : “Life expectancy for Canadians fell for third straight year in 2022, StatCan says,” followed by the subhead: “More people died of COVID-19 in 2022 than in any other year since the pandemic began, report says.”
Andre Picard, health columnist at The Globe and Mail in Toronto, Canada’s newspaper of record, called the life expectancy drop — to 81.3 years in 2022 from 82.3 years in 2019 — “a big deal.”
“It’s only the second time this sharp a drop has happened in Canada in the past century,” Picard said. “In fact, life expectancy has been climbing steadily for decades: 71 in 1960, 75 in 1980, 79 in 2000 and 82.3 in 2019.”
COVID-19 deaths in Canada decreased to 14,466 in 2021 from 16,313 in 2020, the report shows. Canada is on track for about 7,000 COVID-19 deaths in 2023, Picard said.
COVID-19 deaths can’t account for Canada’s 7.3 % increase in total deaths in 2022 compared with 2021 — or for the country’s 17% increase in total deaths over the historic norm of 2019, or the historic drop in life expectancy in Canada and worldwide, Picard said.
Like many mainstream journalists and public health officials in the U.S. examining the U.S. drop in life expectancy, Picard blamed chronic diseases, drug overdoses, opioid deaths, smoking, unhealthy diets and “indifference” for the decline in Canada. “There are virtually no mitigation measures like masking any more, and vaccination rates have fallen sharply,” he wrote.
But Drs. Pierre Kory and Peter McCullough told The Defender they believe the most important and startling fact contained in the report is the 300% increase from 2019 to 2022 in “unspecified causes” of death in Canada.
McCullough, a highly published cardiologist who developed a widely used early treatment protocol for COVID-19, said the dramatic rise in deaths from “unspecified causes” in Canada represents a seismic and disturbing shift in Western medicine.
“Prior to the pandemic, death in Western countries was well understood,” McCullough said, with 40% due to known cardiovascular, 40% due to terminal neoplastic disease (cancer) and 20% due to other known causes such as homicide, suicide, drug overdoses and accidents.”
He added:
“Since the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccines, we have witnessed unprecedented deaths without antecedent disease. A large autopsy series published by Hulscher et al, found that 73.9% of the deaths after COVID-19 vaccination were due to problems caused by the shots.”
McCullough cited the hundreds of studies examining post-vaccine, spike-protein-related injuries and deaths and the millions of deaths and injuries reported by citizens in the U.S. and Europe to their governments following mRNA vaccination.
“All deaths should be categorized according to the doses and dates of COVID-19 vaccination,” McCullough said. “Unless proven otherwise, ‘unspecified death’ should be attributed to a fatal COVID-19 vaccine injury syndrome,” McCullough said.
Kory, the former University of Wisconsin professor of medicine and president of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, told The Defender the evidence is overwhelming that the COVID-19 mRNA shots caused more deaths and injuries across the Western world than any prior drug or vaccine in history.
“The answer as to why ‘unspecified causes’ are now a leading cause of death is plain and simple,” Kory said. “That cause is the one medical intervention that the world’s governments and media have championed since the start [of the pandemic]. … The mRNA platform technology is and has been a colossal failure in both efficacy and safety.”
Kory and journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer on Tuesday published an opinion piece in The Hill calling on governments and public health officials to study and address the problem of a global historic rise in mortality thus far not recognized by officials and not reported by mainstream journalists.
On Dec. 13, the essay was trending as the first or second most popular story on The Hill’s website, which claims 32.5 million monthly unique visitors.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert Califf on Nov. 30 published an extraordinary thread of posts on X (formerly Twitter) calling for a society-wide “all hands on deck” approach to solve the problem of the “catastrophic” decline in U.S. life expectancy.
“JAMA Internal Medicine published earlier this month that our overall life expectancy has dropped to 76 years, and remarkably, that male life expectancy in the U.S. has dropped to 73 years,” Califf wrote.
But Kory said the FDA commissioner’s post, “which hit on smoking, diet, chronic illness and healthcare, ignored the obvious: People are dying in abnormally high numbers even now and long since COVID waned. Yet public health agencies and medical societies are silent.”
The FDA and mainstream media are ignoring the fact that life insurers have been “sounding the alarm over these unexpected or, ‘excess,’ deaths, which claimed 158,000 more Americans in the first nine months of 2023 than in the same period in 2019,” Kory wrote.
“That exceeds America’s combined losses [wounded?] from every war since Vietnam. Congress should urgently work with insurance experts to investigate this troubling trend.”
Amy Kelly, COO of DailyClout and the program director of the Pfizer Documents Analysis Project, said that for an autopsy to reach a proper diagnosis of an mRNA-vaccine-caused death, “histopathological examination of tissues from all over the body is necessary. Most of the time, even if an autopsy is performed, the histopathological examination of tissues is not.”
She cited an interview with Dr. Arne Burkhardt, who describes the types of testing the coroners must perform but seldom do.
Dr. Robert Chandler, a Los Angeles orthopedic surgeon who taught at the University of Southern California medical school, identified “entire new disease categories” he calls “CoVax Diseases” in his study of Pfizer’s 450,000 pages of COVID-19 vaccine documents, documents the FDA was forced to release via a court order, Kelly said.
“It makes sense that the unspecified causes of death have increased so much,” Kelly said. “When a patient dies with either multiple diseases all at one time or with a previously unseen disease state, both of which happen with ‘CoVax Diseases’ Dr. Chandler has identified, I would imagine many doctors and/or coroners don’t know how to categorize those causes of death. That would lead to ‘cause unknown’ categorization of deaths.”
According to Naomi Wolf, author of “Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age,” “In the preindustrial world, people died mysteriously. But in the modern Western world, there are no mystery deaths. Every death has a death certificate which by law must identify a cause of death.”
“A minor rise in unattributed deaths is a problem that needs investigation,” Wolf said. “A major rise, such as you’ve identified, does not indicate a mass mystery to doctors and coroners, but rather it is evidence of a problem with state record-keeping — some bureaucratic malfeasance at a grand scale.”
Mike Capuzzo is a reporter for The Defender. He is a former prize-winning reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Miami Herald, a science writer, and a regional magazine founding editor and publisher who has won more than 200 journalism awards as a writer, editor and publisher.
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.
December 14, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | Canada, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Almost 4 years later, things are going swimmingly for the virus panic corps.
The White House Coronavirus Task Force was spun up on January 29, 2020. Shortly thereafter, the federal government began to deploy countless billions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies with the ostensible hopes to mitigate a much-hyped incoming pandemic.
Now, almost four years later, our hindsight presents a much clearer picture to the fog of virus mania we experienced in realtime.
Instead of mobilizing an effective public-private response to the advertised problem, Operation Warp Speed and the Task Force served as a vehicle for further panic and the facilitating of taxpayer cash that ended up enriching the pharmaceutical industry. These taxpayer-funded, Covid-related slush funds ballooned to astronomical heights across two presidencies, delivering record profits to Pharma companies that took pains to bring themselves onsides with the people in charge in Washington, D.C.
Tragically, the government-backed mechanical (ventilators) and pharmaceutical (remdesivir, mRNA shots, etc) interventions didn’t work to remedy the respiratory illness problem. Instead, they added an additional layer of chaos on top of the virus mania that had captured the world.
Operation Warp Speed and the resulting Task Force operation was, by all objective accounts, a catastrophic blunder, but that didn’t stop many of its members from parlaying their roles on the high visibility government detail into successful post service gigs.
So we thought now would be a good time to take a look at some of the healthcare/pharma-related government officials responsible for some of those fateful decisions, and where they are today.
Mike Pence:
He was primarily responsible for staffing the Trump Administration’s Covid response team. Pence launched his presidential bid in June, but gave up by October. He is perhaps the only Task Force member who did not benefit from the operation, as his political career is effectively over.
Anthony Fauci:
The most notorious member of the Task Force, Fauci’s wealth increased multiple times over while serving as the Pharma kingmaker over at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). He recently took a no-show professorship at Georgetown University and is said to be working on a book.
Deborah Birx:
The second most infamous member of the Task Force, Birx, a protege of the Bill Gates network, has also cashed in on her time in the spotlight. She has since joined multiple pharmaceutical boards and wrote a book attempting to generate even more virus hysteria.
Moncef Slaoui
Technically not a member of the Task Force but the leader of Operation Warp Speed. Slaoui succeeded in delivering preferential treatment to Moderna, where he had a board seat and $10 million in stock options. Moderna stock would jump 20x from January of 2020 to late 2021. Slaoui left Operation Warp Speed in January 2021 to join a GSK-owned pharmaceutical company. He was later fired due to a sexual harassment claim.
Alex Azar
A former president at Eli Lily, he briefly chaired the White House Task Force. As the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Azar facilitated billions of dollars in funding to vaccine companies. Like his colleagues, Azar has since joined several pharmaceutical and healthcare boards.
Jerome Adams
After leaving the White House, the former Surgeon General became Purdue University’s “Executive Director of Health Equity Initiatives,” sporting a salary of half a million dollars a year for the gig. He also joined the boards of half a dozen healthcare and pharmaceutical companies. The hyper woke activist just penned a book casting himself as a “front line hero” in the fight against Covid-19.
Brett Giroir
The Trump Administration’s assistant secretary for health (succeeded by the transgender identifying admiral “Rachel” Levine) spun right through the revolving door with his colleagues. He now serves as CEO and a member of the board of a respiratory virus treatment company. He also wrote a book on “fighting Covid from the front lines to the White House.”
Stephen Hahn
Hahn served as the FDA commissioner and a member of the Task Force. Only six months after authorizing the Moderna mRNA shot, he went on to serve as the chief medical officer of Flagship Pioneering, the venture capital firm behind Moderna. He has since joined multiple ventures seeking to get products approved for FDA clearance.
Robert Redfield
The former CDC director who once declared masks as superior to vaccines has joined quite a few boards related to Pharma and healthcare.
Seema Verma
As CMS Director, this Task Force member issued the infamous memo leaning on healthcare systems to suspend non elective procedures. After her tenure in the Trump Administration, Verma joined the boards of several healthcare firms and became a Senior Vice President at Oracle Corporation.
December 14, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jbt53sb8ojsQ/
“We have criminalized and disciplined all of the practitioners who were actually there to protect our patients and families. It’s a dangerous place. I would not take a family member to a hospital.”
December 14, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
The Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine on Tuesday voted unanimously to extend the suspension of Dr. Meryl Nass’ medical license to a period of 39 months, saying she had violated rules set by the board in caring for three patients with COVID-19.
The board ruled that Nass, a biological warfare expert and an outspoken critic of federal COVID-19 policies, had “exhibited incompetency” or failed to meet standards of care in her treatment of the patients.
It imposed a fine of $10,000 toward hearing costs and a two-year probationary period during which Nass would be required to personally finance the costs of engaging professional oversight of her work, take courses in ethics and medical recordkeeping and undergo a competency evaluation, among other things.
The board issued its decision in a three-minute hearing during which neither side was permitted to present closing arguments.
Nass wrote on her substack that the hearing was an “anticlimactic finish” to a case that has dragged on since anonymous complaints were first filed against her in October 2021 for making “misleading” statements.
Those complaints were filed soon after the board issued a position statement, stating that licensees could face disciplinary action if they “generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.”
Nass, a practicing internal medicine physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory board, was subsequently investigated by the Maine board and faced the initial suspension of her license on Jan. 12, 2022, for spreading COVID-19 “misinformation.”
The board also accused her of improperly prescribing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for three patients for off-label uses of those drugs and failing to keep proper records and medical documentation.
Just prior to her first October 2022 hearing, the board suddenly dropped the charges of “misinformation,” but her license remained suspended and the board continued to investigate the charges related to her treatment of three patients with COVID-19, even though there were no patient complaints related to that treatment.
The board based their Tuesday decision on this set of charges.
Rather than conducting the hearings about the allegations against Nass over consecutive days, the board held single-day hearings about every other month since October 2022 — with Nass’s ability to practice medicine suspended the entire time.
During its seventh day of hearings in September, the board discussed its decision against her and a series of penalties that would be imposed on her. The six board members present and eligible to vote at the September hearing voted that her actions were grounds for discipline on eight of the 13 counts against her.
However, the board never formally finalized that decision and order, or responded to Nass’s inquiries about the decision until Tuesday’s hearing, Nass told The Defender.
Nass said she does not intend to comply with the conditions imposed by the board to recuperate her license, because “their interpretation of what happened and what I’m guilty of completely ignores all the testimony in the hearing that lasted almost a year.”
That included testimonies from Nass’ patients who, according to Nass’ attorney, all made “glowing comments” about her availability, her medical advice and her handling of their cases and expressed anger that Nass was being targeted by the board for their cases.
In total, Nass said that nine people’s testimonies and hundreds, or even thousands of documents demonstrating the legality and ethics of her practices were ignored by the board.
“What they essentially have done is said that I have to practice according to their way of looking at things, or I will never be able to get an unrestricted license back. So I will not be practicing medicine again, according to their requirements,” Nass said.
Instead, Nass is suing the board and its individual members in federal court, alleging the board violated her First Amendment rights and her rights under the Maine Constitution.
The complaint alleges the board engaged in retaliatory conduct against Nass, and suspended her medical license for publicly expressing her dissenting views on official COVID-19 policies, the COVID-19 vaccine and alternative treatments.
“Because she was outspoken, the board targeted Dr. Nass as someone to silence,” her attorney, Gene Libby told The Defender in August when Nass filed the lawsuit.
CHD President Mary Holland agreed. Speaking to Nass about the board hearings on CHD.TV in September, she said the hearing sounded like a “show trial” that is “really about showing a power dynamic” rather than about seeking justice or finding out what happened.
Holland said it seemed Nass was targeted “to send a message to doctors everywhere that, ‘You don’t get to do what you think is in the patient’s best interest. You do what we tell you to do.’”
The first round of oral arguments in Nass’ lawsuit against the board is scheduled for Jan. 10, 2024, before Judge Jon Levy in Portland, Maine.
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.
December 13, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Like other aspects of medicine, public health is about dealing with life and death. In the international sphere, this involves big numbers. If, as a group, a few million dollars is allocated here, it may save thousands of lives. Actual people living rather than dying, or grieving. If it’s allocated there, it may even promote death – diverting other resources from a more useful approach or causing direct harm.
Dealing with such issues affects people’s egos. Humans are prone to think themselves important if they seem to have power over the lives of others. With international public health staff this is reinforced by people they meet, and the media glorifying their work. The public hears little of the high, often tax-free salaries or the travels and 5-star hotels that boost these egos still further, but instead are fed pictures of (usually brown) children lining up to be saved by people in (usually blue) vests with nice logos. It all feels good.
The result, inevitably, is an international public health workforce that has a very high opinion of itself. Possessing values that it considers superior to those of others, it feels justified in imposing its beliefs and values on the populations who are the target of its work. As their role seems to them more important than bringing up kids in some random village or working at an airport check-in counter, they can feel virtuous when seeking to impose their superior opinions on others. The WHO’s insistence that countries globally embrace certain Western cultural values supporting abortion on request until time of delivery are a powerful example, irrespective of what one considers its ‘rightness.’ More so as the WHO also claims to support ‘decolonization.’
Things get tricky when the ultimate source of funding has its own commercial or geopolitical priorities. As an example, expenditure of the World Health Organization (WHO) is now over 75% specified by the funder, including those who stand to gain financially from such work. Large organizations that helped the WHO run its Covid-19 response, such as Gavi (vaccines) and CEPI (vaccines for pandemics), were jointly set up by private and corporate interests who are now represented on their boards and directing them.
The interface between these self-interested funding sources and the populations upon whom they seek to impose their will is where the self-righteousness culture of the public health workforce becomes so important. They need enforcers whose culture renders them willing to impose harm and restrictions upon others. Apologists and sanitizers who are in a position of trust.
A Captured but Willing Workforce
If you are going to sell a product, you can advertise it and hope potential buyers are interested. This carries a commercial risk. If a product can be mandated – essentially force the market to buy it – then this risk is eliminated. If you can then remove any liability for harm done, you are simply printing money with no risk at all. This is such a ridiculous and indecent approach that it would never fly in a normal commercial context. You would need a workforce capable, en-masse, of putting aside the moral codes that prevent such practices. A shield between the people being managed and the commercial or political interests standing to gain.
Historically, public health has often provided such a shield – a way of sanitizing vested interests that would otherwise appear repulsive to the public. In the United States, it implemented racist and eugenic policies to sterilize and send into decline ethnic groups it considered inferior, or individuals considered to have lesser mental capacity (or socially inferior).
The Johns Hopkins University psychology laboratory was founded by proponents of just such an approach. The fascists in Italy and Germany were able to extend this to active killing first of the physically ‘inferior,’ then whole ethnic groups claimed by governments and health professions to be threats to the purity of the majority. Examples such as the Tuskegee study show that this attitude did not stop with World War Two.
Most of the doctors and nurses implementing eugenics and other fascist policies will have convinced themselves that they were acting for the greater good, rather than demons. Medical schools told them they were superior, patients and the public reinforced this, and they convinced each other. Having the power to directly save or not save lives does that, while carting trash and repairing sewers (equally important to public health) does not. It enables people to tell others what to do for a perceived greater good (even sterilization or worse) and to then stand together as a profession to defend it. They will do this for those who direct them, as health professionals are also trained to follow guidelines and superiors.
Accepting Humility
The hardest thing in public health is accepting that none of the above is actually for the public’s health. It is about unleashed human ego, a large part of greed, and a trained and frequently reinforced willingness to bow to authority. Hierarchies feel good when you are near the top.
In contrast, health depends on mental and social well-being, and all the multiplicity of influences from within and without that determine whether each person experiences, and how they deal with, disease. It requires individuals to be empowered to make their own choices, irrespective of human rights, because mental and social health, and a large part of physical health, are dependent on the social capital this agency enables. Public health can advise but once it steps over the line to coerce or force, it ceases to be an overall positive influence.
To provide sensible public health, you must therefore be comfortable allowing others to do what you consider to be against their physical interests or some ‘greater good.’ When you are convinced that you have superior intellect, this can feel wrong. It is harder again when deferring to the public means breaking ranks with, and losing standing with, peers who consider themselves superior and more virtuous.
To do this, one has to accept that intellect has no standing when assessing human worth, and that each human has some intrinsic characteristic that puts them above all considerations regarding greater societal good. This is the basis of fully informed consent – a very difficult concept when considered deeply. It has its basis in the Nuremberg Code and post-1945 medical ethics and human rights, and is a concept with which many in our health professions and their institutions disagree.
Facing Reality
We are now entering one of those more extreme periods, where the hierarchy really becomes clear. Those pulling the public health strings have gained enormous power and profit from Covid-19 and are focused on getting more. Their chosen enforcers did their job during Covid-19, turning a virus outbreak that kills near an average age of 80 years and at a rate globally perhaps slightly higher than influenza into a vehicle to drive poverty and inequality. They continue to do this, pushing ‘boosters’ associated with rising rates of the infection they are aimed against, and with unusual evidence of harm, ignoring prior understanding of immunology and basic common sense.
Now public health is moving further in response to the same masters, the Covid profiteers, promoting fear of future outbreaks. With near-total obeisance, they are now supporting a reordering of society and health sovereignty through amending the WHO IHR regulations and negotiating a pandemic treaty to build a permanent health technocracy to sustain concentration of wealth and power through recurrent pharmaceutical profit.
This reordering of our democracies into Pharma technocracies, with the public health bureaucracy being aligned to enforce it, will make the right to travel, work, go to school, or visit sick relatives dependent on compliance to health dictates passed down from a massively wealthy corporate aristocracy. Those health dictates will be enforced by people whose training was funded and careers supported by those who directly profit. The modelers who will produce the numbers needed to scare will be similarly funded, while a sponsored media will continue to promote this fear unquestioningly. The institutions above this, the WHO and the big public-private partnerships, take funding and direction from the same sources. The proposed pandemic regulations and treaty are just cementing all in place, repeating the massively harmful restrictions on human rights applied during Covid whilst ensuring that there is less room for dissent.
We need legislators, and the public, to reclaim public health ethics and to return to credible concepts of health and well-being – as the WHO once did – “physical, mental and social.” This is what was intended when previous generations fought to overthrow dictators, striving for equality and for the rights of individuals over those who would control them. History tells us that public health professions tend to follow self-interest, taking the side of those who would be dictators. If our democracies, freedom, and health are to survive, we must accept reality and address this as a basic issue of individual freedom and good governance for which we are all responsible. There is too much at stake to leave this to self-interested corporatists and the notorious enforcers they control.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
December 12, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights, Johns Hopkins University, WHO |
Leave a comment
Sitting in front of a computer screen in August 2021, Dr. Paul Oosterhuis was prepared.
The regulators, the people who hold the registrar of health practitioners in Australia, had recently come out with a document informing practitioners they could only speak about the positives of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Saying anything negative or cautionary was not allowed.
Dr. Oosterhuis addressed the document in a tweet. Since the COVID crisis began on the other side of the world the year prior, he had become rather outspoken on social media about many pandemic protocols.
Now that the virus was finally at Australia’s doorstep, he had a lot to say. “The document is ridiculous,” he tweeted.
“In science,” he argued, “you can’t give informed consent without saying the pluses and minuses, the hazards and the benefits.”
A combination of tweets, Facebook posts and Facebook comments like this had already ruffled some feathers. During an event he refers to as “Facebook fear porn” in March of 2021, the registrar insisted the only way to save lives was with the jab.
“Please tell everyone to take vitamin D, zinc, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin as an evidence-based approach for treatment,” he countered.
And rather quickly he was told, “This is misinformation. I’m going to report to you.”
So later that year, in August, when he tweeted New South Wales Health Minister Brad Hazard, he wasn’t surprised by what happened next. Mr. Hazard had rounded up 24,000 school kids at Sydney Arena to get the experimental COVID-19 injection. Dr. Oosterhuis was furious.
“Here’s the childhood infection fatality rate by age. Kids are more likely to die from sharp objects.”
He went even further. At that time, the infection fatality rate for kids was .00016%, effectively zero.
“If there is even one death among these 24,000 kids, you have a signal of harm. And if you’re not watching for it, you will be held culpable.”
Two hours later, he received a call. The Medical Council of New South Wales was hastily putting together an immediate suspension hearing under the “Immediate Action Powers for Public Protection” section 150 of Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.
The hearing would be based on 10 social media posts where Dr. Oosterhuis had stated there was no evidence for anything the government was doing, whether it be masks, mandates or jabs, specifically regarding antibody-dependent enhancement. These were the posts selected as high heresy and grounds for suspension.
So here he was, sitting in his living room on a computer screen, participating in what he considered to be an online kangaroo court, but eager to participate anyway. He wanted to put them on notice. Whether they were calling it a vaccine or gene therapy, it hadn’t undergone the safety testing it should have.
There were no long-term data on the vaccine’s safety or efficacy, and they had an obligation to say so.
But it turned out, they weren’t interested in anything he had to say about that. Likewise, they had no interest in debating the science he provided or the merit of what he had claimed in any of his posts.
In fact, they only had one question: “Are you vaccinated?”
The answer was, no. And for the first time, there was a press release with his name on it. Dr. Paul Oosterhuis was officially labeled a threat.
‘Flabbergasted’: a doctor could lose his license for tweeting about informed consent?
I first met Paul in my parents’ kitchen 11 years ago.
He had flown to America with my cousin to attend a family event. Traveling the world after college, my cousin had never made her way home. Instead, she settled in Australia, married Paul, and had children. It was my first time meeting them too.
Eleven years ago I was very involved in the vaccine-safety-medical-freedom-quest-for-justice movement, which was substantially smaller then. I had helped form The Canary Party, now called Health Choice, the first political organization whose mission was to fight for medical freedom, justice for the vaccine injured, and systemic change to the vaccine program in the United States.
I had raised money for various autism organizations, marched on Washington, repeatedly met with my legislators, appeared on television, spoken at conferences and written more articles than I can count as a contributing editor to the Age of Autism blog and for other publications.
In short, I was pretty outspoken myself. And given this was long before anyone could have ever imagined the COVID pandemic, or that a highly respected mainstream doctor from Australia would lose his license for tweeting about informed consent, we didn’t really discuss my views on autism causation.
In fact, I’m fairly certain I totally avoided it.
So when my mom texted me last year that Paul had caused quite a stir and lost his license to practice medicine because of his opinions about COVID policies and protocols, I was admittedly pretty flabbergasted.
I had learned over time that the majority of physicians didn’t look at their practices as being responsible for creating negative health outcomes. Clearly, it seemed, he wasn’t afraid to do so. I decided right then and there I needed to reach out.
‘Something’s not right’
Dr. Oosterhuis completed medical school at Sydney University, also training at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center and in Papua New Guinea. After completing his residency with rotations in internal medicine, cardiology, general surgery, neurosurgery and intensive care, he decided he liked critical care best. Anesthesiology was his preferred practice.
“I’ve seen more cardiac arrests than most people have had hot breakfasts,” he commented about his time in emergency medicine over the last three decades.
This explains why he was hyper-aware of what was happening in the world regarding COVID in hospitals long before he became labeled a public health threat. He comes at it from a critical care space.
At the start of his career 30 years ago, Paul believed the Australian system of medical care was the best. Clinicians could still observe, speculate and doubt about a patient’s condition and care, he told me. Hospitals were full of doctors, nurses and other health practitioners.
Over time, however, he began to see a shift. Hospitals became less occupied by medical experts and more occupied by administrators and bureaucrats.
“It drove me mad from the get-go, the never-ending increase in red tape and bureaucracy,” he said. “It all became more and more leftist, more and more ‘woke-ian’ over the last eight years or so.”
The first red flag came in 2016 when a sign on an operating door said that any physician without a flu shot had to wear a mask for the following 12 months. To him, it made no sense. He had looked at the literature and found no evidence that masks prevented influenza in emergency room departments.
On top of that, in 2015, he received the flu shot, not only ending up feeling terrible for one week afterward but also getting the worst flu of his life a few weeks after that. He wasn’t the least bit interested in trying it again.
“I couldn’t leave the bed. And then a few weeks later, I got the flu. And it was the worst flu I’ve ever had. So when I saw that notice on the operating door, I went, no. I’m going to look into this. There’s something not right here. It doesn’t add up.”
No matter, it seemed. Suddenly, all the hospital administration cared about was his vaccine status for his re-employment contract.
From there, the changes ramped up. Senior staff were being moved out of the decision-making tree. He started recognizing pollution in the journal space, conflicts of interest and questionable findings in published science. His faith in the scientific literature was being damaged. His faith in the medical system even more so. All of it was causing him great concern.
So when COVID came, he was early to the question, “Why are the doctors and nurses falling sick in northern Italy?” Surely, he thought, they had to have good quality PPE (personal protection equipment) like they did in Australia. Didn’t they?
To avoid the same crisis in Australia, he began speaking out. In his mind, a lack of quality PPE was a bureaucratic failure. He pointed out that Italy may have failed to prepare, but Australia had time to do so.
He started by asking for quantitative fit testing of their masks. He suggested alternatives when they refused. Alas, it fell on deaf ears.
“I could see there was no openness to anything I was suggesting.”
In January 2020, he tweeted the prime minister that doctors were going to hardware stores to get effective PPE. He was adamant they work on this problem, that medical staff have a safe work environment.
And that’s when the online attacks against him began.
Amid those attacks, and after pointing out that strangely, no masks had been given to busy clinics where people from hot spots like Iran and China were coming to, his medical director suggested that perhaps he shouldn’t turn up for his next list (of patients) if he were going to keep this up.
Before he even had the chance to reply, however, he had to go into isolation. A nurse he worked with was diagnosed with COVID.
While in quarantine, Dr. Oosterhuis remained in contact with his fellow doctors and nurses, none of whom could get testing. When an email came from the medical director claiming everyone had been tested and all had been negative, he knew for a fact it was a bald-faced lie.
“I had lost trust in the system by then,” he said. “They were lying. They were not acting logically. They were not working on the problem. They were not listening to solutions that would work. Something was very wrong.”
And then, the coup d’état. He saw the NFR (not for resuscitation) and intubation orders and got a clear sense they were heading toward something very dystopian. The paranoia of viral contamination was so strong, that they were just going to let people die. No one would be getting CPR.
‘Like water on a raincoat’
To counter the insanity, Dr. Oosterhuis began aggressively researching treatment protocols. If they weren’t going to help prevent people from getting sick, at least they could treat them, he reasoned.
That’s when he discovered things like taking zinc, hydroxychloroquine, quercetin and vitamin D could have a powerful effect.
“The things they censored were very instructive,” he said. “The truth could be found in whatever that was.”
For most of 2021, he continued to follow the research and speak out, telling anyone who would listen about options for treatment. Eerily, however, it was like they couldn’t hear it. Long before Robert Malone talked openly about mass formation psychosis, he claims he could see and feel it for himself.
“It was truly bizarre. [Suggestions for treatment] would hit them like water on someone covered in a raincoat,” Dr. Oosterhuis said. “It rolled right off them.”
Alas, it soon began to make sense. The gene therapy injection was coming. The document from the regulators released in March of 2021 confirmed it. Only the vaccine, they insisted, would be able to save everyone.
By August, challenging that narrative would cost him his license.
‘Beyond the scope of authority’
During his suspension, Dr. Oosterhuis attended several protests alongside hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens. He went to one in Melbourne with a half million people. He went to another and marched on Parliament House in Sydney with a half million more. He even attended Australia’s trucker protest. They had one, too.
Although the press refused to cover the demonstrations fairly, he describes the cooperation and camaraderie of the people as nothing he had ever experienced. Everyone was so happy to know they weren’t alone, he told me.
“We had the sense we were living through history and felt sorry for the people captured by the narrative and living in fear. Human rights, bodily autonomy, informed consent — none of that seemed to matter to them.”
At the protests, several people suggested a legal brief he could take to the Australian Supreme Court to challenge the Medical Council’s decision and restore his medical license. He wasn’t going to be able to debate the merit of his social media posts, that much had been made clear.
But he was possibly going to be able to prove they didn’t follow the law in making their decision. The council had acted ultra vires, it seemed — or, beyond their powers.
He summoned the Supreme Court and Medical Council for judicial review, representing himself. Once again he found himself in his living room on a computer screen, this time in his pajama bottoms, with people trying to ruin his livelihood and reputation.
The first time around, he admits, he was nervous. By the 12th hearing, however, he was a warrior ready for battle. And on May 10, 2022, he emerged victorious. All anonymous complaints, and the suspension of his medical license, had been lifted. He had won his case.
Dr. Oosterhuis wasn’t entirely satisfied, however, as his true goal had been getting medical freedom back for all Australians. There was still work to do, he claimed. He had really hoped to get a ruling stating they had acted unlawfully, not just out of their jurisdiction. It would have overturned all suspensions — and potentially the regime of terror against doctors with it.
‘Give me my orders’
Paul now considers himself a soldier in the war for medical freedom. He sees himself as a part of the machine trying to get sanity back in science and to protect the public. In the environment of censorship and propaganda, he believes, you no longer have a democracy. Informed consent becomes impossible.
We talked for well over an hour about the parallels of our journeys for the same things, and how even though he’s later to the party than me, he’s in it for life. He insists he won’t stop fighting until they stop injecting our kids.
He also admits he just wasn’t awake. He took all vaccines without question until his horrible experience with the flu shot in 2015. He has also had to reevaluate past practices and assumptions.
Having resuscitated many SIDS babies over the years he realized, “Never once had it crossed my mind to ask, ‘When was their most recent vaccination?’”
Likewise, he has dug deeply into the literature on vaccine safety, or rather, the lack thereof. He understands now how they manipulate and censor science if they don’t like the outcomes, specifically citing Paul Thomas and James Lyons-Weiler’s study of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated and how the publisher pulled it, not a doctor or scientist.
“They don’t like having control groups,” he said. “One of the most sinister agendas in this whole thing is they never study any of these agents versus a placebo control.”
He went further adding, “And we know why. Because it would show it’s an unmitigated disaster.”
Paul went on to describe just how deeply this experience has affected him personally. Besides the trauma of losing his medical license after a stellar record of 30 years in practice, and for social media posts nonetheless, it has helped him formulate a new personal philosophy.
“I personally will not have another vaccine in this body in this lifetime,” he told me.
“I had made an oath a year and a half ago that that was my decision,” he said. “And so then the question was, how am I going to live in this world where they seem determined to inject every man, woman, child and animal on the planet with this thing? Like I say, I’m opposed to it. I’m a soldier. And I am opposed to it to my death.”
‘Real threat to the whole of humanity’
Dr. Oosterhuis hasn’t returned to the hospitals where he once worked. For one, they still have their vaccine mandates. And two, far too many of his colleagues have chosen to stay asleep, he feels. He can’t go back to it pretending none of this is real.
Instead, he spends his time now speaking out. In addition to being interviewed globally by people such as Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory, and Peter McCullough, he has created a Substack with a substantial following. Topics have included the increase in the all-cause mortality signal; fraudulent PCR tests; and the shocking damage to fertility we see happening all over the world.
“In country after country, you see nine months after the roll out (of the vaccine), a collapse in birth rates, a massive increase in infertility, and problems with women’s cycles,” he said. “This is a real threat to the whole of humanity.”
He’s equally concerned about the power grab of the World Health Organization and other health agencies. When I commented that without liability, pharmaceutical companies have no incentive for restraint, he took it a step further. They don’t just lack an incentive for restraint, he countered. They are now incentivized to create disasters.
“It’s criminality that’s become an existential threat to humanity. We don’t have any choice but to push back.”
‘I hoped I was wrong’
From the very beginning, Paul insists that he wanted to be wrong. He wanted to be wrong about it all. He was simply putting questions out into the digital universe.
What if they tried a different mask? Where was the proper PPE? Why was there such resistance to treatment protocols? Why were they giving 24,000 students an experimental injection for a disease they’d never die from? None of it made any sense.
“I hoped I was wrong. I really did,” he said. “But within days I heard a report of a high school student who had died, and I heard there was going to be a service. Then there were other reports of deaths in the 24,000. At the time of my tweet, I prayed I was wrong. I would have been happy to be wrong. But my role was to put them on notice. I didn’t want them to be able to say, ‘we didn’t know.’ It’s on public record, they did.”
When top officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration resigned last year over the pressure to push for boosters, Paul says their parting letter didn’t pull any punches. The danger was not just to the credibility of the COVID-19 vaccine, these officials claimed, but to the credibility of all vaccines. Paul believes they are right, and that accountability is coming, even if it’s slow.
Meanwhile, his trust in the government, medicine, science, journalism and the media has been destroyed. He carries a sense of disgust that many of us have already carried for some time, and he is adamant that we have to rebuild our institutions from the ground up. We need true science, true integrity and an end to conflicts of interest.
“Public-private partnerships sound great until you put a jackboot on it,” he says.
Most of all, he insists, we need bodily autonomy.
“If we don’t have bodily autonomy, we are already enslaved.”
‘A coincidence theorist’
Paul tells me that he is not a conspiracy theorist but rather a coincidence theorist. I laugh, only because the name of my book, which he hadn’t known, is “An Unfortunate Coincidence: A Mother’s Life inside the Autism Controversy” (Skyhorse 2016).
Both of us notice the coincidences. When they become less and less probable, “you start to think, maybe this is the way reality actually works.”
We commiserate for a little while over the figurative costs of being in this fight, and how neither one of us could have ever imagined being a part of it, or really ever having needed to be. Science was once sacred, I remind him. He agrees, but pushes back.
“The fight is here. It’s now,” he said. “The ultimate battle is here. And as big as the cost is of speaking out, the cost of not speaking out is exponentially larger. And the cost gets greater every day that passes.”
I am inspired again to pick up my proverbial sword. It has been almost six years since I have actively spoken out or regularly written anything. Fifteen years in the fight prior affected me in profoundly personal ways that required a reprieve.
And yet, I know he is right. The fight is here. It is time to get back in the ring. I thank him for reminding me of that and all he is doing.
“For decades, I have fought for everyone’s lives, and I’m still doing it. I’m not doing it in the operation theater, but I’m doing it on a different scale now. The only way you can protect those closest to you is to end this for everyone.”
Paul and I finish the conversation. It is late for me in Chicago while he is in Sydney. Once again, he is in his living room over a computer screen, in the same space where he lost his medical license and then took on the Australian Supreme Court to regain it.
In the same place he intends to save many more lives.
Even in his pajamas.
Julie Obradovic is a contributing editor to the Age of Autism blog, a founding member of The Canary Party and the author of “An Unfortunate Coincidence: A Mother’s Life inside the Autism Controversy.”
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.
December 12, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Australia, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Even lawmakers and journalists had their speech monitored
The Mail on Sunday reported that UK Royal Air Force (RAF) intelligence agents participated in a covert operation run by Whitehall, which was suspected of surveilling private citizens speaking out against Covid lockdown measures. This secretive operation was led by The Army’s “information warfare brigade,” tasked with analyzing online commentary—a charge the Ministry of Defence repeatedly rebuffed publicly until the recent reveal.
Documentation furnished by this publication suggests the Armed Forces, particularly those located at RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire, assisted various government bodies, such as the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport’s Counter Disinformation Unit and the Cabinet Office’s Rapid Response Unit. Their engagement in these initiatives was much more substantial than formerly known, per this latest revelation.
The clandestine operations in focus took on the challenge of countering “disinformation” and “harmful” narratives throughout the pandemic. However, they also garnered severe backlash for allegedly gathering data from lawful social media posts that challenged the Government’s lockdown maneuvers.
Prominent public figures, like David Davis MP, who voiced skepticism over the Covid mortality rates’ computed projections, and journalist Peter Hitchens, were the subjects of government reports. Insiders from the defense department conceded that the military’s contribution to such operations might be portrayed as spying on UK citizens, a segment from the furnished documents revealed.
However, the MoD alleged that the absence of Armed Forces support in overseeing online discourse could catalyze the propagation of “misinformation,” which could cause harm.
Jake Hurfurt, representing the advocacy group Big Brother Watch, didn’t mince his words, slamming these activities asking for a review on how the government monitored the British people throughout the pandemic period. He stated to the Mail on Sunday, “The revelations that the RAF as well as the Army spied on the British people during the pandemic is yet more evidence that the MoD misled the public about the role of its psyops troops in 2020.”
The government responded to these allegations stating, “Online disinformation is a serious threat, which is why in the pandemic we brought together expertise from across government to monitor disinformation about Covid.”
They alleged that all data collected were from public sources and the units did not target individuals or interfere with public discussions.
December 12, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
The video above features a lecture David E. Martin,1 Ph.D., gave in Dornach, Switzerland, in late October 2023. Martin is a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, which developed linguistic genomics, a platform capable of determining the intent of communications.
This technology has allowed Martin to scan and review millions of patents, resulting in a paper trail2,3 that conclusively proves SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade bioweapon that has been in the works for 58 years.
Unambiguous Admission of a Premeditated Plandemic
As he is now in the habit of doing, Martin opens his lecture with a quote by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance. During a March 27, 2015, forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events, Daszak noted4 that unless an infectious disease crisis is at an emergency threshold, it tends to be ignored.
“To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs (medical countermeasures) such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine,” Daszak said, adding:5
“A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”
Martin comments:
“This is the admission, unambiguously, which states without any equivocation, that the reason for the global terror campaign that began officially in the minds of most people in late 2019, was a premeditated plan of terrorism, collusion, coercion and, ultimately, murder … This quote is the admission of four felonies, regardless of which side of the Atlantic you’re on.”
What Felonies Did Daszak Admit to in 2015?
Martin then goes on to explain how, in that quote from 2015, Daszak admitted to several different felonies. In summary:
• “To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis …” — Daszak is not speaking of expanding or benefiting public health here. He’s also not referring to an actual health crisis that was taking place when the comment was made.
No, according to Martin, “the crisis was that there was a reduction in funding of biological weapons programs sponsored by the World Health Organization. The crisis was not a health crisis. It was a funding crisis for the people who were running out of money for their bioweapons programs. Those are two crimes.”
• “A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype.” — This, according to Martin, is an admission of two additional crimes. “Hype” refers to psychological terror. In other words, funding will follow provided the psychological terror is great enough, and he admits the media will be used to push that fear porn.
The second felony is economic conspiracy, because “economics that follow hype is not informed consent,” Martin notes. “That’s not willing buyer, willing seller, informed of all the facts.” Using psychological terror to secure funding implies “an intent to defraud.”
Martin explains: “Under Crown Law we call it ‘fraudulent conveyance’ when you don’t inform the counterparty of the risks associated with a contract … Why is this important?
The reason why fraudulent conveyance is such an important principle in the law, is … [because] the fraud-perpetrating party is required under the law to not just recompense the damage.
Their legal obligation is to return the damaged party to their pre-damaged state. It’s not, ‘We’re going to give you a couple bucks for your pain and suffering. No, you are legally required to return the condition to the pre-damage state.”
So, to reiterate, financial compensation is not the legal standard when it comes to fraudulent conveyance. The party that engaged in the fraud is legally required to make the defrauded whole again. And why is THAT important? Because “we’re not even asking for what we should ask for,” Martin says.
Is there a dollar amount that can cure the myocarditis you suffered after the shot? Or the turbo cancer that’s killing your mother? Or the blood clots that killed your father? “If we followed the law, we would actually recommend, not a financial compensation, we would recommend a return to the pre-damaged state,” Martin says.
• “We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues.” — What are “the real issues”? To get investors to respond with funding, which they will do if they can “see profit at the end of the process.” In other words, investors will open their pocketbooks if they can confirm that psychological terror makes people line up to receive an injection.
Why Do We Need a Vaccine for an Eradicated Infection?
Martin goes on to note that a Pan-Coronavirus Vaccine Program was actually publicly announced during the moratorium on gain of function on coronaviruses in the United States, which was in place from 2014 until 2017.6
“That gain of function moratorium was going on while we were announcing a global plan of global terrorism, a pan-coronavirus vaccine, which, by the way, the World Health Organization … declared eradicated a year earlier,” Martin says.
“How do we need a vaccine for an eradicated disease, during a gain of function moratorium, when there’s theoretically no chance that we could have a reason to need a vaccine for a thing that doesn’t exist? Well, because we were making it — professor Baric. We were hyping it — Peter Daszak … And we were going to hijack liberty with it.”
The 58-Year Timeline of SARS-CoV-2
As explained by Martin, the virus called “coronavirus” was first described in 1965. Two years later, the U.S. and U.K. launched an exchange program where healthy British military personnel were infected with coronavirus pathogens from the U.S. — “as part of our biological weapons program.”
In 1992, Ralph Baric at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, took a pathogen that used to infect the gut and lungs and altered it with a chimera to make it infect the heart, causing cardiomyopathy.
“Pause and think about what I just said,” Martin says. “What what goes on in the head of a person who says, ‘This was a little glitch in my tummy, it was a little sniffle in my nose. Let’s see if we can make it hit hearts and … create cardiomyopathy,’ one of the most lethal heart inflammations possible …”
In November 2000, Pfizer patented its first spike protein vaccine. So, Operation Warp Speed really didn’t produce a spike protein vaccine in a few months. No, that research had been going on since late 2000. So, the COVID shots were 19 years in the making by the time they were rolled out.
The problem is that during those 19 years, none of the coronavirus vaccines worked. “Every single trial, from November of 2000 until [2019], had killed all of the animals into which the experimental injections were placed,” Martin says.
Despite that, the University of California San Francisco’s institutional review board was told, in the summer of 2020, that the clinical trials for the coronavirus vaccine were a “straight to humans protocol.” In other words, it didn’t need to go through preliminary animal research.
As noted by Martin, it would be quite inconvenient to have safety data showing it kills animals. No one would line up for a shot like that, no matter how many free cheeseburgers you throw at them.
How Can We Know That SARS Was a Weapon?
While all of that is disturbing enough, there’s more. Martin continues:
“You kind of can’t make this egregious level of a crime up unless you realize that behind this, there must be another crime. Each one of these, in and of themselves, is horrific. But the sum of them becomes much, much, much more problematic.
Let’s go ahead and jump to the wonderful creation of the patent that was filed in 2002, which is actually the reason why I am done with everybody who ask the question ‘Was there a novel virus; was there novel disease?’ Let’s stipulate, with the facts, that there were neither.
There’s not a novel virus. There WAS a variety of biological weapons designed off the back of the patent that was filed in 2002, which was the ‘infectious replication-defective clone of coronavirus.’
Now let’s slow down and answer the question, what does that phrase mean? Infectious replication-defective. ‘Infectious’ means we want to target a cell in the body to make sure the thing that we’re injecting goes into the cell …
‘Replication-defective’ means we want the information that we inject to infect that cell, but not replicate and spread to others, which means that the bioweapon itself was engineered as a weapon to hit a target, but not proliferate.
That’s what the patented technology is, which is the reason why, when we had SARS 1.0 in 2002 and 2003 … we were [told there would be] dead people everywhere. [But] as hard as we tried to make it into a pandemic … we [could] only kick 900 people off the mountain. That was the global pandemic. Why? Because the weapon worked.
If you exposed somebody to the toxic agent, they died. But they didn’t spread it to others, which is the reason why we did not have the transmission of SARS 1.0, because you can’t transmit a thing that’s designed not to replicate.
But worse still: What is the definition of a virus? … A virus is a replicating protein sequence. Guess what this isn’t? Replication-defective means we took the virus out of a virus. It was not a replicating device. It was in fact a weapon.
Now, I’ve got tons of people who go, ‘Dave, you’re crossing the line, don’t say it’s a weapon. It’s not a weapon … You offend people who kill people when you call it a weapon.’ Well, guess what, if you’re offended, I don’t care, because I didn’t call it a weapon — the guy who built it called it a weapon.”
mRNA Spike Protein Is a Biological Warfare Agent
Indeed, mRNA spike protein was publicly described as a bioweapon 18 years ago. In 2005, at a conference hosted by DARPA and the Mitre Corporation in the U.S., the mRNA spike protein was hailed as a “biological warfare-enabling technology.” Does that sound like it has any public health-related applications? No, as Martin insists, “biological warfare-enabling technology” means it’s a biological warfare agent.
“So, I’m not the one saying that it’s a biological weapon. I’m not the one saying it’s biological warfare,” Martin says.
“The perpetrator called it that in 2005, and was rewarded with a dual entry budget, where … the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, received money from Anthony Fauci’s NIAID/NIH budget, and exactly at the same time … Fauci had a second checkbook [that] came from the Department of Defense pandemic preparedness program. And guess what that was? An equal matching noncompetition grant …
In Europe, that’s a violation of anti-competition laws. You’re not allowed to double down on a public grant without competition or transparency, saying that this agency is going to give you $10 million … and [a second] one is going to give you $10 million … because [the first] one gave you $10 million —
Not because it was fair, not because it was open, not because it was transparent, not because there was actually grant competition, but by virtue of the determination of one side, the other side facto matched the money. And that started in 2005, not in 2019.”
Big Pharma Owns All North Carolina Universities
Over the past two years, a lot of information has come out exposing how Daszak funneled millions of research dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China for gain of function research on coronaviruses. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to Martin, at least $141 million went to the U.S. bioweapons program led by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Martin continues:
“I have been the most ardent advocate for shaming the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill for a very good reason … and the reason is because in 1984, the state of North Carolina, not just the university, sold itself to … GlaxoSmithKline and the Wellcome companies.
The reason why you’ve heard the term ‘Research Triangle Institute’ or ‘Research Triangle Park’ — which is University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Duke University and North Carolina State University — is because the state of North Carolina sold its universities to GlaxoSmithKline Wellcome, and they did it because of AZT.
AZT was on patent, and we needed a state in the United States to be ground zero, to make sure that AZT became the drug of choice for the treatment of HIV. So in 1984, we invent HIV, conveniently for the purpose of making sure we have one treatment: AZT.
Here’s the interesting little fact that very few people know. If you go back and look at the videos of Anthony Fauci in 1985 and 1986 … he’s talking about [getting] a vaccine for HIV. But he suddenly got a knock on the door from GlaxoSmithKline going, ‘Hey Mr. Fauci, don’t start that project until the patent on AZT runs out.’
I’m not making this up. It’s actually videos that you can see. And so, mysteriously, courtesy of the Wellcome AZT protest, from 1991 to 1996, the world was told that the only treatment for HIV was AZT, and as such, the patent and the rest of the patent life on AZT could expire, so that GlaxoSmithKline Wellcome could get all of the money for the patented technology for a thing that was killing patients that allegedly had HIV.
Murder for hire. North Carolina sold the state so that could happen. Conveniently, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) decided that UNC Chapel Hill was its go-to institution, while AZT was in its monopoly run, to begin the process of doing HIV vaccine research …
So, ‘91 to ‘96 is the AZT cover story. Underneath that you have Ralph Baric genetically modifying and making chimeras of this coronavirus thing to create an HIV vaccine, which is going to conveniently roll out in 1997, as the patent on AZT expires.
[This] is the reason why you need to figure out how to get the gastrointestinal and flu problem to become a heart problem: Because you need to get that package, that little envelope around what we call coronavirus … to deliver the HIV vaccine.
So all of the funding for the HIV vaccine that was going to this program was actually going to use coronavirus as the packet in which the HIV vaccine was going to be delivered. That’s the model. [There are] hundreds of papers on this.
And, this is why this question of … is there HIV fragments somewhere in [the COVID shots]? The answer is, of course there is. It was designed into it. And it was designed into it, not a couple of years ago, not by Moderna, not by BioNtech. This was designed in many, many years earlier.
Not surprisingly, from ‘96 to ’99, Ralph Baric begins the weaponization of this allegedly synthetic coronavirus envelope to become a vaccine vector. 1999 comes along, and lo and behold, Baric and Fauci create what I affectionately call FrankenCoV.
What’s that? That is the monster, that’s the chimera. That’s the idea that we can change surface glycans, we can change surface spike proteins, we can change surface oligomerization, we can do all kinds of things to modify this thing.
So we can actually have this … package shell, the outer edge of coronavirus, we can allow that to be the carrier of getting anything we want into any cell we want. Which is the reason why the 2002 patent becomes interesting.”
NIAID Funded Research to Increase Human Pathogenicity
Next, Martin shows a letter, dated October 21, 2014, from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, declaring that Baric’s grant I1077810-02 had been deemed subject to the moratorium on gain of function research involving coronaviruses. However, at the bottom of the page 1, it also states that:
“As this grant is already funded, the pause is voluntary and you can continue to conduct the applicable GOF [gain of function] research until the end of the currently active budget period.”
In other words, the NIAID gave Baric a free pass to decide whether he wanted to abide by the moratorium or not. What’s more, the grant actually didn’t have a termination date, because it was a noncompetitive, perpetually funded grant. So, Baric was given a free pass to conduct gain of function research indefinitely.
And what was this grant for? To increase the “human pathogenesis” of coronavirus in vivo, meaning inside the body. “Two billion people are going to be incapacitated or killed — because of this letter,” Martin says.
Who Can Be Held Accountable?
Alright. So, why can’t we just prosecute Baric, Fauci and whomever else and be done with it? Because this research project was placed under the World Health Organization’s GAVI Vaccine Alliance, and under Article 5, Section 13 of the WHO’s charter, they cannot be investigated or prosecuted for any crimes committed. GAVI, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, also has diplomatic immunity and cannot be investigated by local authorities there either.
“They knew that if they put the project under the WHO, it was shielded from all criminal investigation and all criminal liability — forever,” Martin says.
But that’s not all. 2010 to 2020 was declared The Decade of Vaccines. GAVI devised a global vaccine action plan that included global acceptance of a “universal influenza-coronavirus vaccine” by 2020, to protect against “accidental or intentional release” of a respiratory pathogen. As noted by Martin, “release” is “an active, intent-filled word. It is not an ‘oops’ accident.”
Recall, the same person who said they needed to create media hype to create sustained funding, Daszak, was appointed to lead the WHO’s investigation into the lab leak theory. Not surprisingly, his team decided there was no evidence to support the lab leak theory and it was probably a case of zoonotic transference after all.
A Crime That Keeps Going and Going
Martin also stresses that this crime is not just about the creation of COVID. It’s a crime that keeps going and going. He explains how children were murdered in 2011 clinical trials for a malaria vaccine. Sixty-six of the children in the vaccine group suffered serious and/or fatal adverse events, as did 28 in the control group. However, controls were not given saline, but rather a cocktail of other vaccines.
“When people attempted to hold the clinical trials agents accountable for their actions, guess what they referred to? They referred to Article [5 Section] 13 of their representative as members [of the WHO, which gives them] ‘immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure personal baggage and respect to words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their official capacity, immunity from legal process of every kind.’
That’s in the charter of what we call the World Health Organization. That ladies and gentlemen is the mafia, and we should stop pretending it’s something else.
It is an embarrassment to the Swiss people. It is embarrassment to the Swiss government that the World Health Organization exists in this place. Because the Swiss have enabled the organized crime of the World Health Organization, and they have enabled it so that real individuals can murder children under the age of three months …
We the People cannot allow this to happen. We’re talking about the [WHO pandemic] treaty … [when] we should be talking about the World Health Organization itself, not the treaty. And as long as Section 13 of Article 5 remains in the charter, I don’t care what treaties they pass, it doesn’t matter, because the institution is corrupt at its core, and you can’t fix that. That is a license to kill.”
Martin also provides a quick review of the history of how the WHO came to be, and how, in 1952, then-director-general of the WHO, Brock Chisholm, declared that “the role of the WHO is population control.”
Aside from being in charge of population control, the WHO is a marketing and distribution arm for private sector interests that sponsor it (Bill Gates being a primary one), while simultaneously providing them with immunity from prosecution.
According to Martin, Gates various organizations provide so much money to the WHO that “By every definition of the law, [the WHO] is a wholly owned subsidiary.”
Timeline
Toward the end of his speech, Martin summarizes some of the key items on the timeline of the conspiracy to commit global genocide:
• In 2002, U.S. scientists developed the weapon.
• In 2003, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention patented the weapon in its first commercial deployment (SARS).
• In 2005, mRNA spike protein was declared a biological “warfare-enabling” technology.
• In 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published “SARS-Like W1V1-COV Poised for Human Emergence.”7 The W1V1-COV refers to the first COVID-like virus made at the WIV. In that article, they not only state that the virus is ready for release, but they also detailed the best ways to release it.
At the bottom of the article, you also learn that the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill impaneled two separate institutional review board reviews of this study, the first to review the ethics of the research and a second to review the ethics of violating the gain of function moratorium, which is unusual to say the least. As noted by Martin:
“You do not usually have an ethics board going ‘Well, should we do this? It’s probably a bad idea.’ And then somebody goes, ‘It’s illegal’ … ‘OK, should we do the illegal thing?’ ‘Yeah, let’s go ahead do that. The guys over here said it was ethical to do the illegal thing to kill people.’ That happened and is published in this 2016 article.”
• September 18, 2019, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, jointly founded by the WHO and the World Bank,8 warned that “a rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements.”
Furthermore, the “Progress indicator by September 2020” section specified the commitment by donors and member countries to finance and develop a universal influenza vaccine and other therapeutics.9
“This is the admission by the World Health Organization that they are going to do a release of a respiratory pathogen,” Martin says, adding:
“And, by the way, the reason why this is particularly important is they say ‘a lethal respiratory pathogen.’ They knew they were going to kill people. That’s why they use the word lethal …
This is the evidence that we can use in a criminal case to say, ‘This was not an accident. This was an actual premeditated act of lethality.’ They not only told you when it was going to happen. They told you the deadline for the outcome response. ‘We’re going to release the pathogen so that by September 2020, the world has accepted a universal vaccine.’ That is prima facia terrorism, collusion, racketeering, criminal conspiracy and … murder.
So that’s why we have the Wanted posters … [for] Peter Daszak … Ralph Baric … Jeremy Farrar … Chris Elias … Ghebreyesus … Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, the World Health Organization, DARPA, the United Nations … Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation.
These individuals, in violation of racketeering, antitrust and anticompetition laws, colluded to create the largest act of global terrorism known to Earth and announced the plan to do it on September 18, 2019, with premeditation and with the intent to kill.
This was entirely a premeditated act. They told us it would happen in 2011. They announced the event horizon in 2019 … Conspiring to commit acts of terror, restraint of trade, deceptive medical practices, price fixing, fraudulent conveyance. These are the crimes that the World Health Organization not only allowed to happen, but [it also] promoted these crimes and gave political cover for those crimes …
All-cause mortality in the ages of 18 to 55 is now 40% higher in the people that were injected with a biological weapon. That number is not going down. That number is going up in every jurisdiction. And here’s the saddest part about it. That number will continue to go up. If they [meet] their 2011 objective, that number will go up to 2 billion people.”
The Damage Is Done
Martin points out that even if they don’t unleash any other bioweapons, the desired death toll may still be achieved, because they used pseudouridine in the mRNA shots, which is causing “turbo cancers.”
Pseudouridine suppresses cancer-controlling agents and promotes oncogenic activity in the body, and this has been known since 2018, so its inclusion was hardly an accident.
The shots are also targeting reproduction, which is a key target if you want to depopulate. It’s not just infertility. Prostate, ovarian and uterine cancers make it more difficult to have sex, and hence more difficult to have children.
According to Martin, the evidence is clear. None of this is accidental. It’s a conspiracy, alright. But not a conspiracy theory in the dismissive sense. It’s a global conspiracy by identifiable agents who have, for nearly 60 years, plotted to commit, and profit from, the greatest genocide the world has ever seen, while hiding behind the false veneer of “public health.”
Sources and References
December 11, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, NIAID, United States |
Leave a comment
On Sunday, December 17, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, will debate Dr. Kate Klonick, Associate Professor of Law at St. John’s University Law School, on whether Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 injunction restricting the Biden Administration’s communications with social media platforms hindered or helped “national internet policy.”
The topic refers to the federal district court’s 155-page ruling in Missouri v. Biden, which ordered the federal government to halt its efforts to induce Big Tech to censor its political opponents. Judge Doughty wrote that if the plaintiffs’ allegations are true, the case “arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Dr. Bhattacharya is a Plaintiff in the lawsuit, which alleges that he and his colleagues “experienced extensive censorship on social media” for their criticism of the US Government’s Covid policies. In his affidavit, Dr. Bhattacharya testifies that there was a “relentless covert campaign of social-media censorship of our dissenting view from the government’s preferred message.”
Dr. Klonick previewed her support for the Government’s ability to work with private companies to control the flow of information in a July op-ed for the New York Times, “The Future of Online Speech Shouldn’t Belong to One Trump-Appointed Judge in Louisiana.”
Klonick’s article raises factual and analytical questions that Bhattacharya should raise in their debate.
Does the Future of Online Speech Belong to Anyone?
Klonick’s headline is fundamentally at odds with the concept of free speech. Under the First Amendment, speech does not belong to any person or entity. Future speech receives heightened protections under Supreme Court precedent to curtail prior restraint.
Next Sunday, Dr. Bhattacharya should ask Klonick: who should “speech” belong to? This is not a pedantic or rhetorical point; those with control over information instinctively protect their own interests. A survey of American power structures demonstrates the corruption that power breeds.
Should the future of speech belong to CISA? The Department of Homeland Security subdivision monitored speech in the 2020 election through “switchboarding,” a process in which it flagged content for removal from social media platforms.
The US Security State censored posts related to natural immunity, Hunter Biden’s laptop, the lab-leak theory, and side effects of the vaccine, many of which were later proven true. In each instance, the suppression of information benefitted the country’s most powerful institutions.
Or should it belong to the Biden Administration? Every day, the White House slowly kills Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison. The President hasn’t accused the Wikileaks publisher of falsehoods; instead, Assange has spent over ten years in confinement for disrupting the preferred narrative of the American political class.
Should speech belong to unelected bureaucrats? Biden cronies like Rob Flaherty and Andy Slavitt have worked for years to control Americans’ access to information, including censoring “mal-information,” meaning “often-true information” that they consider “sensational.”
Should it instead belong to health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci? Fauci learned that he was complicit in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology on January 27, 2020, and orchestrated a cover-up campaign to shield himself from criticism and potential legal liability. He called for a “quick and devastating… take down (sic)” of the Great Barrington Declaration, co-authored by Dr. Bhattacharya, because it questioned his judgment on lockdowns.
Our First Amendment demands that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Alleged falsehood does not overturn this principle. As the Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Alvarez: “Some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation.”
Free speech is predicated on the notion that it belongs to no man or government entity. Klonick’s entire position is based on her opposition to that pillar of constitutional liberty.
The Flaws in Klonick’s Argument
Beyond the title, each prong of Dr. Klonick’s argument relies on falsehoods. First, she described the case as “part of a wider war conservatives believe they are fighting, in which tech executives and Democratic government officials are supposedly colluding to censor conservative voices.”
Like Professor Larry Tribe, the censors use terms like believe and supposedly to imply the censorship doesn’t exist. They call it a “thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory” while ignoring the documented suppression of Alex Berenson, Jay Bhattacharya, the Great Barrington Declaration, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and others.
Klonick never mentions that Facebook banned users who promoted the lab-leak hypothesis at the behest of the CDC, that the Biden Administration launched a campaign to censor dissent surrounding vaccines in July 2021, or that the Twitter Files demonstrated the infiltration of the US Security State in Big Tech. Acknowledging those facts would unravel her premise.
Second, Klonick argued that the injunction was “overbroad” because it “seems to prevent anyone in the Biden administration from having any kind of communication with online platforms about matters related to speech.”
Here, she either didn’t read the order or deliberately misrepresented it. The injunction does not “prevent anyone” in government from communicating with online platforms “about matters related to speech,” as she claims; to the contrary, the injunction explicitly permits the Defendants to communicate with social media companies provided it does not infringe upon “free speech [protected] by the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment.”
Third, she described the Biden Administration’s demands to social media giants to remove content as “classic examples of what political scientists call jawboning: the government’s use of public appeals or private channels to induce change or compliance from businesses.”
This ignores the inter-agency and systemic nature of what Michael Shellenberger calls the “Censorship Industrial Complex.” Recent reports have revealed military contractors’ role in establishing systems for global censorship and the Intelligence Community’s direct involvement in the operations of our information centers.
The “content moderation” demands were not mere requests that could be freely accepted or denied. As Brownstone has detailed, they were mafia-like tactics where thuggish officials used the threat of retaliation to demand compliance.
Klonick exemplifies the censors’ repeated strategy: deny, deflect, and defend. The prongs of her augment are inherently contradictory. She defends the censorship tactics that she pretends don’t exist. Further, she either remains willfully blind to the corruption behind the usurpation of First Amendment freedoms or deliberately omits any mention of it.
No matter her intentions or misunderstandings, her aim is unconstitutional.
The Pretext for Tyranny
Pro-censorship advocates like Klonick and The New York Times imply that the internet presents unique challenges that require the government to “stifle disinformation.” But “disinformation” has long been the pretext for tyrants to banish unwanted speech.
In 1919, the Supreme Court upheld the Wilson Administration’s convictions of journalists, immigrants, and presidential candidate Eugene Debs for their opposition to the Great War. Charles Schenck, a pamphleteer, argued that the military draft violated the US Constitution. Debs told his followers, “You need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.”
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. affirmed their jail sentences, offering the now-famous slander that the First Amendment did not protect “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
Holmes’ metaphor was a precursor to disinformation. It dismissed the dissidents as liars and accused them of endangering those around them. In the Covid era, we saw the slanderous nature of Holmes’ glib principle return to the public square as men like Dr. Bhattacharya were accused of killing grandmothers, hating teachers, and spreading Russian propaganda.
A century after the censorship of the Great War, Dr. Klonick asserts that the future of speech should belong to someone, just not Trump-appointed judges. But history, through figures such as Holmes, warns us of the tyranny inherent in that principle.
As one Irish Senator recently demonstrated, censors justify their totalitarianism in the name of the “common good.” They march under innocuous banners like public health, anti-racism, and civility.
But the results always serve the censors’ interests, stifling dissent to augment power.
Judge Doughty’s injunction may have flaws, but on the question of whether it advances or hinders free speech in the United States, the answer is undeniable. Missouri v. Biden is a litmus test for Americans. Either the Government has a right to curate citizens’ newsfeeds by using the power of the federal government to nationalize our information centers, or we embrace the First Amendment and unshackle ourselves from the militarized system of informational warfare that has dominated our airwaves for over three years. Dr. Klonick must answer, who would she appoint to control the future of our speech, to determine whether there really is fire in the theater?
December 9, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, Human rights, New York Times, United States |
Leave a comment
‘Twitter Files’ co-author Michael Shellenberger says Democrat Congressman Dan Goldman has “no evidence” to back up his “wild conspiracy theory” about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
Mr Goldman tried to regurgitate claims to Mr Shellenberger that the laptop’s contents could have been manipulated by Rudy Guiliani or the Russians.
Mr Shellenberger testified to the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponisation of the Federal Government last week about the existence of a “Censorship Industrial Complex” which, he says, includes the Department of Homeland Security, big tech companies and government contractors.
“The Democrats the whole time were saying that’s just a conspiracy theory, and here we were presenting them with files – and it’s Twitter files, Facebook files … like actual documents,” Mr Shellenberger told Sky News Australia host Rita Panahi.
“Then he goes and presents this wild conspiracy theory for which there has never been any evidence and there has only been evidence going the other way.
“When the New York Post published that article … they provided not only the computer store signature of Hunter Biden on the receipt left at the computer store repair shop he left the laptop at and the New York Post published the FBI subpoena for the laptop from him.
“Twitter’s own internal staff evaluated the New York Post article and they said there’s no evidence that this was the result of a Russian hack and leak operation.
“To have a sitting member of Congress, over three years later, continue to perpetuate a conspiracy theory without any evidence … that is literally the definition of conspiracy theorising.”
December 7, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Australia, Canada, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
