Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

It Was Birx. All Birx.

BY DEBBIE LERMAN | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | AUGUST 31, 2022

In two previous articles, I looked into the shady circumstances surrounding Deborah Birx’s appointment to the White House Coronavirus Response Task Force and the laughable lack of actual science behind the claims she used to justify her testing, masking, distancing and lockdown policies.

Considering all that, the questions arise: Who was actually in charge of Deborah Birx and whom was she working with?

But first: Who cares?

Here’s why I think it’s important: If we can show that Birx and the others who imposed totalitarian anti-scientific testing, masking, social distancing, and lockdown policies, knew from the get-go that these policies would not work against an airborne respiratory virus, and nevertheless they imposed them FOR REASONS OTHER THAN PUBLIC HEALTH, then there is no longer acceptable justification for any of those measures.

Furthermore, whatever mountains of post-facto bad science were concocted to rationalize these measures are also completely bunk. Instead of having to go through each ridiculous pseudo-study to demonstrate its scientific worthlessness, we can throw the whole steaming pile in the garbage heap of history, where it belongs, and move on with our lives.

In my admittedly somewhat naive optimism, I also hope that by exposing the non-scientific, anti-public-health origins of the Covid catastrophe, we may lower the chances of it happening again.

And now, back to Birx.

She did not work for or with Trump 

We know Birx was definitely not working with President Trump, although she was on a task force ostensibly representing the White House. Trump did not appoint her, nor did the leaders of the Task Force, as Scott Atlas recounts in his revelatory book on White House pandemic lunacy, A Plague Upon Our House. When Atlas asked Task Force members how Birx was appointed, he was surprised to find that “no one seemed to know.” (Atlas, p. 82)

Yet, somehow, Deborah Birx – a former military AIDS researcher and government AIDS ambassador with no training, experience or publications in epidemiology or public health policy –  found herself leading a White House Task Force on which she had the power to literally subvert the policy prescriptions of the President of the United States.

As she describes in The Silent Invasion, Birx was shocked when “at the halfway point of our 15 Days to Slow the Spread campaign, President Trump stated that he hoped to lift all restrictions by Easter Sunday.” (Birx, p. 142) She was even more dismayed when “mere days after the president had announced the thirty-day extension of the Slow the Spread campaign to the American public” he became enraged and told her “‘We will never shut down the country again. Never.’” (Birx, p. 152)

Clearly, Trump was not on board with the lockdowns, and every time he was forced to go along with them, he became enraged and lashed out at Birx – the person he believed was forcing him.

Birx laments that “from here on out, everything I worked toward would be harder—in some cases, impossible,” and goes on to say she would basically have to work behind the scenes against the President, having “to adapt to effectively protect the country from the virus that had already silently invaded it.” (Birx, pp. 153-4)

Which brings us back to the question: Where did Birx get the nerve and, more mysteriously, the authority to so blithely act in direct opposition to the President she was supposed to serve, on matters affecting the lives of the entire population of the United States?

Atlas regrets what he thinks was President Trump’s “massive error in judgment.” He argues that Trump acted “against his own gut feeling” and “delegated authority to medical bureaucrats, and then he failed to correct that mistake.” (Atlas, p. 308)

Although I believe massive errors in judgment were not unusual for President Trump, I disagree with Atlas on this one. In the case of the Coronavirus Response Task Force, I actually think there was something much more insidious at play.

Trump had no power over Birx or pandemic response

Dr. Paul Alexander, an epidemiologist and research methodology expert who was recruited to advise the Trump administration on pandemic policy, tells a shocking story in an interview with Jeffrey Tucker, in which bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and lawyers from the Justice Department told him to resign, despite direct orders from President Trump and the White House: “We want you to understand that President Trump has no power,” they reportedly told Alexander. “He cannot tell us what to do.”

Alexander believes these bureaucrats represented the “deep state” which, he was told repeatedly, had decided first not to hire or pay him, and then to get rid of him. Alexander also writes in an upcoming exposé that the entrenched government bureaucracy, particularly at the NIH, CDC, and WHO, used the pandemic response to doom President Trump’s chances for reelection.

Was the entire anti-scientific totalitarian pandemic response, all over the world, a political maneuver to get rid of Trump? It’s possible. I would contend, however, that the politics were only a sideshow to the main event: the engineered virus lab leak and coverup. I believe the “deep state” Alexander repeatedly butted up against was not just the entrenched bureaucracy, but something even deeper and more powerful.

Which brings us back to deep state frontwoman Deborah Birx.

After lamenting Trump’s delegation of authority to “medical bureaucrats,” Scott Atlas also hints at forces beyond Trump’s control. “The Task Force was called ‘the White House Coronavirus Task Force,’” Atlas notes, “but it was not in sync with President Trump. It was directed by Vice President Pence.” (Atlas, p. 306) Yet, whenever Atlas tried to raise questions about Birx’s policies, he was directed to speak with Pence, who then failed to ever address anything with Birx:

“Given that the VP was in charge of the Task Force, shouldn’t the bottom-line advice emanating from it comport with the policies of the administration? But he would never speak with Dr. Birx at all. In fact, (Marc) Short [Pence’s chief of staff], clearly representing the VP’s interests above all else, would do the opposite, telephoning others in the West Wing, imploring friends of mine to tell me to avoid alienating Dr. Birx.” (Atlas, p. 165-6)

Recall that Pence replaced Alex Azar as Task Force director on February 26, 2020 and Birx’s appointment as coordinator, at the instigation of Asst. National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger, came on February 27th. Subsequent to those two appointments, it was Birx who was effectively in charge of United States coronavirus policy.

What was driving that policy, once she took over? As Birx writes, it was the NSC (National Security Council) that appointed her, through Pottinger, and it was her job to “reinforce their warnings” – which, I continue to speculate, were related to the accidental release of an enhanced pandemic potential pathogen from a US-funded lab in Wuhan.

Trump was probably made aware of this, as evidenced not just by his repeated mentions, but by what Time Magazine called his uncharacteristic refusal to explain why he believed it. The magazine quotes Trump saying “I can’t tell you that,” when asked about his belief in the lab leak. And he repeats, “I’m not allowed to tell you that.”

Why in the world was the President of the United States not allowed to override AIDS researcher/diplomat Birx on lockdown policies nor explain to the public why he believed there was a lab leak?

The answer, I believe, is that Trump was uncharacteristically holding back because he was told (by Birx, Pottinger and the military/intelligence/biosecurity interests for whom they worked) that if he did not go along with their policies and proclamations, millions of Americans would die. Why? Because SARS-CoV-2 was not just another zoonotic virus. It was an engineered virus that needed to be contained at all costs.

As Dr. Atlas repeatedly notes with great dismay: “the Task Force doctors were fixated on a single-minded view that all cases of COVID must be stopped or millions of Americans would die.” (Atlas, p. 155-6) [BOLDFACE ADDED]

That was the key message, wielded with great force and success against Trump, his administration, the press, the states, and the public, to suppress any opposition to lockdown policies. Yet the message makes no sense if you believe SARS-CoV-2 is a virus that jumped from a bat to a person in a wet market, severely affecting mostly people who are old and debilitated. It only makes sense if you think, or know, that the virus was engineered to be especially contagious or deadly (even if its behavior in the population at any given moment might not justify that level of alarm).

But, again, before indulging in more speculation, let’s get back to Birx. Who else did she (and her hidden handlers) bulldoze?

She dictated policy to the entire Trump administration

In his book, Atlas observes with puzzlement and consternation that, although Pence was the nominal director of the Task Force, Deborah Birx was the person in charge: “Birx’s policies were enacted throughout the country, in almost every single state, for the entire pandemic—this cannot be denied; it cannot be deflected.” (Atlas, p. 222)

Atlas is “dumbstruck at the lack of leadership in the White House,” in which, “the president was saying one thing while the White House Task Force representative was saying something entirely different, indeed contradictory” and, as he notes, “no one ever set her [Birx] straight on her role.” (Atlas, p. 222-223)

Not only that, but no matter how much Trump, or anyone in the administration, disagreed with Birx, “the White House was held hostage to the anticipated reaction of Dr. Birx” and she “was not to be touched, period.” (Atlas, p. 223)

One explanation for her untouchableness, Atlas suggests, is that Birx and her policies became so popular with the press and public that the administration did not want to “rock the boat” by replacing her before the election. This explanation, however, as Atlas himself realizes, crumbles in the face of what we know about Trump and the media’s hostility towards him:

“They [Trump’s advisors] had convinced him to do exactly the opposite of what he would naturally do in any other circumstance—to disregard his own common sense and allow grossly incorrect policy advice to prevail. … This president, widely known for his signature ‘You’re fired!’ declaration, was misled by his closest political intimates. All for fear of what was inevitable anyway—skewering from an already hostile media.” (Atlas, p. 300-301)

I would suggest, again, the reason for the seemingly inexplicable lack of gumption on Trump’s part to get rid of Birx was not politics, but behind-the-scenes machinations of the (to coin a moniker) lab leak cabal.

Who else was part of this cabal with its hidden agendas and oversized policy influence? Our attention naturally turns to the other members of the Task Force who were presumably co-engineering lockdown policies with Birx. Surprising revelations emerge.

There was no troika. No Birx-Fauci lockdown plan. It was all Birx.

It is universally assumed, by both those in favor and those opposed to the Task Force’s policy prescriptions, that Drs. Deborah Birx, Tony Fauci (head of  NIAID at the time) and Bob Redfield (then director of the CDC) worked together to formulate those policies.

The stories told by Birx herself and Task Force infiltrator Scott Atlas suggest otherwise.

Like everyone else, at the onset of his book, Atlas asserts: “The architects of the American lockdown strategy were Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. With Dr. Robert Redfield… they were the most influential medical members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.” (Atlas, p. 22)

But as Atlas’s story unfolds, he presents a more nuanced understanding of the power dynamics on the Task Force:

“Fauci’s role surprised me the most. Most of the country, indeed the entire world, assumed that Fauci occupied a directorial role in the Trump administration’s Task Force. I had also thought that from viewing the news,” Atlas admits. However, he continues, “The public presumption of Dr. Fauci’s leadership role on the Task Force itself… could not have been more incorrect. Fauci held massive sway with the public, but he was not in charge of anything specific on the Task Force. He served mainly as a channel for updates on the trials of vaccines and drugs.” (p. 98) [BOLDFACE ADDED]

By the end of the book, Atlas fully revises his initial assessment, strongly emphasizing that, in fact, it was primarily and predominantly Birx who designed and disseminated the lockdown policies:

“Dr. Fauci held court in the public eye on a daily basis, so frequently that many misconstrue his role as being in charge. However, it was really Dr. Birx who articulated Task Force policy. All the advice from the Task Force to the states came from Dr. Birx. All written recommendations about their on-the-ground policies were from Dr. Birx. Dr. Birx conducted almost all the visits to states on behalf of the Task Force.” (Atlas, p. 309-10) [BOLDFACE ADDED]

It may sound jarring and unlikely, given the public perception of Fauci, as Atlas notes. But in Birx’s book the same unexpected picture emerges.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

As with her bizarrely self-contradictory statements about how she got hired, and her blatantly bogus scientific claims, Birx’s story about her mind-melded closeness with Fauci and Redfield falls apart upon closer examination.

In her book, Birx repeatedly claims she trusts Redfield and Fauci “implicitly to help shape America’s response to the novel coronavirus.” (Birx, p. 31) She says she has “every confidence, based on past performance, that whatever path the virus took, the United States and the CDC would be on top of the situation.” (Birx, p. 32)

Then, almost immediately, she undermines the credibility of those she supposedly trusts, quoting Matt Pottinger as saying she “‘should take over Azar, Fauci, and Redfield’s jobs, because you’re such a better leader than they are.’” (Birx, p. 38-9)

Perhaps she was just giving herself a little pat on the back, one might innocently suggest. But wait. There’s so much more.

Birx claims that in a meeting on January 31 “everything Drs. Fauci and Redfield said about their approach made sense based on the information available to me at that point,” even though “neither of them spoke” about the two issues she was most obsessed with: “asymptomatic silent spread [and] the role testing should play in the response.” (Birx, p. 39)

Then, although she says she “didn’t read too much into this omission,” (p. 39) just two weeks later, “as early as February 13” Birx again mentions “a lack of leadership and direction in the CDC and the White House Coronavirus Task Force.” (p. 54)

So does Debi trust Tony and Bob’s leadership or does she not? The only answer is more self-contradictory obfuscation.

Birx is horrified that nobody is taking the virus as seriously as they should: “then I saw Tony and Bob repeating that the risk to Americans was low,” she reports. “On February 8, Tony said that the chances of contracting the virus were ‘minuscule.’” And, “on February 29, he said, ‘Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything you’re doing on a day-to-day basis.’” (Birx, p. 57)

This does not seem like the kind of leader Birx can trust. She half-heartedly tries to excuse Redfield and Fauci, saying “I now believe that Bob and Tony’s words had spoken to the limited data they had access to from the CDC,” and then, in another whiplash moment, “maybe they had data in the United States that I did not.”

Did Tony and Bob provide less dire warnings because they had insufficient data or because they had more data than Birx did? She never clarifies, but regardless, she assures us that she “trusted them” and “felt reassured every day with them on the task force.” (Birx, p. 57)

If I was worried that the virus was not being taken seriously enough, Birx’s reports on Bob and Tony would not be very reassuring, to say the least.

Apparently, Birx herself felt that way too. “I was somewhat disappointed that Bob and Tony weren’t seeing the situation as I was,” she says, when they disagreed with her alarmist assessments of asymptomatic spread. But, she adds, “at least their number supported my belief that this new disease was far more asymptomatic than the flu. I wouldn’t have to push them as far as I needed to push the CDC.” (Birx, p. 78)

Is someone who disagrees with your assessment to the point that you need to push them in your direction also someone you “implicitly trust” to lead the US through the pandemic?

Apparently, not so much.

Although she supposedly trusts Redfield and sleeps well at night knowing he’s on the Task Force, Birx has nothing but disdain and criticism for the CDC – the organization Redfield leads.

“On aggressive testing I planned to have Tom Frieden [CDC director under Obama] help bring the CDC along,” she recounts. “Like me, the CDC wanted to do everything to stop the virus, but the agency needed to align with us on aggressive testing and silent spread.” (p. 122) Which makes one wonder: If she was so closely aligned with Redfield, the head of the CDC, why did Birx need to bring in a former director – in a direct challenge to the sitting one – to “bring the CDC along?” Who is “us” if not Birx, Fauci and Redfield?

Masks were another issue of apparent contention. Birx is frustrated because the CDC, led by her “we’ve-got-each-other’s-back” bestie, Bob Redfield (Birx, p. 31), will not issue strict enough masking guidelines. In fact, she repeatedly throws Bob’s organization under the bus, basically accusing them of causing American deaths: “For many weeks and months to come,” she writes, “I fretted over how many lives could have been saved if the CDC had trusted the public to understand that …masks would do no harm and could potentially do a great deal of good.” (Birx, p. 86)

Apparently, Fauci was not on board with the masking either, as Birx says that “getting the doctors, including Tom [Frieden] and Tony, to be in complete agreement with me about asymptomatic spread was slightly less of a priority. As with masks, I knew I could return to that issue as soon as I got their buy-in on our recommendations.” (Birx, p. 123)

Who is making “our recommendations” if not Birx, Fauci and Redfield?

The myth of the troika

Whether or not she trusted them (and it’s hard to believe, based on her own accounts, that she did), it was apparently very important to Birx that she, Fauci and Redfield appear as a single entity with no disagreements whatsoever.

When Scott Atlas, an outsider not privy to whatever power plays were happening on the Task Force, came in, his presence apparently rattled Birx (Atlas, p. 83-4), and for good reason. Atlas immediately noticed strange goings-on. In his book, he repeatedly uses words like “bizarre,” “odd” and “uncanny” to describe how Fauci, Redfield and Birx behaved. Most notably, they never ever questioned or disagreed with one another in Task Force meetings. Not ever.

“They shared thought processes and views to an uncanny level,” Atlas writes, then reiterates that “there was virtually no disagreement among them.” What he saw “was an amazing consistency, as though there were an agreed-upon complicity” (Atlas, pp. 99-100). They “virtually always agreed, literally never challenging one another.” (p. 101) [BOLDFACE ADDED]

An agreed-upon complicity? Uncanny agreement? Based on all of the disagreements reported by Birx and her repeated questioning and undermining of Bob and Tony’s authority, how can this be explained?

I would contend that in order to obscure the extent to which Birx alone was in charge of Task Force policy, the other doctors were compelled to present a facade of complete agreement. Otherwise, as with any opposition to, or even discussion of, potential harms of lockdown policies, “millions of Amercans would die.”

This assessment is strengthened by Atlas’s ongoing bafflement and distress at how the Task Force – and particularly the doctors/scientists who were presumably formulating policy based on data and research – functioned:

“I never saw them act like scientists, digging into the numbers to verify the very trends that formed the basis of their reactive policy pronouncements. They did not act like researchers, using critical thinking to dissect the published science or differentiate a correlation from a cause. They certainly did not show a physician’s clinical perspective. With their single-minded focus, they did not even act like public health experts.” (Atlas, p. 176)

Atlas was surprised, indeed stunned, that “No one on the Task Force presented any data” to justify lockdowns or to contradict the evidence on lockdown harms that Atlas presented. (Atlas, p. 206) More specifically, no data or research was ever presented (except by Atlas) to contradict or question anything Birx said. “Until I arrived,” Atlas observes, “no one had challenged anything she said during her six months as the Task Force Coordinator.” (Atlas, p. 234) [BOLDFACE ADDED]

Atlas cannot explain what he’s witnessing. “That was all part of the puzzle of the Task Force doctors,” he states. “There was a lack of scientific rigor in meetings I attended. I never saw them question the data. The striking uniformity of opinion by Birx, Redfield, Fauci, and (Brett) Giroir [former Admiral and Task Force “testing czar”] was not anything like what I had seen in my career in academic medicine.” (Atlas, p. 244)

How can we explain the puzzle of this uncanny apparent complicity by the Task Force troika?

Methinks the intelligence agent also doth protest too much

An interesting hint comes from the string of anecdotes comprising Matthew Lawrence’s New Yorker article “The Plague Year.” Lawrence writes that Matt Pottinger (the NSC liaison to Birx) tried to convince Task Force members that masking could stop the virus “‘dead in its tracks’” but his views “stirred up surprisingly rigid responses from the public-health contingent.” Lawrence continues to report that “In Pottinger’s opinion, when Redfield, Fauci, Birx, and (Stephen) Hahn spoke, it could sound like groupthink,” implying that those were the members of the “public-health contingent” who did not agree with Pottinger’s masking ideas.

But wait. We just noted Birx’s frustration, indeed deep regret, that the CDC led by Redfield, as well as Fauci (and even Frieden) did not agree with her ideas on asymptomatic spread and masking. So why does Pottinger imply that she and the “public-health contingent” of the Task Force were group-thinking this issue, against him?

I would suggest that the only way to make sense of these contradictions within Birx’s narrative and between her, Atlas and Pottinger’s stories, is if we understand “align with us” and “our recommendations” to refer not to the perceived Birx-Fauci-Redfield troika, but to the Birx-Pottinger-lab leak cabal that was actually running the show.

In fact, Birx and Pottinger put so much effort into insisting on the solidarity of the troika, even when it contradicts their own statements, that the question inevitably arises: what do they have to gain from it? The benefit of insisting that Birx was allied with Fauci, Redfield and the “public-health contingent” on the Task Force, I would argue, is that this deflects attention from the Birx-Pottinger-cabal non-public-health alliance.

Her authority and policies emanated from a hidden source

The explanation of Atlas’s perceived “puzzle of the Task Force doctors” that makes the most sense to me is that Deborah Birx, in contrast and often in opposition to the other doctors on the Task Force, represented the interests of what I’m calling the lab leak cabal: those not just in the US but in the international intelligence/biosecurity community who needed to cover up a potentially devastating lab leak and who wanted to impose draconian lockdown measures such as the world had never known.

Who exactly they were and why they needed lockdowns are subjects of ongoing investigations.

In the meantime, once we separate Birx from Trump, from the rest of the administration, and from the others on the Task Force, we can see clearly that her single-minded and scientifically nonsensical emphasis on silent spread and asymptomatic testing was geared toward a single goal: to scare everyone so much that lockdowns would appear to be a sensible policy. This is the same strategy that was, uncannily in my opinion, implemented almost to the letter in nearly every other country around the world. But that’s for the next article.

I’ll close this chapter of the Birx riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, with Scott Atlas’s report of his parting conversation with President Trump:

“‘You were right about everything, all along the way,’” Trump said to Atlas. “‘And you know what? You were also right about something else. Fauci wasn’t the biggest problem of all of them. It really wasn’t him. You were right about that.’ I found myself nodding as I held the phone in my hand,” Atlas says. “I knew exactly whom he was talking about.” (Atlas, p. 300)

And now, so do we.

Debbie Lerman has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA.

September 1, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Polemicisation and the Formation of Ideology

How to go from two weeks to crush the curve to flu season mask mandates forever

eugyppius | August 31, 2022

Apparently, UC Berkeley will now be imposing indefinite mask mandates during flu season on everyone who has not received a flu vaccine. It’s worth asking how we got to this point, where two weeks to crush the curve have become a permanent amorphous crusade against seasonal respiratory infections in general.

The question is related to another, much broader problem I like to puzzle over: Where, exactly, do political ideologies come from? How do they acquire their specific features? It would be good to know, because somewhere in the months following March 2020, an entire containment ideology emerged before our very eyes, complete with millions of committed adherents, well-defined leadership and thinkers, and a semi-stable list of core doctrines. At the very top of this list is the unshakeable belief that wearing a face mask is morally and hygienically laudable, even necessary if you wish to be a healthy and responsible human being. That sounds crazy, but it’s what these people believe, and the adherents of containment ideology will never stop masking and demanding mask mandates and making their children mask. It is for them a deep ideological commitment.

The distribution of containment ideology provides some clues as to what’s going on here. Highly politicised university campuses, particularly in the United States, are where the most extreme devotees are to be found. And the US in general has some of the most vocal containment ideologues in the world—people like Eric Feigl-Ding and Yaneer Bar-Yam. Somehow, places which have been subject to stricter and much more uniform restrictions, like Germany, have far fewer containment ideologues running around. It’s hard to imagine that any European country, even those which imposed some of the most strictly enforced mask mandates during the pandemic, would ever enact permanent rules like those envisioned by UC Berkeley administrators.

Another thing to notice, is that most of the key containment doctrines are patently worthless and have been demonstrated, again and again, to have little or no effect on the virus. Nothing else in the pandemicist arsenal has been as thoroughly discredited as masking. I very much doubt it’s an accident, that precisely this measure, among all the other garbage we’ve tried, should have acquired such a central place in the canon.

I once suggested thinking about ideologies as systems of belief that have come to prominence, not because they are right or beneficial or predictive, but because they grant their adherents specific institutional advantages. There are many ideas and proposals about what we should do or how we should think about cultural, political, or social matters. Those ideas that benefit enough people (or the right people) in enough places (or the right places) are fused into broader, coherent ideological systems that adherents can wield for specific advantage.

That’s a selective influence—a mechanism which chooses what kinds of ideas can make it into prominent ideological systems in the first place. But there is a separate body of influencing factors that shape the content of the ideology itself, even as it is being adopted. A major force that has profoundly influenced containment ideology, is what I’d call polemicisation. By this, I mean that at an early formative stage, adherents of containment ideology engaged in open advocacy and polemic on behalf of their desired measures. They were met with counter-arguments and scepticism, and they changed their own rationalisations and ultimately their own beliefs to be less refutable and more robust to the invective of opponents. One of the main things they did to achieve this, was insist on ever lower standards of acceptable risk when it comes to viral pathogens. Another thing they did, was insist on the enormous efficacy of their proposed interventions. So, because of the Oma and the immunocompromised and Long Covid, masking is never too much to ask, and masking is super effective at preventing all kinds of bad outcomes. This indeed granted the containment ideologues some measure of rhetorical victory in the moment, but it also reframed the purpose of masking so totally, that it became hard to understand why you shouldn’t mask literally all the time, every flu season, even in a hypothetical world where SARS-2 has been eradicated. Polemicisation has profoundly influenced many other aspects of containment ideology as well, and nothing so much as the entire complex of beliefs surrounding vaccination.

So, containment ideology is most at home in those environments which have most profoundly shaped it—places like the United States, where mask mandates were never so thoroughly enforced and could become a sign of political allegiance, and a badge of the Science Followers. And the most polemicising influence has been worked precisely upon the least defensible positions, where the early ideologues fought their most fearsome rhetorical battles.

Leftist ideology also bears many signs of polmecisitation, and I think this is one of the reasons why the containment ideologues have such a leftist or leftist-adjacent feel to them. These are ideological systems formed by people who see themselves as advocates and reformers and outsiders to power, even as they preside over student life committees, where they impose unwanted pharmaceutical products on thousands of healthy twenty year-olds.

September 1, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

WEF AI to Decide what Industries to Liquidate to “Stop Economic Growth”

Enjoy Your Universal Income and Shut Up

By Igor Chudov | September 1, 2022

A brand new video from the World Economic Forum’s agenda article! The agenda is to stop growth and decide what industries to shut down.

Some very juicy quotes from the video (with timestamps)

4.23: Some economists think the solution is to reengineer our economies completely. They make the case that what we should really be doing is weaning ourselves from the addiction to growth and shifting to a post-growth economy (later defined as liquidation of various industries — I.C)

Instead of growing, WEF wants us to focus on what we “really need” (according to WEF)

4:46 things like renewable energy, healthcare, and public transportation. To do that, economists think that rich countries should do something like guarantee living wages.

They are talking about unearned “universal basic income” because the next cut shows a sad-looking lonely person spending a day not working. It promises that people will not be needing jobs to “earn their living or get healthcare”:

What is the goal? To scale down production of things deemed less necessary! (sic)

WEF asks if we could “do away with entire industries”, showing an anxious, sweaty man worried about his industry being shut down:

How would we decide what is unnecessary, asks the voice prompter. How would we resolve our disagreements? How to make these decisions?

The answer is, says WEF, is that we need to enlist help from AI systems, in order to answer the questions such as which industries to do away with.

WEF loves AI!

WEF’s “Global Intelligence Collecting AI” to Erase Ideas from the Internet

The WEF deciding what industries to do away with, using WEF-sponsored AI, may sound insane and stupid like a half-baked, paranoid conspiracy theory of a delusional hillbilly.

But I did not come up with any of it! I just retold the WEF article and the WEF video. I am not sure if they are serious or are just trolling us, but in the past, they were dead serious about their agenda.

September 1, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

German Foreign Minister Says Support For Ukraine Will Continue “No Matter What Voters Think”

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | September 1, 2022

Despite soaring energy prices that threaten the stability of the country, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said she would continue to support Ukraine “no matter what German voters think.”

Baerbock made the remarkable comments during an event in Prague yesterday organized by the NGO Forum 2000.

“If I give the promise to people in Ukraine – ‘We stand with you, as long as you need us’ – then I want to deliver. No matter what my German voters think, but I want to deliver to the people of Ukraine,” she said.

The German official said that such an approach would not change even if large numbers of people were out in the streets protesting against crippling energy bills.

“We are facing now wintertime, when we will be challenged as democratic politicians. People will go in the street and say ‘We cannot pay our energy prices’. And I will say ‘Yes I know, so we help you with social measures.’ But I don’t want to say ‘Ok then we stop the sanctions against Russia.’ We will stand with Ukraine, and this means the sanctions will stay also in wintertime, even if it gets really tough for politicians,” said Baerbock.

The comment is a fairly stunning admission that world leaders are intent on prolonging the war for as long as possible, no matter how much it harms the countries they are supposed to represent.

Germans face one of the worst cost of living crises in Europe, with governments arranging ‘warm up spaces’ in major cities where people who can’t pay their bills will go to avoid freezing to death, with blackouts expected.

Citizens have already exhausted supplies of electric heaters, firewood and stoves in many areas as they prepare for energy rationing this winter, while inflation in Germany just hit its highest level in almost 50 years.

Those planning to protest against the situation have also been demonized as domestic extremists by the authorities.

As we reported last month, the interior minister of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Herbert Reul (CDU), outrageously suggested Germans who may be planning to protest against energy blackouts were “enemies of the state” who want to overthrow the government.

September 1, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Ivermectin: The Truth

Plandemic – August 30, 2022

The first installment of PLANDEMIC, a 26 minute documentary featuring celebrated virologist Judy Mikovits, has been seen by over one billion people worldwide, setting a historic record. The premiere of PLANDEMIC 2 (aka INDOCTORNATION) featuring white collar crime investigator, Dr. David Martin, also set a world record with 2 million viewers attending the global livestream.

The two part series was declared “debunked” by critics all over the world. In the name of science and public safety, the gatekeepers of free speech took unprecedented measures to censor the information they called “dangerous conspiracy theory.”

When Dr. Mikovits made the bold claim that COVID-19 was manipulated in a lab, she was smeared as “crazy.” When Dr. Martin exposed the patents and paper trail proving that Dr. Fauci was funding dangerous gain of function research at the Wuhan Lab, critics laughed.

Today, the critics are no longer laughing. Through accredited scientific studies, every major claim made within the PLANDEMIC series has been validated as accurate. PLANDEMIC is now being acknowledged for being among the first to warn the world of the agenda to reduce the liberties of citizens through medical tyranny.

Though we had no intention of receiving awards for this series, we are honored to have won the European Independent Film Award for Best Documentary, as it displays an encouraging shift in public awareness and courage.

Bitchute

September 1, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Public Health Agency of Canada is hiring security guards for ‘quarantine facilities’

The Counter Signal | August 31, 2022

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has listed openings for security guards for its “quarantine facilities” in Toronto, York and Halton, Ontario.

The posting requires “risk management and security services for Designated Quarantine Facilities in Ontario.”

The job posting was published last week and will close on September 9 at 2 p.m. EST.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government of Canada created “Designated Quarantine Facilities” for Canadians unable to quarantine at home after international travel due to proximity with family members. The public became aware of these facilities following reports of Canadians taken from the airport in unmarked vehicles and forcibly placed in a government facility.

In most cases, the facility was a modified hotel. Travellers were typically required to stay in the room for three nights or until they received a negative COVID test.

Quarantine facilities were manned by hotel staff and security guards.

According to the Government of Canada website, “Travellers arriving in Canada who do not have a suitable place to quarantine or isolate may be referred to a designated quarantine facility, upon the direction of a quarantine officer.”

During a stay, travellers are “required to remain in your room until you receive permission and a specific time to leave from a Quarantine Officer at the facility.”

Horror stories frequently emerged from those who stayed at the facilities. Those in forced quarantine were given little to eat and were not allowed to order food. Complaints arose that facilities didn’t comply with specific dietary concerns.

In Quebec, one woman was sexually assaulted during her stay at a facility.

Later in the pandemic, the government required anyone entering Canada by air travel to quarantine at a Designated Quarantine Facilities, costing travellers around $300 per night. Canadians who crossed the border by land were largely exempt from this policy.

The job posting comes as most Canadians have received two doses of a Health Canada-approved COVID-19 vaccine. Federal and provincial governments have dangled COVID-19 vaccination status as a means to return to normal.

Yet, even Canadians with two doses of the vaccine were not exempt from the government’s stringent travel measures during the pandemic, including a stay at a government hotel.

In August, Ottawa announced funding for a “safe voluntary isolation site” in the Windsor-Essex region in Ontario. The government said the isolation site will be used to accommodate foreign agri-workers who can’t find a place to isolate when they enter Canada.

August 31, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

German Green Party Minister Calls For Tax on Meat

By Paul Joseph Watson |  Summit News | August 29, 2022

Even as the people of Germany struggle with a serious cost of living crisis, they are being told by a Green Party minister that there should be a new tax on meat.

Yes, really.

With Germans already facing soaring food inflation and energy bills as a result of gas shortages caused by the war in Ukraine, the last thing they need is another tax to pay.

But that doesn’t seemingly concern Federal Minister of Food and Agriculture Cem Özdemir (Greens), who complained that people were eating the wrong food.

“We should eat less meat overall and make sure it comes from animals that are kept in a species-appropriate manner,” said Özdemir, adding that the country should be “adapting meat consumption to planetary boundaries and for the sake of our health.”

“It is healthier, good for the climate, and helps the global food situation because areas get freed up that we previously needed for cultivating animal feed,” the minister asserted.

Özdemir said that too much cheap meat was being produced, vowing to address this apparent problem with a new tax on meat products.

The agenda to levy a new tax on meat in the name of alleviating climate change has long been a desire of globalist technocrats.

Back in March, Bloomberg News received a massive backlash for offering ‘tips’ to Americans who might struggle with the rising cost of living which included letting their pets die and eating lentils instead of meat.

As we reported earlier this year, a group of environmental economists in Germany demanded that huge taxes be imposed on meat products to fight climate change, with calls for beef to be 56 per cent more expensive.

As we previously highlighted, the World Economic Forum published two articles on its website which explored how people could be conditioned to get used to the idea of eating weeds, bugs and drinking sewage water in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

Despite insisting that everyone else reduce their living standards and ration their meat eating to save the planet, during last year’s Cop 26 summit, attendees enjoyed a menu full of animal-based dishes that were at least double the carbon footprint of the average UK meal.

Another Green Party official recently caused controversy by suggesting Germans use washcloths instead of taking showers, as well as buying expensive eco-heating systems that are unaffordable for the average person.

August 29, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

The only school district in the US to require public school covid vaccinations just caved

Muriel Bowser’s Washington DC stunt has imploded

By Meryl Nass, MD | August 27, 2022

The criminal imposition of mandates to force children to get COVID vaccinations was floated in many school districts, especially those on the woke west coast. The reason I say it is criminal is because neither the manufacturers nor the USG are willing to risk being held liable for injuries. So they have made none of the “licensed” vaccine available, and so while the vaccines are technically licensed for kids 12 and up, it is not possible to procure the licensed product. So instead kids (and adults) are being injected with the EUA product, which is shielded from virtually all liability. One hopes fraud will pierce the liability shield, but so far there has not been a single case in which this has happened.

Schools on the west coast that imposed these mandates either withdrew them in the face of legal challenge (LAUSD challenged by the Health Freedom Defense Fund) or announced a year’s postponement last spring.

But that did not stop tough girl Muriel Bowser, DC’s mayor, from threatening to kick kids out of school as recently as yesterday if they weren’t vaccinated. (See below). She also brought us vaccines for 11 year olds without parental permission. Where is this sister getting her advice?

Children’s Health Defense sued Muriel over her minor consent to vaccination scheme, and she lost on March 18, 2022. She didn’t learn her lesson then. So she had to get another lesson.

The local media started going after her, with the headline below.

40 Percent of D.C.’s Black Teens Will Soon Be Barred From School Because They Aren’t Vaccinated

Maybe she was scared of the lawsuits. Maybe someone told her the police had won a lawsuit against D.C.’s COVID vaccine mandate a couple of days earlier. Maybe she just found out the vaccine program was experimental. Maybe expelling 40% of teens from school did not seem like a winning slogan for her next campaign?

Whatever it was, yesterday she flipped. The vaccine mandate to attend public school was postponed till January. Maybe by then she will have been recalled. We can only hope.

Who owns your children’s bodies? This twisted sister or you?

Then, a few hours later, this happened:

DC public schools push back student immunization deadlines

D.C. public schools are pushing back enforcement deadlines for students who fail to receive their required vaccinations, including against COVID-19.

According to the new attendance guidelines issued Friday, students age 12 or older will have until Jan. 3, 2023, to have received all the needed doses of a COVID vaccine before facing exclusion from school.

August 28, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Natural gas pipelines reach Zabol in Iran’s far east

Press TV – August 28, 2022

Natural gas pipelines have reached Iran’s far eastern city of Zabol near the border with Afghanistan as Iran’s Oil Ministry pushes ahead with an ambitious plan to make natural gas available to almost the entire population in the country.

Oil Ministry authorities and local officials attended a ceremony in Zabol on Sunday to celebrate the city’s connection to the Lane 7 of Iran’s nationwide gas pipeline network.

Reports in the local media said that the government had spent 2.5 trillion rials ($85 million) to finish the 219-kilometer gas pipeline connecting the provincial capital of Zahedan to Zabol, a large population center located 20 kilometers from the Iran-Afghanistan border.

Authorities said the arrival of gas to Zabol will enable all villages and towns in the relatively impoverished region to access natural gas through pipelines.

The inauguration came as the Oil Ministry launched several major gas projects, including the connection to the gas pipelines of 16 towns, some 1,091 villages and 1,959 manufacturing units.

Oil Minister Javad Owji said the gas projects opened on Sunday had cost the government some 10 trillion rials ($335 million).

Iran has one of the largest natural gas supply networks in the world. Official figures show that natural gas is currently available to more than 87% of the population in the country through a pipeline network that is more than 37,000 kilometers in length.

The Iranian government has an ambitious plan to further expand the pipeline network to supply natural gas to almost the entire population, including all villages with more than 20 households.

August 28, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Norwegian Schools Are Disseminating Government-Approved Covid Misinformation

BY KATHRINE JEBSEN MOORE | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 26, 2022

Who needs conspiracy theorists when you’ve got school books teaching children that Covid vaccines are “95% effective”?

This autumn, a new school book was introduced for the ninth grade in Norway. Fabel 10 was revised in 2021/22, but has only now been introduced in schools across Norway. Not only does the book overstate the effectiveness of the novel mRNA vaccines, it decries anyone questioning that as conspiracy theorists.

One excerpt reads:

Since the Covid pandemic broke loose, Covid deniers and vaccine sceptics have spread disinformation about coronavirus through social media. They claimed among other things that COVID-19 was no more deadly than the flu, that the vaccine was dangerous, and that restrictions were unnecessary. On Saturday March 20th 2021, 200 Covid deniers gathered in front of the Parliament. They burnt face masks to show that they thought they were unnecessary.

This short paragraph is easily debunked. Readers of the Daily Sceptic know that Covid now has an infection fatality rate about the same as influenza. We also know that side effects from the Covid vaccines – both the mRNA and the viral vector vaccines such as AstraZeneca’s – are more common than for other tried and tested vaccines. Remember when the Pandemrix vaccine rollout was halted because of a link to rare instances of narcolepsy? Multiple studies show Pfizer and Moderna’s Covid vaccines increase the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in especially younger males – the demographic who make up precisely half the readership of Fabel 10. The German Government even admits that as many as one in 300 doses of the mRNA jabs produce serious injury. Compared to the danger that Covid poses to most people, does that make vaccines worth having?

And as for restrictions, a new consensus is gaining momentum. Whereas back in 2021, when the book was written, it was mainly agreed that lockdowns and other Covid restrictions were necessary to halt the spread, and countries with low Covid fatalities would credit these non-pharmaceutical interventions for their comparatively low excess mortality, studies later proved them incorrect. Lockdowns and excess mortality were not correlated. Whereas back in the early days of the pandemic, only a few, brave voices spoke up about their concerns, now even Rishi Sunak, who helped implement Britain’s lockdowns, admit they were detrimental to overall health and the economy and did little to stop infection. Yet in Norway, pupils are stuck in the reality curated more than a year ago, a reality that has now been revealed to most as bonkers.

And those 200 “Covid deniers” who burnt face masks deserve praise for being a tiny minority speaking up for science at a time where “the science” became an allegory for anything the authorities wanted us to do without having to prove why.

The book also states that vaccines are “95% effective against COVID-19 infections”. This is clearly nonsense, and doesn’t need further debunking. We all know of multiple-jabbed people getting infected several times over, and that infection rates in highly vaccinated countries went through the roof after the vaccine rollout.

Perhaps the book will serve as a test to pupils old enough to gather information from multiple sources. Some might agree with what they’re presented with, while others will see through this Government-approved misinformation. But that’s not really the sort of education you want in a free, democratic country. The book doesn’t invite 14-15 year-olds to question or discuss – it presents them with all the (wrong) answers. That’s bad enough in itself, but what’s worse is it tells them to ridicule those who don’t agree. The chapter on Covid and conspiracy theories could have been a great opportunity to teach children about academic freedom, online censorship, tolerance, debate, dissent and freedom of speech. Instead, it serves straight-up, Orwellian newspeak to young minds in a way the CCP would be proud of.

August 27, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

COVID-19 Vaccines and Informed Consent

The fundamental right to make decisions about bodily health and medical treatments

By Robert W Malone MD, MS | August 25, 2022

By way of introduction, this substack is written by Mr. Allison (JD). Mr Allison read my lawsuit against the Washington Post and was deeply offended by how the Washington Post has defamed me. So much so, that he wrote to my attorney with his research/analysis regarding the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and informed consent. The review of the literature is so outstanding, that I asked if I could share it here.

This analysis is long – 53 pages long. It is Mr. Allison’s analysis – not mine, the analysis and opinions in this article are his alone.

I have only published the top level analysis (6 pages) here. The rest of the document, which is extensively referenced can be found by clicking the link below:

COVID-19 Vaccines and Informed Consent

By John Allison, J.D. Updated July 18, 2022

Introduction.

Most Americans have long assumed that they have a fundamental right to make decisions about their own bodily health and the medical treatments they receive. Informed consent is the ethical and legal principle by which that fundamental right is enforceable. To be able to give informed consent a person needs to be informed about the risks and benefits of, and alternatives to the proposed treatment.

The fundamental right to informed consent is particularly important with respect to the COVID-19 vaccines which are available in the United States pursuant to Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). Under the federal EUA statute, people are entitled to be informed about their right to accept or refuse administration of these vaccines, the consequences (if any) of refusing vaccination, and the benefits and risks of alternatives to the vaccines. The manufacturers of EUA vaccines, and the people and organizations administering them, are immune from liability suits. People who suffer severe adverse effects after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine will not be able to recover compensation, for their monetary and emotional distress damages, from the vaccine manufacturers or from the people who vaccinated them. Similarly, the family members of people who die after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine will not be able to recover compensation for their loss.

Qualifications and Experience.

I am a retired lawyer, licensed to practice in Washington State and the District of Columbia, with extensive private law firm and in-house experience. Most of my law practice was devoted to the litigation of cases involving medical, toxicological, industrial hygiene and product safety issues. In my in-house role I was Assistant General Counsel in the legal department of a Fortune 100 company with overall responsibility for product liability, environmental and commercial litigation. I was also the lawyer for the company’s Medical Department, including Corporate Toxicology, Epidemiology and Product Responsibility.

This memorandum presents the results of research I performed and my opinions based on that research. This memorandum is not intended to give legal advice. People who want legal advice on the issues raised in this memorandum should consult with a lawyer licensed to practice in their jurisdiction.

Opinions.

Based on the results of my research to date, I have arrived at the following opinions with respect to the COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized or approved for use in the United States:

1. Government misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID- 19 vaccines, censorship of credible scientific and medical information about the risks of death and serious adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines, and vaccination coercion, are depriving people of their ability to give informed consent to vaccination. Unless the limited effectiveness of the vaccines and the risks of death and serious adverse effects described in this memorandum are disclosed to people before they are vaccinated, informed consent has not been obtained.

2. Safe and effective drugs on the market for many years, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, have been proven by reputable doctors to be successful in the early treatment of COVID-19. If those affordable drugs had been allowed to be more widely used in the United States before people needed to be hospitalized, many tens of thousands of people who died from COVID-19 would probably be alive today.

3. The COVID-19 vaccines authorized or approved for use in United States do not meet established criteria for establishing their short-term and long-term safety and efficacy. Serious safety signals – red flags – about these vaccines have been ignored, and continue to be ignored, by the FDA and the CDC. The EUAs for the Pfizer-BioNTech, the Moderna and the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccines, and the FDA’s approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine and Moderna’s Spikevax vaccine, should be revoked. All of these vaccines should be taken off the market immediately.

  • SARS-CoV-2 is the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Distinctive spike proteins on the surface of the virus enable the virus to penetrate cells and cause infection. The spike proteins mutate, producing the Delta variant which became the dominant form of the virus by the middle of 2021. Continuing mutations of the spike protein produced the Omicron variant which became the dominant form of the virus by the end of 2021. We are now dealing with sub- variants of Omicron.
  • The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States was reported in mid-January, 2020. The pandemic spread. COVID-19 vaccines were not available until the middle of December 2020 when the FDA granted emergency use authorization for the Pfizer- BioNTech and the Moderna vaccines. In February 2021 the FDA granted emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine. Early in 2021 these vaccines became widely available in the United States and mass vaccination programs began. By the middle of 2021 millions of Americans, including workers in many different occupations, were fully vaccinated.
  • The COVID-19 vaccines do not produce immunity to COVID-19 because they are not designed to trigger an immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Instead, the vaccines are designed to trigger an immune response to the spike proteins on the surface of the original virus.
  • A number of studies demonstrate that the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of COVID-19. Fully vaccinated people can become infected and can also spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus to other vaccinated people and to unvaccinated people.
  • According to data on the CDC website, in the United States there were 385,670 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020, before the vaccines were widely available. In 2021, when vaccines were widely available and mass vaccination campaigns took place, there were 463,210 deaths attributed to COVID-19 – an increase of 20.1%.
  • When the Delta and later the Omicron variants became the dominant form of the virus, government studies in different countries show that most COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths occur among fully vaccinated people.
  • Now that the Omicron variant is the dominant form of SARS-CoV-2, the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) diminishes significantly over just a few months. According to a Danish study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, vaccinated people, more than 90 days after vaccination, are more likely than unvaccinated people to be infected by Omicron.
  • The COVID-19 vaccines contain genetic instructions that cause the body to produce enormous numbers of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins in order to provoke an immune response to the spike proteins. Unfortunately, it turns out that the spike proteins, themselves, are toxic to cells. For example, endothelial cells line the inside of arteries to make blood flow smoothly. Damage to the endothelial cells caused by spike proteins increases the potential for microscopic blood clots to form. Those microscopic blood clots can travel to the lungs, increasing the risk of developing arterial hypertension which is a serious progressive condition that overtaxes and weakens the heart. There is no known cure for that condition.
  • In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna the genetic instructions that cause the body to produce spike proteins are encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles. A preclinical study on laboratory animals conducted by Pfizer shows that the lipid nanoparticles and mRNA genetic instructions enter the bloodstream and accumulate in several organs, including the spleen, bone marrow, liver and adrenal glands, and concentrate in the ovaries. The body then starts producing spike proteins wherever the mRNA genetic instructions happen to land.
  • A number of serious medical conditions have been associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, including blood clotting disorders, cardiac emergencies, myocarditis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, autoimmune disease, spontaneous miscarriages, nervous system disorders and female infertility.
  • The COVID-19 vaccines also interfere with the natural immune system, making a person more susceptible to viral infections and cancer. This may explain why most COVID-19 symptomatic infections, hospitalizations and deaths are now occurring among fully vaccinated people.
  • A recent laboratory study in Sweden indicates that the Pfizer- BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter a human liver cell line where it is reverse transcribed into DNA within a matter of hours. As a result, the possibility that the COVID-19 vaccines affect DNA cannot be ruled out.
  • The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines also contain problematic ingredients. Both the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG) as an active ingredient. An Expert Panel assessing the safety of PEG recommended against using PEG in ointments applied to damaged skin because some burn patients treated with a PEG-based antimicrobial cream experienced renal tubular necrosis and died of kidney failure. The PEG used in the Moderna vaccine matches the description of a PEG product manufactured by Sinopeg, a company in China. According to the Sinopeg website, that product is for “research use only.” The Moderna vaccine also contains a lipid known by the trade name SM-102. The Pfizer vaccine also contains a lipid known by the trade name ALC-0315. According to the safety information on the website of Cayman Chemical Company, which manufactures SM- 102 and ALC-0315, both of those products are “for research use – Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.” Yet, in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG, SM-102 and ALC-0315 are being directly injected into people’s bodies.
  • Because no long-term clinical studies were performed, there is no way of knowing whether or not vaccinated people will suffer severe adverse side effects in the future. This is a significant concern, since the vaccines increase the potential for developing cardiovascular disease and autoimmune disease, which can both take months or years to develop.
  • In 1990 the government established the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) which is co-managed by the CDC and the FDA. It is intended to be a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems with vaccines in the United States. The number of serious adverse events and deaths that have been reported in VAERS for the COVID-19 vaccines is many times greater than the serious adverse events and deaths reported in VAERS for all other vaccines combined. As of July 1, 2022 more than 29,200 deaths, and more than 212,600 serious injuries, following administration of one of the COVID-19 vaccines have been reported in VAERS. Yet the CDC and the FDA continue to ignore these serious safety signals.
  • In contrast, in 1976 the federal government conducted a mass vaccination campaign against the swine flu. After roughly 25% of the population in the United States had been vaccinated, the government terminated the vaccination program due to reports of 25 deaths and 550 cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome following vaccination.
  • According to a mortality analysis by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, 98.9% of all the people in the United States with a confirmed case of COVID-19 survived the disease. Most COVID-19 deaths occurred in elderly people who were in poor health with multiple comorbidities.
  • The Society of Actuaries collected and analyzed claims data from twenty life insurance companies that provide group term coverage in the United States, representing roughly 90% of the employer-based group term life insurance industry. All-cause mortality data for the pandemic period (April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021) was compared to all cause mortality data for the baseline period (2017 through 2019). The analysis reveals a dramatic spike in deaths from all causes during the third quarter of 2021 (July 1 through September 30). During that quarter, excess mortality for all policyholders was more than 30% above baseline. The spike in deaths was even more dramatic for working-age people. Excess mortality for people ages 25 to 34 was 81% above baseline, excess mortality for people ages 35 to 44 was 117% above baseline, excess mortality for people ages 45 to 54 was 108% above baseline, and excess mortality for people ages 55 to 64 was 70% above baseline. The dramatic increase in deaths from all causes during the third quarter of 2021, particularly among working age people, undermines the claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective… 

    Continued in the PDF link below

 

COVID-19 Vaccines and Informed Consent

 

I encourage everyone to to read more of this analysis by Mr. Allison. It will be well worth your time.

August 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

DC Mayor: No vaccine passport, no education – even for virtual learners

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | August 26, 2022

The District of Columbia mayor Muriel Bowser said kids who do not have a vaccine passport within the first 20 days when schools resume next week Monday will not be allowed to get educated, even for those doing virtual learning from home.

A press release on the District of Columbia Public School’s website states: “The Coronavirus Immunization of School Students and Early Childhood Workers Amendment Act of 2021, which the Council passed in 2021, requires students ages 12 and older to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to attend school.”

The vaccine mandate applies to staff and also private schools.

Asked by The Daily Signal what the plan was for unvaccinated students, Bowser said: “They can go to school on Monday. But they need to get their vaccinations… and their families will be alerted as to the dates.”

The Office of The State Superintendent of Education for the District of Columbia recently announced that “all students must have up-to-date immunization certification on file with the school within the first 20 school days or they will not be allowed to attend school or school activities until the immunization certification is secured by the school.”

“If the student does not come into compliance within a 20-school day period, the school must remove the student from school until the immunization certification is secured by the school,” the office added.

The vaccine mandate will likely affect the education of black students as 47% of black children aged 12-15 in DC have not received the primary vaccination needed to attend school, according to government data. And 42% of black kids aged 16 and 17 are not vaccinated.

August 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »