Complicit in Genocide: In Case You Missed It NY Gov Kathy Hochul Told a Black Church, 'God made the Vaccine and Wants Us Vaccinated.' The Unelected Ruler Ruled that No Religious Objection is Valid
/
From [CHD] New York City paused its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for New York Police Department (NYPD) employees so the department can retain roughly 5,000 police and other employees who have not received the vaccine.
The May 19 announcement came one day after Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon issued an orderallowing depositions to be taken in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of NYPD and municipal employees alleging the city violated their religious and constitutional rights through widespread discrimination.
According to city officials, 91% of the NYPD uniformed cops and other employees are vaccinated, leaving approximately 4,659 NYPD unvaccinated employees despite a deadline to get the jabs by Oct. 29, 2021.
“In a nutshell, no decisions will be made, no further members will be forced to leave until further notice,” an NYPD sergeant told the New York Post. “There hasn’t been any memo, just basically keep everything status quo and if issues arise we will revisit it down the road.”
Last month, an unknown number of officers received final notices rejecting their requests for religious or medical exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for municipal employees.
As of November 2021, NYPD employees had filed 6,170 requests for religious or medical exemptions.
“The city’s legal argument for upholding religious discrimination is falling apart in real time as the litigation progresses,” lead attorney Sujata Gibson told The Defender. [MORE]
According to the class action suit,
"Both mandates were to take effect on September 27, 2021. The day before the state mandate was supposed to take effect, Governor Hochul gave a sermon at a Brooklyn church [a black church], during which she said that God made the vaccine and that she was recruiting apostles to coerce those who did not understand God’s will and what God wants (that we be vaccinated). Governor Hochul then told the press that the Pope supports vaccination and that no religious objections to vaccination are valid, and this is why she removed the religious exemption from the state healthcare mandate. [MORE] and [MORE]
Hochul stated, "All of you, yes, I know you're vaccinated, you're the smart ones. But you know there's people out there who aren't listening to God. ... I need you to be my apostles. I need you to go out and talk about it and say, we owe this to each other. We love each other."
Clearly, the governor said, getting vaccinated was the best way to obey God in this crisis.
Analysis of US Counties Demonstrates that COVID Injections Absolutely Do Not Reduce Hospitalizations
/From [JOEL SMALLEY] Do the COVID-19 injectables (aka "vaccines") reduce COVID-19 hospitalisations?
Analysis of US counties 24-Feb to 19-May 2022 shows a statistically significant POSITIVE correlation between vaccination and hospitalisation.
Method
Regression of COVID-19 hospitalisation rates between 24-Feb and 19-May 2022 and rates of full and booster vaccination rates on 19-May-22 for the 3,095 US counties that reported the data.
Results
There is a positive relationship between hospitalisation rates and the rate of full vaccination. In other words, the higher the rate of full vaccination, the higher the rate of COVID hospitalisations, assuming ceteris paribus.
There is a positive relationship between hospitalisation rates and the rate of booster vaccination. In other words, the higher the rate of booster vaccination, the higher the rate of COVID hospitalisations, assuming ceteris paribus.
Both variables are statistically significant but the model has very low explanatory power. In other words, there are lots more factors in play but the small impact of COVID vaccination is statistically significant, i.e. not random or due to chance.
Interestingly, the South (Bible Belt) had the least fully vaccinated counties. They are also Republican.
[MORE]
[In Clown World We are the Joke] Plandemic II Launched to Keep Plandemic Funds Flowing to Big Pharma: "MonkeyPox" ('Monkey See Monkey Do') after "Omicron" (For Monkey Minded Morons to Believe)
/
From [HERE] After weeks of indicating that perhaps the Bird Flu hoax was going to be recycled again as a new “pandemic” to instill fear and continue the state of “emergency” the entire country has been under since 2020 that has resulted in $trillions given over to Big Pharma for their products, mainly the COVID-19 “vaccines,” it appears now that plans are in place to actually use the “monkeypox” as the new “pandemic” to further the goals of the Globalists to create new vaccines and control the population.
The World Health Organization just announced that they are “convening an emergency meeting on the alarming spread of monkeypox around the world.” (Source.)
Just how bad is this new “outbreak” which now threatens the world in a similar way to how COVID threatened to wipe out humanity?
Cases of monkeypox in the UK doubled this week – to an “alarming” 20 cases. And it is now spreading to the U.S. at an alarming rate, as one person has reportedly now tested positive for it (determined by the PCR test apparently) in New York City. (Source.)
It appears that worldwide this “alarming spread” of monkeypox is well below 100 cases at this point, which means it would probably not even break into the top 1000 list of current infectious diseases spreading around the globe.
So why the media hype and sudden attention by government health organizations like the WHO and the CDC?
The first clue that this is a new “plandemic” is to see how Big Pharma is setup to profit from it, because disease management is first and foremost a marketing opportunity, and to create to the proper fear factor, one has to advertise a “new” and “deadly” disease to start the funds flowing through emergency use authorizations.
And sure enough, that first criterion for identifying a “plandemic” has been met this week, as Whitney Webb reported:
Two corrupt companies were in rocky financial territory just a few weeks ago. Now, with concerns over a global monkeypox outbreak being hyped by media and global health organizations alike, the worries – and sins – of these two firms are quickly being forgotten.
In recent days, concern over a global outbreak of monkeypox, a mild disease related to smallpox and chickenpox, has been hyped in the media and health ministries around the world, even prompting an emergency meeting at the World Health Organization (WHO). For some, fears have centered around monkeypox being the potential “next pandemic” after Covid-19. For others, the fear is that monkeypox will be used as the latest excuse to further advance draconian biosecurity policies and global power grabs.
Regardless of how the monkeypox situation plays out, two companies are already cashing in. As concern over monkeypox has risen, so too have the shares of Emergent Biosolutions and SIGA Technologies. Both companies essentially have monopolies in the US market, and other markets as well, on smallpox vaccines and treatments. Their main smallpox-focused products are, conveniently, also used to protect against or treat monkeypox as well. As a result, the shares of Emergent Biosolutions climbed 12% on Thursday, while those of SIGA soared 17.1%.
For these companies, the monkeypox fears are a godsend, specifically for SIGA, which produces a smallpox treatment, known by its brand name TPOXX. It is SIGA’s only product. While some outlets have noted that the rise in the valuation of SIGA Technologies has coincided with recent concerns about monkeypox, essentially no attention has been given to the fact that the company is apparently the only piece of a powerful billionaire’s empire that isn’t currently crumbling.
That billionaire, “corporate raider” Ron Perelman, has deep and controversial ties to the Clinton family and the Democratic party as well as troubling ties to Jeffery Epstein. Aside from his controlling stake in SIGA, Perelman has recently made headlines for rapidly liquidating many of his assets in a desperate bid for cash. (Full article.)
The second sign to look for, is if this “new outbreak” has already been predicted beforehand, and even simulated in an effort to predict how to “contain the outbreak,” much as COVID-19 was weeks before the first alleged cases even showed up, with the pandemic simulation called Event 201.
Data Analyst says at least 10,000 Reports of Death or Serious Injury Following COVID Injections were Inexplicably Removed by CDC since the Rollout of the shots, and they were not duplicate reports
/STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was created as an early warning system to identify vaccines that may be triggering a higher than expected number of adverse events
Publicly available VAERS data clearly reveal that the COVID shots are the most dangerous “vaccine” ever created, accounting for more injuries and deaths than all previous conventional vaccines combined over the last three decades
Data analyst Albert Benavides has been analyzing VAERS data since the release of these novel shots. According to Benavides, at least 10,000 reports of death or serious injury following COVID “vaccination” have vanished since the rollout of the shots — and they were not duplicate reports, which is a common “explanation” for their removal
About 2% of all COVID jab-related reports are deaths, and about 5% of death-related reports are being deleted
Only the initial VAERS reports are available to the public. Updated reports are only viewable internally. That means we have no way of knowing how many of those who were injured have since died from those injuries. This is a loophole that can make a vaccine appear less deadly than it actually is
From [MERCOLA] The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was created as an early warning system to identify vaccines that may be triggering a higher than expected number of adverse events. One of its primary objectives is to:1
“Provide a national safety monitoring system that extends to the entire general population for response to public health emergencies, such as a large-scale pandemic influenza vaccination program.”
It’s far from perfect, but it’s still incredibly useful and does serve its purpose. Publicly available VAERS data clearly reveal that the COVID shots are the most dangerous “vaccine” ever created, accounting for more injuries and deaths than all previous conventional vaccines combined over the last three decades.
But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which jointly run VAERS, continue to insist the shots are “safe and effective,” and that not a single death has been directly attributed to the shot.
Such claims are outlandish in light of the available data, and perhaps they’re starting to realize the pickle they’re in as well, because in recent months, investigators have discovered that VAERS reports are being deleted in ever growing numbers. As noted by Stew Peters of the Stew Peters Show (above):
“VAERS is supposed to simply collect reports filled out by doctors and other medical professionals from around the country — reports of people suffering injuries and illnesses and even death after taking vaccines.
Nobody is supposed to be editing or curating or fact-checking it. It’s supposed just be the reports of doctors for the entire world to see. But now we have evidence that that’s, in fact, not what’s happening at all.”
Who’s Deleting VAERS Reports?
Peters interviews Albert Benavides, an RCM expert, data analyst and auditor, who’s been analyzing VAERS data since the release of these novel shots.2 3 According to Benavides, at least 10,000 reports of death or serious injury following COVID “vaccination” have vanished since the rollout of the shots — and they were not duplicate reports, which is a common “explanation” for their removal.
Benavides cites the case of a young child in Alaska who reportedly died after the jab. That death report is now gone, and there’s no other remaining report that matches it.
VAERS ID 18150964 is another example. This is the case of a 13-year-old girl in Maryland, who died 16 days after her first jab. This report was entered October 25, 2021, and deleted April 15, 2022. VAERS claims it was deleted because it was a duplicate, but there are no 13-year-old girls in Maryland who died, anywhere else in VAERS.
According to Benavides, over the past 30 years, some 4,000 non-COVID reports have been deleted, and of those only a couple of hundred were deaths. For the COVID jab, VAERS is deleting a far higher proportion of severe injuries and deaths. About 2% of all COVID jab-related reports are deaths, and about 5% of death-related reports are being deleted.
The result of this is that the ratio of deaths to other injuries appears lower than it probably is. Overwhelmingly, it’s reports of severe injuries and death that are being deleted, which gives the distinct appearance that they’re trying to hide the true extent of the harm of these shots. Who could possibly be doing this? Benavides insists the direction to delete valid reports must be coming from the very top of the FDA and/or CDC.
If you want to dive deeper into Benavides’ data, you can find his VAERS Analysis Dashboard here. Another resource you’ll want to bookmark is the VAERS Wayback Machine on MedAlerts — a search system specifically for deleted VAERS reports.
Other Factors That Downplay COVID Jab Risks
Benavides also points out that only the initial VAERS reports are available to the public. Updated reports are only viewable internally. What that means is, we have no way of knowing how many of those who were injured have since died from those injuries. This is a loophole that can make a vaccine appear less risky than it actually is.
“65% of all COVID related reports have the lowest severity classification, meaning they’re not serious. However, when you actually read the reports, you find heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms and other clearly serious injuries. So, many are clearly misclassified.”
What’s more, Benavides is finding that they’re routinely misclassifying the event level of severity; 65% of all COVID-related reports have the lowest severity classification, meaning they’re not serious and didn’t require medical intervention or hospitalization.
However, when you actually read the reports, you find heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms and other clearly serious injuries. So, many are clearly misclassified, or mis-coded. Benavides has also found 65 reports where the patient died after the COVID shot, but because the box for death is not checked, they are not included in the total death tally.
We also have evidence that VAERS is throttling the release of reports. It can take months before a filed report is actually published, as COVID jab victim Brittany Galvin has discovered.
In January 2022, she was eight months into the reporting process to VAERS and was advised by VAERS staff that it would likely be another six to 12 months before her case would be posted.5 In early June 2021, Peters interviewed her about her injuries and experience with the VAERS process (video below).6
VAERS Analysis Reveals Hundreds of Serious Side Effects
An earlier VAERS data analysis by Benavides, reported by Steve Kirsch in November 2021,7 revealed there were by then already hundreds of serious adverse events associated with the COVID shot that were far more elevated than the admitted risk of myocarditis, identified by the Department of Defense (although that fact was for a time dismissed as “conspiracy theory”).
“The evidence in plain sight shows that they are either lying or incompetent. Or both,”Kirsch wrote.8 “In a ... VAERS data analysis performed by our friend Albert Benavides (aka WelcomeTheEagle88), we found hundreds of serious adverse events that were completely missed by the CDC that should have been mentioned in the informed consent document that are given to patients.
And we found over 200 symptoms that occur at a higher relative rate than myocarditis (relative to all previous vaccines over the last 5 years). All together, there were over 4,000 VAERS adverse event codes that were elevated by these vaccines by a factor of 10 or more over baseline that the CDC should have warned people about ...
The FDA and CDC have basically been batting .000 in terms of spotting safety signals that have been sitting in plain sight the entire time ... The CDC has repeatedly said you can’t ascribe causality to data in VAERS. Not true.
The VAERS data analysis (temporal data, the dose dependency, and the elevated reporting rates compared to baseline) provide ample signal to enable us to show causality on all of these events using the five Bradford-Hill criteria applicable to vaccines.”
Of the hundreds of side effects Benavides identified, neurological, cardiovascular and female reproductive problems topped the list. (You can view and download the data from Kirsch’s article.9) Here are some selected highlights from Kirsch’s comprehensive review of Benavides’ findings:10
Pulmonary embolism, listed at No. 24, is 954 times higher than normal
Increased fibrin D-dimer, No. 53 on the list, is elevated by a factor of over 400 times above baseline. Charles Hoffe has reported that D-dimer was elevated in over 60% of patients measured.11 As noted by Kirsch, “This is very serious as D-dimer is a lagging indicator of blood clots”
Increased troponin, listed at No. 130, is 205 times higher than normal. Elevated troponin is a biomarker for heart damage, and in COVID jab victims, they are often elevated to extreme levels, up to 10 times higher than that indicating heart attack, and can remain elevated for months
Brain herniation is elevated by a factor of 100 times above baseline
Death is 96 times higher than normal
Cardiac arrest is 93 times higher than normal
Intracranial hemorrhage is 79 times higher than normal
High Rates of Post-Jab Myocarditis Confirmed
Getting back to myocarditis (heart inflammation), which is the only side effect the FDA and CDC have really admitted, a recent JAMA study found that:12
“Both first and second doses of mRNA vaccines were associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. For individuals receiving 2 doses of the same vaccine, risk of myocarditis was highest among young males (aged 16-24 years) after the second dose.”
Among double-jabbed men (age 16-24), there were four to seven excess myopericarditis events per 100,000 vaccinees in the first 28 days after the second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA shot, and anywhere from nine to 28 excess myopericarditis events per 100,000 after the second dose of Moderna.
According to the authors, “The risk of myocarditis in this large cohort study was highest in young men after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose” and “this risk should be balanced against the benefits of protecting against severe COVID-19 disease.”
While fact checkers are hard at work trying to debunk VAERS data as too unreliable to pay any attention to, doctors and specialists around the world — those brave enough to speak — are reporting absurdly high rates of side effects among their COVID jabbed patients.
One of the latest ones is Dr. Robert Jackson, an award-winning rheumatologist in Missouri. Kirsch recently interviewed Jackson (video above),13 who reports that 40% of his COVID jabbed patients have been injured by the shots; 5% remain unresolved, 5% have developed a new clotting disorder and 12 have died. For comparison, he normally sees only one or two deaths a year.
Of his 5,000 patients, about 3,000 got the shot. That means just over 1 in 300 were killed by the shot. Jackson’s clinical experience matches nicely with data from other rheumatologists, published in the BMJ.14 They report a 37% adverse event rate among jabbed patients; 4.4% of patients also had a flare up of their disease after the jab.
In the interview, Jackson also discusses some of the treatments he’s using on these vaccine injured patients. Interestingly, he’s seen significant improvement using a 30-minute infusion of mesenchymal stem cell derived exosomes.
Non-COVID Excess Deaths Are Exploding
Across the world, and in most U.S. states, we are now seeing excess deaths rates skyrocketing, and it’s not due to COVID. For U.S. data, check out USmortality.com,15where the excess mortality for each state is listed.
In California, the excess death rate rose from 13.5% in 2020 (38,799 excess deaths) to 18.7% in 2021 (52,278 excess deaths). And, less than five months into 2022, California’s excess mortality has already breached the 20% mark.
For the U.S. as a whole, there were 3,440,546 deaths of all ages for the year 2020. The expected numbers were 3,028,959, so that was an excess of 13.6% (411,587 above expected). In 2021, there were 3,459,496 deaths of all ages, which was 16.4% above expectations. As of mid-April 2022, the excess death rate was already at 14.1%, with 1,041,538 reported deaths of all ages. Among working age Americans, deaths are up 40%, compared to prepandemic levels.16
If the COVID jabs worked, you’d expect excess mortality to drop, yet that’s not what we’re seeing. We’re also not seeing mass death from COVID. The only clear factor that might account for these discrepancies is mass injection with an experimental gene transfer technology.
Cyprus is also reporting elevated all-cause mortality for 2021 (16.5%, perfectly matching that of the U.S.).17 Third and fourth quarter rates are particularly elevated, which corresponds with the rollout of booster shots. Canada, meanwhile, is seeing a shocking 70% excess death rate for ages 0 to 44, compared to 2014 through 2019,18 and U.K. data show COVID-jabbed children, aged 10 to 14, are dying at 28 times the rate of their unvaccinated peers.19 20
I’ve provided other data examples in other articles, and they’re all showing the same trend. The most tragic part of this is that it’s intentional. None of the agencies charged with protecting public health have lived up to their mandate. Instead, they’ve been serving the Great Reset agenda.
Eventually, though, I believe the truth will simply be too overwhelming and obvious to be ignored by the masses. FDA and CDC can’t delete enough reports to make the jabs look safe. People’s personal experiences also trump that of any data set, and now, vaccine injuries are so commonplace, most people know of someone who had a bad reaction, got COVID anyway or died from it. And they can’t scrub that.
Audible, The Real Number of Vaccine Deaths in the US with Albert Benavides
Medalerts VAERS ID 1815096 Deleted Report
Odysee, January 20, 2022, Min 18:10
Steve Kirsch Substack November 9, 2021
Steve Kirsch Substack November 9, 2021
Steve Kirsch Substack November 9, 2021
Steve Kirsch Substack November 9, 2021
JAMA Cardiology April 20, 2022 [Epub ahead of print]
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2022;81:695-709
Cureus April 20, 2022; 14(4): e24325
Twitter Kelly Brown April 11, 2022
'Tyranny Depends on the Ignorance of the Public.' A Documentary Called "The Plan" Shows the Agenda of the World Health Organization is to have 10 Years of Ongoing Plandemics, from 2020 to 2030
/From [HERE] “The Tyranny is 100% dependent on the ignorance of the public. The solution is therefore to inform the people around you. Once people know what is really happening, they will stop complying and start resisting.”
“The experts [witnesses] identify the powerful entities that are able to install this world dictatorship. They explain how they orchestrate and implement it and what their ultimate agenda is for humanity.”
Find this and more on the Stop World Control website.
FDA is “Rotten to the Core,” says Dr Robert Malone – Agency Knew COVID Injections Cause Viral Replication
/From [NN] World-renowned vaccinologist and physician Dr. Robert Malone is speaking out about how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew all along that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” spur viral reactivation of diseases like the varicella-zoster virus (shingles), but chose to withhold this information from the public.
Speaking at a panel discussion hosted by Del Bigtree along with fellow Global COVID Summit physicians Dr. Ryan Cole and Dr. Richard Urso, Malone, the original inventor of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination technology, exposed the FDA as a corrupt federal agency that continues to lie about Fauci Flu shots.
“They knew about the viral reactivation,” Malone stated, adding that he was “very actively engaged” with senior personnel at the FDA’s Office of the Commissioner when the jabs were first being rolled out under Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” program.
“We were talking by Zoom on a weekly or twice a week basis,” Malone further explained about his involvement in assessing the jabs right before they were publicly released. (Related: Malone has also previously called out the CDC for engaging in “scientific fraud and criminal activity”.)
“This is the group that first discovered the signal of the cardiotoxicity,” Malone said. “They also knew at that time – one of them actually had the adverse event early on of shingles. They knew that the viral reactivation signal – which the CDC has never acknowledged – was one of the major known adverse events.”
Malone says the FDA used to be more honest, but was it really?
Both the FDA and the CDC knew full well that the shots were dangerous but did not acknowledge it. This is “another one of those things that is inexplicable,” Malone maintains, adding that there used to be strict rules in place that governed “these types of products.”
“You have to characterize where it goes, how long it sticks around, and how much protein it makes, or what the active drug product is,” he added. “None of that stuff was done very well. It wasn’t done rigorously, and there was a series of misrepresentations about what the data were.”
“And the thing is, the FDA let them get away with it. They did not perform their function. They’re supposed to be independent gatekeepers.”
Malone was previously under the impression that the FDA paid very close attention to these types of processes. If any red flags emerged, he suggested, then the FDA would immediately halt the research in the interest of public health – but no longer.
“What happened here is the regulatory bodies gave the pharmaceutical industry a pass,” Malone stated, adding that the drug industry also “misrepresented key facts about their product.”
“On the basis of that, average docs just assumed that this was something that it wasn’t. They assumed that this was a relatively benign product that didn’t stick around in the body. All of that is false.”
Malone says that he and others in the field have been wracking their brains trying to understand how any of this could possibly happen. How and why is America’s regulatory apparatus so broken that deadly products such as these so easily made it onto the market – and at warp speed, no less.
“We as physicians had all come to assume the FDA had a function that actually did the job that we could believe in and trust, and what we find out now is the whole house of cards is rotten to the core,” Malone further explained.
At the May 11 event, which was attended by 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from around the world, a four declaration was presented demanding that the current state of medical emergency be lifted immediately.
Statistical Analysis of Over 1,500 Death Reports Shows that NOBODY under 60 Should Take the COVID vaccine
/
From [KIRSCH] Figure 1 below is an analysis of survey data I collected. The analysis shows that the vaccines are harmful to those under 60. The red dots higher than the error bar means more vaccinated people observed dead than expected based on the population of vaccinated to all people. In other words, if we vaccinated 60% of people (middle of the grey bar) and 70% (red dot) of the deaths are vaccinated, we have a serious problem.
The precautionary principle of medicine suggests if you are under 60 and thinking of taking a vaccine, you shouldn’t. These preliminary results are both statistically significant.
However, there could be errors in the analysis and/or survey bias errors that will change the result, so this is preliminary. I hope to make these not preliminary in a few days.
I created a mortality survey which asked people to report the date, age, and vaccine status of the people who died who they had the tightest relationship with. You could report as many deaths as you wanted for people you PERSONALLY knew, but if you didn’t report them all, start with the person closest to you. All deaths should be reported no matter what the cause of the death. If they died after December 1, 2020, report it.
The first 1,700+ results are in and Joel Smalley had time to do the analysis. It is stunning. The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it’s clear that vaccination makes it more likely you’ll die, not less likely. It’s statistically significant. The result that the younger you are, the less sense it makes, is consistent with what pretty much everyone has been saying.
The only thing that surprised me in the analysis is that data showed that if you are 60 and older, getting vaccinated reduces your chance of dying.
I’m astonished by the data showing a benefit for >60 because it is inconsistent with the VAERS data (which is off the charts showing nearly 500,000 deaths), embalmer data, and this article about 6 elderly deaths in Palo Alto out of 9 people vaccinated, and medicare data, and UK ONS data. I’m confident of the embalmer data and Palo Alto deaths: there is absolutely no way if the vaccine was protective that those events could occur. This means there must be an error in the analysis or confounding of the data. There cannot be two truths.
My advice is to avoid the COVID vaccines for ALL ages. If you get sick, get early treatment. This is because we have strong DIRECT evidence (embalmer, nursing home data is clearly strongly negative) that the vaccines are deadly to the elderly and until someone explains how the direct evidence is wrong, the precautionary rule of medicine says we should respect that possibility and thus early treatment is the preferred alternative.
In other words, if you have conflicting evidence, better to avoid that option until the conflict is resolved especially when the more direct evidence suggests that the intervention is deadly.
I’m not trying to cherry pick here. I’m saying that quality direct evidence rules over calculated numbers. If the best evidence I have is calculated numbers, I go with that.
For example, if the calculations show that the vaccine is safe for those over 60 and I find that 9 out of 10 people over 60 who get the shot die within 24 hours from blood clots, which evidence do you believe?
I cannot reconcile the discrepancy at this time.
Joel may have made a mistake. So take all these results (including under 60) with a grain of salt for now. We are getting close to finding the truth. There could be a bias that shifts everything in one direction. We’ll see.
We want to have many eyes on this data before we will announce a definitive result.
I’m making all the data to date available for people to validate or invalidate the result. I’ll periodically update the spreadsheet as we collect more data.
We’ll be collecting a lot more data to refine the result and employ 3 different third party survey firms as well. This eliminates the risk of people trying to game the survey (not that anyone would do that). So if the independent polling firm results don’t match our results, we’ll look for what happened. Using five or more sources of independent data (mine, Joe’s, 3 polling firms, etc.) will give everyone more confidence that the results are valid.
Note that the definition of vaccinated here is “got the vaccine” not “two weeks after they got the vaccine.” We are NOT using public data that is encumbered this way. Such definitions are misleading since if the vaccine kills everyone within two weeks of the shot, the vaccines look amazingly safe and not being vaccinated looks risky. [MORE]
Major Study Finds that mRNA COVID Injections are Significantly Associated with Deadly Blood Clots
/
From [HERE] Blood-clotting condition cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), which can cause serious neurological damage, is significantly associated with mRNA Covid vaccination, a major study in leading medical journal Vaccines has found.
The research team analysed 1,154,023 adverse event reports from more than 130 countries logged with VigiBase, the World Health Organisation’s global deduplicated database, and found a “potential safety signal for CVT occurrence after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination”.
The authors note many reports were in younger people and the conditions were serious: “CVTs were commonly reported in patients aged 18-44 and 45-64 years, more frequently in women, and mainly in Europe and America… More than 90% of the patients were in serious condition, and 33% did not recover or died.”
The researchers take into account under-reporting to produce estimates of increased risk above a baseline: around 3.5 times greater risk for mRNA vaccines and seven times greater risk for AstraZeneca. This means the CVT risk from mRNA vaccines, while high, is around half that of AstraZeneca.
They also found that CVT following mRNA vaccination is only around a third as deadly as that following AstraZeneca vaccination. This means mRNA vaccines lead to deadly CVT around a sixth as often as AstraZeneca, which may explain why the condition is particularly associated with the AstraZeneca jab.
The researchers cite earlier studies to suggest the mechanism relates to the spike protein binding to the wall of blood vessels, particularly in the brain, and activating clotting mechanisms.
There are few reports on CVT after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination. These studies suggested that CVT occurrences related to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines may be due to endothelial dysfunction caused by spike glycoprotein interactions with endothelial cells resulting in immunothrombosis. If the spike glycoprotein of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, several inflammatory and thrombogenic molecules, such as leukocyte chemotactic factors, cell adhesion molecules (vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 and intercellular adhesion molecule 1), and procoagulant cytokines, can be activated. This mechanism may cause endothelial dysfunction, particularly in brain endothelial cells, which could contribute to a significant disruption of brain endothelial barrier integrity, ultimately promoting thrombus formation. Moreover, a previous study suggested that the spike glycoprotein may induce platelet aggregation and activation and eventually result in thrombus formation. Although the period of time in which the spike glycoprotein persists has not been clearly established, several studies have suggested that it may last for weeks. Thus, spike glycoprotein-related platelet activation triggered by mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines could explain the trend of CVT occurrences after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccinations. Furthermore, in line with these previous case reports, our results showed that CVT occurred mainly within a few weeks of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccinations.
Here is the study abstract, summarising the findings.
Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), a rare thrombotic event that can cause serious neurologic deficits, has been reported after some ChAdOx1 [AstraZeneca] nCoV-19 vaccinations against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there are few reports of associations between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and CVT. We retrospectively analysed CVT occurrence, time of onset after vaccination, outcomes (recovered/not recovered), and death after COVID-19 vaccination from adverse drug reactions (ADR) reports in VigiBase. A disproportionality analysis was performed regarding COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) and the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We identified 756 (0.07%) CVT cases (620 (0.05%) after BNT162b2 and 136 (0.01%) after mRNA-1273) of 1,154,023 mRNA vaccine-related ADRs. Significant positive safety signals were noted for COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (95% lower end of information component = 1.56; reporting odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.27). The median days to CVT onset differed significantly between the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines (12 (interquartile range, 3-22) and 11 (interquartile range, 7-16), respectively; p = 0.02). Fewer CVT patients died after receiving mRNA vaccines than after receiving the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22–0.45; p < 0.001). We noted a potential safety signal for CVT occurrence after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Therefore, awareness about the risk of CVT, even after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, is necessary.
The association of blood-clotting adverse reactions with adenovirus vector vaccines like AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson have led to them being restricted or withdrawn in many countries, most recently by the U.S. FDA. The fact that this adverse reaction is also associated with mRNA vaccines, albeit in a somewhat less deadly form, suggests that the differential treatment of the two vaccine types on this basis is unlikely to be tenable.
CDC Says There are No Documents to Back Its Claim that COVID Injections Don't Cause Variants of the Virus that Causes COVID-19
/The Epoch Times reported: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says it does not have documents backing its claim that COVID-19 vaccines do not cause variants of the virus that causes COVID-19.
The CDC’s website calls it a myth that the vaccines cause variants. “FACT: COVID-19 vaccinesdo not create or cause variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. Instead, COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent new variants from emerging,” the website states.
The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), a nonprofit, asked the CDC in Freedom of Information Act requests for documentation supporting the claim.
The CDC has now responded to both requests, saying a search “found no records responsive” to them.
Of Course Bill Gates Tested Positive for COVID. COVID Injections Don't Immunize or Stop Spread. They're Treatments (Not Vaccines) that feed the Virus and Facilitate its Development into More Variants
/
Psychopath Bill Gates tests positive for COVID-19, claims he's experiencing mild symptoms. Frequent Announcements by Influencers about their MEANINGLESS positive COVID tests Remind the Public of the Plandemic. the goal here is to create covid SHOT dependency IN ORDER TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AND TO GAIN GREATER CONTROL OF PEOPLE IN THE FREE RANGE PRISON.
The following is the Executive Summary for Litigation of PLANDEMIC Crimes from Prosecute Now, an organization founded by Dr. David Martin to fund law suits for crimes against humanity.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
It is the consensus of the medical community that the currently available Covid-19 vaccine injections (“Covid-19 injections") do not prevent the spread of Covid-19. Relevant federal agencies have repeatedly acknowledged this consensus.
Therefore, there is no scientific or legal justification for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration COSHA") to segregate injected and un-injected people.
Indeed, since the Covid-19 injections do not confer immunity upon the recipients, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, they do not fall within the long-established definition of a vaccine at all. They are instead treatments and must be analyzed as such under the law.
Even if OSHA possessed the statutory and constitutional authority to issue the Emergency Temporary Standard ("ETS")2 now challenged before the Court, which it does not, the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would require the federal government to
establish that the OSHA ETS is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. This is a standard it cannot meet.
ARGUMENT
A. Covid-19 injections do not create immunity. They are treatments, not vaccines.
The uncontroverted medical consensus is that existing Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. This is admitted openly today, including by U.S. Health Agencies, which is why the CDC Director stated on CNN, "What the vaccines can't do anymore is prevent transmission.''3 Examples abound:
a. NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci to NPR: "We know now as a fact that [vaccinated people with Covid-19] are capable of transmitting the infection to someone else.''a
b. Dr. Anthony Fauci on November 12, 2021, referring to the experience of health officials regarding the injections:
They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn't just the elderly.
It's waning to the point that you're seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital. 5
c. WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan: "At the moment I don't believe we have the evidence of any of the vaccines to be confident that it's going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.''6
d. Chief Medical Officer of Moderna Dr. Tal Zaks: "There's no hard evidence that it stops [the Covid-19 vaccinated] from carrying the virus transiently and potentially infecting others who haven't been vaccinated.''7 e. The Surgeon General of the State of Florida, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD: "... the infections can still happen whether people are vaccinated or not. That's very obvious.''s
f. Professor Sir Andrew Pollard who led the Oxford vaccine team: "We don't have anything that will stop transmission, so I think we are in a situation where herd immunity is not a possibility and I suspect the virus will throw up a new variant that is even better at infecting vaccinated individuals."9
g. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, Professor of Health Policy, Stanford University: "Based on my analysis of the existing medical and scientific literature, any exemption policy that does not recognize natural immunity is irrational, arbitrary, and counterproductive to community health.'’1o
h. 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine Dr. Luc Montagnier (also winner of the French National Order of Merit and 20 other major international awards):
The vaccines don't stop the virus, they do the opposite - they 'feed the virus,' and facilitate its development into stronger and more transmissible variants...You see it in each country, it's the same: the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths ... the vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca do not prevent the transmission of the virus person-to-person and the vaccinated are just as transmissive as the unvaccinated.ll
i. A study of a Covid-19 outbreak in July 2021 published in Eurosurveillance observed that 100 percent of severe, critical, and fatal cases of Covid-19 occurred in injected individuals. The authors stated that the study "challenges the assumption that high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent COVID-19 outbreaks.’'12
j. Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School:
"The bottom line is that these vaccines do not prevent transmission.'’13
k. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Infectious Disease Epidemiologist and Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford:
[I]t is really not logical to use [these] vaccines to protect other people ... I don't think they should be forced [] on the understanding simply because this vaccine does not prevent transmission. So if you just think of the logic of it, what is the point of requiring a vaccine to protect others if that vaccine does not durably prevent onward transmission of a virus?14
The Court may already be aware of the countless news reports of outbreaks on fully "vaccinated" sports teams15 and cruise ships,16 not to mention in the fully "vaccinated" White House.17 There is simply no question that the Covid-19 injections do not create immunity. This was summed up quite nicely by Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, who "warned that the trial results show that the vaccine can prevent someone from getting sick or 'severely sick,' from COVID-19, however, the results don't show that the vaccine prevents transmission of the virus.''is Recognition of this fact may explain why, in August of 2021, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" from "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease" to "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection to a specific disease.’'19
However, this newly created CDC definition conflicts with the statutory criteria for a vaccine, which focuses solely upon immunity. In 1986, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1, which established "a National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization " (emphasis added). Clearly, from both a public health standpoint as well as from a legal standpoint, immunization is the intended sine qua non of vaccination.
Since they do not create immunity, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, the so called Covid-19 vaccines are treatments, not vaccines.2o Even the FDA has classified them as "CBER-Regulated Biologics" otherwise known as "therapeutics" which fall under the "Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.’'21
The FDA's "therapeutics" classification of the injections is consistent with representations made by Pfizer partner BioNTech to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in its 2020 Annual Report, where it stated with regard to the mRNA technology forming the basis of its Covid-19 injection:
Although we expect to submit BLAs [biologics license applications] for our mRNA-based product candidates in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products, and other jurisdictions may consider our mRNA-based product candidates to be new drugs, not biologics or gene therapy medicinal products, and require different marketing applications.22
Similarly, in its June 30, 2020 Quarterly Report to the SEC, Moderna stated with regard to the mRNA technology underpinning its injection: "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.’'23
Thus, the medical community, the relevant agencies, and both Pfizer and Moderna -- the manufacturers of the dominant injections -- recognize that the socalled vaccines are therapeutics, or medical treatments. Since they do not achieve immunization, this conclusion is also consistent with Congress' definition of vaccines in establishing the National Vaccine Program in 1986: the "prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization.''24 Accordingly, we herein refer to the Covid- 19 "vaccines" as Covid- 19 injections.
B. The Government's attempt to mandate treatments is subject to strict scrutiny.
The judiciary has too often assumed without analysis that requiring individuals to submit to Covid-19 injections is permissible under the determination made in Jacebsen.25 However, because these injections do not confer immunity, but are instead merely treatments that may reduce the severity of symptoms, the proper analysis stems from Cruzan v. Dir., Me. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).26
In Cruzan, the Court addressed whether the parents of a young woman severely brain damaged in a car wreck could compel the hospital to remove her from life support in the absence of any clear directive memorializing her intent. Missouri required clear and convincing evidence of intent to remove a patient from life support, and the parents argued this violated both their and their daughter’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. Significantly for the issue at hand, the Court began by recognizing a fundamental human right of informed consent to medical treatment stemming from the right of self-determination, stating:
At common law, even the touching of one person by another without consent and without legal justification was a battery. Before the turn of the century, this Court observed that "no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." This notion of bodily integrity has been embodied in the requirement that informed consent is generally required for medical treatment. Justice Cardozo, while on the Court of Appeals of New York, aptly described this doctrine: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages." The informed consent doctrine has become firmly entrenched in American tort law. The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment. 497 U.S. at 269-270 (citations omitted).
The Court went on to state that "[t]he principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions" citing three cases pertinent to our analysis here. First, the Cruzan Court cited Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-222 (1990), where the Court recognized that prisoners possess "a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Significantly, theCourt in Harper stated that "[t]he forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty." 494 U.S. at 229. Second, the Cruzan Court cited Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 494 (1980), where the Court recognized that the transfer to a mental hospital coupled with mandatory behavior modification treatment implicated liberty interests. Third, the Court cited Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) where the Court recognized that "a child, in common with adults, has a substantial liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment.”
Cruzan was followed in 1997 by Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), where the issue before the Court was whether the substantive due process right to refuse medical treatment included the right to assisted suicide. The following language of the Court is particularly significant to the issue presently before the Court:
The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992)(Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against 'certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them"') (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests ....
We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 278-279.
521 U.S. at 719-720. (internal citations omitted)
The fact that the Glucksberg Court identified the right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment as one in a long list of traditional fundamental human rights and liberty interests is extremely important because once a right is so identified, any governmental action infringing upon it is subjected to the "strict scrutiny" test. As stated by the Court in Glucksberg, "the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to infringe fundamental liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (internal quotations omitted, emphasis in original).
The Court's analysis in both Cruzan and Glucksberg was based upon a sick person asserting a right to deny treatment. The ETS mandate, on the other hand, forces treatment on perfectly healthy people. All of the arguments in favor of selfdetermination reviewed by the Court in Cruzan and Glucksberg are even stronger when applied to a perfectly healthy person's right to refuse a treatment on the basis that it may make symptoms of a disease that healthy person may never contract less severe. And we remember here the uncontroverted medical consensus that Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. The bar should be even higher to force a healthy person to accept "treatment" than to force a sick person to accept critical care. As stated by the Court in Harper, where a physically healthy prisoner objected to the administration of antipsychotic drugs, "[t]he forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty." 494 U.S. at 229
Footnotes
2 86 FED. REG. 61402 (November 4, 2021).
3 CNN. The Situation Room, interview with CDC Director Walensky. (August 5, 2021).
https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/status/1423422301882748929
4 Stieg, C. “Dr. Fauci on CDC mask guidelines: ‘We are dealing with a different virus now.’” (July 28, 2021). https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/dr-fauci-on-why-cdc-changed- guidelines-delta-is-a-different-virus.html
5 Coleman, K (November 12, 2021). Dr. Fauci Just Issued This Urgent Warning to Vaccinated People. Yahoo News. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dr-fauci-just-issued-urgent-201846228.html
6. Colson, T. “Top WHO scientist says vaccinated travelers should still quarantine, citing lack of evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission.” Business Insider. (December 29, 2020). https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronavirus-vaccine-prevent-transmissions-2020-12?op=1
7 Manskar, N. “Moderna boss says COVID-19 vaccine not proven to stop spread of virus.” New York Post. (November 24, 2020). https://nypost.com/2020/11/24/moderna-boss-says-covid-shot-not-proven-to-stop-virus-spread/.
8 WFLA News. “Desantis, Moody Speak Out Against Vaccine Mandates in Clearwater.” Twitter Repost. (October 24, 2021). https://twitter.com/4patrick7/status/1452309002021388296?s=21
9 Knapton, S. “Delta variant has wrecked hopes of herd immunity, warn scientists.” The Telegraph. (October 8, 2021). https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/delta-variant- has-wrecked-hopes-of-herd-immunity-warn-scientists/ar-AAN9O4p
10 Bhattacharya, J., et al. “The beauty of vaccines and natural immunity.” Smerconish Newsletter. (June 4, 2021). https://www.smerconish.com/exclusive-content/the-beauty-of-vaccines-and-natural-immunity
11 RAIR Foundation USA video with Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier. https://rairfoundation.com/bombshell-nobel-prize-winner-reveals-covid-vaccine-is-creating-variants/.
(May 18, 2021).
12 Pnina, S. et al. “Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021.” EuroSurveill. 26:39. (September 23, 2021). https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822
13 Adams, P, et al. “Who Are These COVID-19 Vaccine Skeptics and What Do They Believe?” Epoch Times. (October 20, 2021). https://www.theepochtimes.com/who-are-these-covid-19-
vaccine-skeptics-and-what-do-they-believe_4043094.html
14 Allen, R. “Oxford Scientist ‘It’s Illogical & Unethical To Force Jab On NHS Staff.’”
The Richie Allen Radio Show. (September 9, 2021). https://richieallen.co.uk/oxford-scientist-
its-illogical-unethical-to-force-jab-on-nhs-staff/
15 Associated Press. “US sports leagues cope with COVID-19 outbreaks amid variants.”
(December 15, 2021). https://www.foxnews.com/sports/us-sports-leagues-cope-with-covid-19-
16 Lemos, G. et al. “17 Covid-19 cases identified on New Orleans-bound cruise ship.”
CNN. (December 5, 2021). https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/05/us/cruise-ship-norwegian-
breakaway-covid-cases/index.html
17 Chasmar, J. “Psaki doesn’t deny White House COVID-19 outbreak.” Yahoo News.
(December 20, 2021). https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-doesn-apos-t-deny-210029232.html
18 Al-Arshani, S. “Moderna’s chief medical officer says that vaccine trial results only show that they prevent people from getting sick – not necessarily that recipients won’t still be able to transmit the virus.” Business Insider. (November 2020). https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-chief-medical-officer-vaccines-interview-2020-11
19 Attkisson, S. “CDC changes definition of “vaccines” to fit Covid-19 vaccine limitations.” (September 8, 2021). https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/09/read-cdc-changes-definition-of-vaccines-to-fit-covid-19-vaccine-limitations/
20 See, e.g., Moderna Program Patents. (December 2021). https://www.modernatx.com/patents
United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Moderna Form 10Q. (August 6,
2020). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-
Nakagami, H. “Development of COVID-19 vaccines utilizing gene therapy
technology.” Int Immunol. 33(10):521-527. (September 25, 2021). https://pubmed.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33772572/.
FDA. “Comirnaty. Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics.” (December 2021). https://
www.fda.gov/ vaccines-blood-biologics/comirnaty
21 FDA. “Coronavirus (COVID-19) | CBER-Regulated Biologics.” (2021). https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/industry-biologics/coronavirus-covid-19-cber-regulated-biologic
FDA. “Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program(CTAP).” (2021). https://www.fda.gov/drugs/coronavirus-covid-19-drugs/coronavirus-treatment-acceleration-program-ctap.
22 United States Securities and Exchange Commission. BioNTech SE Form 20-F.
(2020). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776985/000156459021016723/bntx-20f_
20201231.htm at page 26.
23 United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Moderna SE Form 10-Q. (June 30, 2020). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017 /mrna- 20200630.htm
24 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq.
25 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
26 Although Cruzan was decided under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court has long held that the same substantive due process analysis applied to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also applies to the federal government under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 500 (1954) (“In view of our decision that the
Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government.”) See also, Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (same); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) (holding federal law discriminating on basis of sex unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment due process clause based on Fourteenth Amendment analysis); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977) (striking down federal racial classification on basis of Fifth Amendment due process clause stating that strict scrutiny is the proper standard for analysis of all racial classifications, whether imposed by a federal, state, or local actor. Id. at 231, superseded by statute); Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974) (striking down provision of the Social Security Act based upon illegitimacy applying substantive due process analysis through the due process of clause of the Fifth Amendment).
Louisiana Governor Reverses ‘Insane Mandate’ Requiring COVID Injections for Children
/
From [CHD] Children and students attending daycare, K-12 programs and college in Louisiana, at least for now, will not be required to get the COVID-19 vaccine, Gov. John Bel Edwards announced Wednesday.
The announcement reversed an earlier decision by the governor’s administration and the Louisiana Health Department (LHD) requiring students to be fully vaccinated beginning in the 2022-23 school year.
Edwards said he based the decision on the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not fully approved the vaccines for people under age 16.
The governor said his administration will continue to recommend all children age 5 and over get the vaccine, a recommendation the LHD endorsed Wednesday in a news release.
In their statements, the governor and the LHD implied COVID-19 vaccines for people over age 16 are fully approved. However, while the FDA did grant full licensing to Pfizer’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax COVID-19 vaccines — for people 16 and older and 18 and older, respectively — those vaccines are not available in the U.S.
All COVID-19 vaccines being administered in the U.S. are still available only under Emergency Use Authorization.
Commenting on the governor’s announcement, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said:
“The science shows this age group is at zero risk from COVID-19 and at high risk of debilitating and sometimes deadly vaccine injury.
“The only thing driving these mandates is the deceptive campaign of orchestrated fear and deliberately induced confusion carried out by reckless and incompetent health officials, their Big Pharma overlords and the gullible politicians who do what they are told rather than conduct their own independent research.”
Kennedy added, “Hats off to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, who forced Gov. Edwards to back off this insane mandate.” [MORE]
Did Pfizer Commit Fraud in Its COVID Injection Research? Contrary to Its Claims, The Clinical Trials Failed to Demonstrate the Vaccine "Safes Lives" or that It is "Highly Effective"
/
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial
With the release of Pfizer trial data — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation are coming to light
Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization — a feat that has many questioning whether fraud was committed
The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack, who also happens to be a consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC), a current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, an investigator for Fundación Infant, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, and the first author of Pfizer’s paper, “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” published at the end of December 2021
Site 1231 held a second enrollment session, given the designation of “site 4444.” The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag. It supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020 — the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Was “site 4444” fabricating data to create the appearance that the jab was having an effect?
From [MERCOLA] In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer's Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she'd seen evidence of fraud in the trial.
Data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind. The revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. In his November 2, 2021, report, investigative journalist Paul Thacker wrote:1
"Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer's pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight ...
[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer's vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety ... Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding."
Jackson, a former regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer's COVID jab at several sites in Texas, repeatedly "informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns and data integrity issues," Thacker wrote.
When her concerns were ignored, she finally called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed a complaint via email. Jackson was fired later that day after just two weeks on the job. According to her separation letter, management decided she was "not a good fit" for the company after all.
She provided The BMJ with "dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails" proving her concerns were valid, and according to Jackson, this was the first time she'd ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator.
BMJ Report Censored
Disturbingly, social media actually censored this BMJ article and published pure falsehoods in an effort to "debunk" it. Mind you, the BMJ is one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world! The Facebook "fact check" was done by Lead Stories, a Facebook contractor, which claimed the BMJ "did NOT reveal disqualifying and ignored reports of flaws in Pfizer's" trials.2
In response, The BMJ slammed the fact check, calling it "inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible."3,4,5 In an open letter6 addressed to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, The BMJ urged Zuckerberg to "act swiftly" to correct the erroneous fact check, review the processes that allowed it to occur in the first place, and "generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall." As noted by The BMJ in its letter, the Lead Stories' fact check:7
Inaccurately referred to The BMJ as a "news blog"
Failed to specify any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
Published the fact check on the Lead Stories' website under a URL that contains the phrase "hoax-alert"
Pfizer Trial Data Raises Suspicions of Fraud
Now, with the release of Pfizer trial data8 — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — internet sleuths are finding additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation. May 9, 2022, a Twitter user named Jikkyleaks posted a series of tweets questioning data from Pfizer trial sites 1231 and 4444.9
Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization (CRO). CROs like the Ventavia Research Group, which Jackson worked for, provide clinical trial management services. The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack,10 who also happens to be:11
A consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC) since 2017
A current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee
An investigator for Fundación Infant,12 which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation13
The first author of Pfizer's paper,14 "Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine," published at the end of December 2021
As noted by Jikkyleaks, Polack "is literally the busiest doctor on the planet," because in addition to all those roles, he also managed to single-handedly enroll 4,500 patients in three weeks, which entails filling out some 250 pages of case report forms (CRFs) for each patient. That's about 1,125,000 pages total. (CRFs are documents used in clinical research to record standardized data from each patient, including adverse events.)
This recruitment also took place seven days a week, which is another red flag. "Weekend recruitment for a clinical trial would be odd. Staff are needed to fill out that many record forms (CRFs) and there are potential risks to the trial, so you need medical staff. It would be highly unusual," Jikkyleaks notes.
Is Polack just a super-humanly efficient trial investigator, or could this be evidence of fraud? As noted by Steve Kirsch in the featured video and an accompanying Substack article,15 Polack is the coordinator for a network of 26 hospitals in Argentina, so perhaps it's possible he could have recruited 57 patients per week per hospital, but it seems highly unlikely.
Questions Surround Site 4444 Data
Now, "site 4444" does not exist. It's actually the same as site 1231. It appears site 1231 held a second enrollment session, and these were for some reason given the designation of 4444. The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag.
Site 4444 (the second enrollment session for site 1231) supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020, and the suspicious thing about that — aside from the speed — is the fact that this was the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Jikkyleads writes:16
"My guess: they needed enough numbers of 'positive PCR tests' in the placebo group to show a difference between groups for that VRBPAC meeting on the 10th Dec, and they didn't have them. So, site 4444 appeared and gave them their 'perfect' result. Bravo."
Kirsch notes:17
"Was there fraud in the Pfizer trial? Without a doubt. The story of Maddie de Garay is a clear case of that. Brook Jackson has evidence of fraud; she has 17 lawyers working for her. If there wasn't fraud, these lawyers wouldn't be wasting their time.
This new data on Site 1231/4444 looks suspicious to me. It looks too good to be true. But we can't make the call without more information. Undoubtedly, the mainstream media will not look into this, Pfizer will remain silent, and Polack will be unreachable for comment. The lack of transparency should be troubling to everyone. That is the one thing we can say for sure."
Pfizer Documents Reveal COVID Jab Dangers
Among the tens of thousands of Pfizer documents released by the FDA so far, we now also have clear evidence of harm. For nurse educator John Campbell, featured in the video above, these documents appear to have served as a "red pill,"18 waking him up to the possibility that the jabs may indeed be far more dangerous than anyone expected, including himself.
In the video, Campbell reviews the documents listed as "5.3.6. Postmarketing Experience," which were originally marked "confidential." They reveal that, cumulatively, through February 28, 2021, Pfizer received 42,086 adverse event reports, including 1,223 deaths.
To have 1,223 fatalities and 42,086 reports of injury in the first three months is a significant safety signal, especially when you consider that the 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled after only 25 deaths.
As noted by Campbell, "It would have been good to know about this at the time, wouldn't it?" referring to the rollout of the jabs. Campbell has been fairly consistent in his support of the "safe and effective" vaccine narrative, but "This has just destroyed trust in authority," he said.
158,000 Recorded Side Effects — A World Record?
The first really large tranche of more than 10,000 Pfizer documents was released March 1, 2022. (You can find them all on PHMPT.org.19) In this batch were no less than nine single-space pages of "adverse events of special interest," listed in alphabetical order20 — 158,000 in all!
The first side effect on this shockingly exhaustive list is a rare condition known as 1p36 deleti
Since the Vaccine Rollout Natural Deaths of All Kinds are Higher. Excess Death is 48% higher between 1/21 and 2/22 compared to 2020. COVID Deaths are 74% Higher and non-COVID deaths are 10% higher
/Statistician Joel Smalley explains: It turns out that natural deaths of all kinds post-vaccine are higher than pre-vaccine.
As you can see, all natural causes excess death is 48% higher between the start of 2021 and mid-Feb 2022 compared to 2020. COVID deaths are 74% higher and non-COVID deaths are 10% higher.
Sure, it’s a longer time period and yes, COVID didn’t really hit until March 2020. Even so, due to many reasons (already noted below), cumulative excess deaths should have started trending lower ages ago, especially if this “vaccine” is so damned effective, right??
Even if we take average weekly COVID deaths, they are 7% higher in the post-vax era. Effective?!?!
Anyway, it’s also important to highlight the ratio of non-COVID excess deaths to COVID deaths. Before we even get to how many COVID deaths really were due to COVID and not just incidental, we’re already at 40% in 2020 and 30% in 2021/22.
Given that there are near enough a thousand independent studies and reports showing the complete ineffectiveness of any COVID intervention, we can’t do the real cost/benefit analysis of collateral deaths relative to COVID deaths saved. Can’t divide into zero!
Well, I can reject my first two hypotheses based on analysis at the state level. Excess deaths post-vax are positively correlated with excess deaths pre-vax, statistically significantly too.
So, whatever is killing people since 2021 seems to have a somewhat similar demographic propensity IMO. In other words, if you were susceptible to die of COVID, you were equally susceptible to die of the 2021 pathogen.
Not only that, the excess deaths really only ramp up after the summer - half a million in less than the time it took to rack up the first 275k. It’s like they were triggered by some event.
Now, you know, of course, exactly where I’m going with this. Just like a broken record, so many roads keep leading us back to the *not* safe and *not* effective “vaccine”.
If you plot monthly percentage excess death against percentage vaccinated population for each state, you get a remarkably similar picture… [MORE]
Dr Yeardon and Dr Blynd: Authorities Own the Minds of Those who Believe “The COVID Lies." The False Narratives are Enemy Outposts in the Believer's Mind, Giving Rise to More Coercive Political Systems
/
In the first part of the article (The Covid Lies), Dr. Yeadon counters the 12 widespread Covid narratives with the following arguments:
1. The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is 0.1 – 0.3%, which is not significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics.
2. Based on the peer-reviewed articles, at least 30 to 50% of the population has prior cross-immunity.
3. SARS-CoV-2 does discriminate. “The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.”
4. Asymptomatic transmission is the “central conceptual deceit” used to “underscore almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.”
5. PCR test is “the central operational deceit.”
6. Neither cloth nor surgical masks prevent respiratory virus transmission.
7. Lockdown is “epidemiologically irrelevant” and never works. “Only “stay home if you’re sick” works.“
8. “Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever”. Safe and effective early treatments are available.
9. Based on the peer-reviewed articles, very few clinically significant reinfections of SARS-Cov-2 have ever been confirmed.
10. SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, and no variant is even close to escaping naturally-acquired immunity. However, there is the possibility that the so-called vaccines prevent the establishment of immune memory, leading to the repeated infections, which would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.
11. Safety is the top priority in a public health mass intervention, even more than effectiveness. “It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine.”
12. The four gene-based “vaccines” are toxic. The basic rules of selecting vaccine candidates are: 1) the agent has no inherent biological action (non-toxic); 2) the agent should be the genetically most stable part of the virus; 3) the agent should be most different from human proteins. Spike protein as the vaccine does not fit any of the above criteria.
In the second part of the article he addresses How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True. At the end of the article, Dr. Yeadon also provides a list of extra supplemental points to support his conclusions.
The Covid Lies
Working Draft, April 10, 2022 [PDF] [MORE]
By Dr. Mike Yeadon
Summary
I contend that all the main narrative points about the coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 are lies. Furthermore, all the "measures" imposed on the population are also lies. In what follows, I support these claims scientifically, mostly by reference to peer-reviewed journal articles. In 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) scientists reviewed the
evidence for the utility of all non-pharmaceutical interventions, concluding that they are all without effect.
Given the foregoing, it is no longer possible to view the last two years as well-
intentioned errors. Instead, the objectives of the perpetrators are most likely to be totalitarian control over the population by means of mandatory digital IDs and cashless central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
There is no medical or public health emergency. We can and should take back our freedoms with immediate effect. Testing healthy people stops. If you're sick, please stay
home. Masks belong in the trash. The Covid- 19 gene-based injections are not recommended and must not be coerced or mandated. Crucially, the vaccine passports database must be destroyed. Economic rectitude is recommended.
Serious crimes have obviously been committed. It is not the purpose of this document
to accuse anyone or to assemble the evidence against them at this time. However, when this is all resolved, We The People are strongly recommended to pay much more attention to Washington than previously.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Covid Lies pages 2-15
How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True?
Additional Reflections pages 19-28
About Dr. Mike Yeadon page 29
THE NARRATIVE POINT
SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure must be taken to save lives.
Note: Covid-19 is the disease resulting from infection with the virus, SARS-CoV-2. They are often used interchangeably. Sometimes it doesn't much matter, but the confusion was sowed deliberately.
IMPORTANCE
Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem justified. To "pep up" the claim, recall "falling man" in Wuhan? The person was
allegedly sick but walking about, before falling dead on his face. That was never real. It was theatre.
THE REALITY
Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an "infection fatality rate" (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal influenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of 0.1%. That means some seasons, IFR for flu may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or lower.
In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1-0.3%. It cannot now
be argued that it is significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics. Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
The perpetrators knew that lethality estimates of new respiratory viral illnesses
ALWAYS start high and reduce. This is because, early on, we do not have any estimate of the number of people infected but not seriously ill and the number infected with no symptoms at all.
They created the impression of extreme danger, which was never true. This is such a crucial point, for once one sees it for what it is, the rest of the narrative is superfluous.
Dr. John Ioannidis is one of the world's most-published epidemiologists and he has been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly unusual lethality. Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serious health threat to those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple comorbidities.1
Dr. Ioannidis's current estimate of global IFR is around 0.15%. For reference, a typical seasonal influenza outbreak has a typical IFR of around 0.1%, but can be markedly worse in bad winters.2
Page2of31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity in the population.
IMPORTANCE
Seems reasonable, doesn't it? This remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash any notion that there was a degree of"prior immunity" in the population. Prior immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered "misinformation".
THE REALITY
Within a few months, multiple publications showed that a large minority (ranging from 30%-50%, some later said even more) of the population had T-cells in their blood which recognised various pieces of the viral protein (synthesised, as no one seemed to have any real virus isolates to use).
While some people argued that recognition by T-cells didn't mean functional immunity, really it does.
We were prevented from learning that we already knew of six coronaviruses, four of which cause "common colds" which in elderly and infirm people can cause death.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
This was a straight lie. It's pretty much never true that there's no prior immunity in a population. This is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the population never had cause to worry.
This article includes all the important peer-reviewed articles to mid-2020, with many showing at least 30%-50% having prior immunity (it depends upon the measure used to assess it).3
Page3of31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
This virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until everyone is safe.
IMPORTANCE
Intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they're not "at risk" people.
THE REALITY
This claim was always absurd. The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is IO00X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
In short, almost no one who wasn't close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a handful of other causes of death.
This intriguing review details how the initial modelling induced fear and provided the excuse for heavy-handed measures, especially "lockdowns".4 It was, however, )ust that: an excuse. All experienced public health experts knew that lockdowns were absurd, ineffective, and hugely destructive. There's no way to sugar-coat this. It was wrong before it was ordered, and it's necessary to examine why those who knew did not protest. It's almost as if they were complicit.
Page4of31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others: asymptomatic transmission.
IMPORTANCE
This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.
THE REALITY
The best evidence comes from a meta-analysis of a larger number of good studies, examining how often a person testing positive went on to infect a family member (they compared as potential sources of infection people who had symptoms with those who did not have symptoms). ONLY those WITH symptoms were able to infect a family member at any rate that mattered.5
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It's not necessary to argue it never happens; it's enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth measuring.
In this video, we also have Fauci and a WHO doctor telling us exactly this.6 Also, I show why it is like it is. It's very clear.
Page5of31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.
IMPORTANCE
This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of genetic information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle after cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was inappropriate.
THE REALITY
In a "dirty" clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and more. It's not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged "positive" after many cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call "positive".
In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called "positive controls" through the chain of custody. That's diagnostic testing 101. It's a deception.
Every test has an "operational false positive rate" (oFPR), where some unknown percent of samples turns positive, even if there is no virus present. A good oFPR would be less than 1%, but is it 0.8% or 0.1%? If you test 100,000 samples daily, and the oFPR is 0.8%, you will get 800 positive tests or "cases" even if there is no virus in the entire community. Often, the "positivity" the fraction of tests that are positive, is in that range, sub-1% or low-single-digit percent. I believe much or all of that can be caused by false positives. Note, criminals can manipulate the content of the test kits because there are very few providers in a territory, often just one. The conditions for running the test are also subject to variation by the authorities, like the CDC.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below which you'd be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It's an absurd idea.
You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called "confirmed Covid-19 cases". If you die in the next 28 days,
you're said to be a "Covid death" no matter what the cause.
Those using the test kits provided commercially are what are called "black box". They are unable to say what is in the kit, because this is proprietary. The original "methods paper" was published in 48 hours, making a mockery of claimed peer review, by a
Page6of31
Berlin lab headed by Professor Christian Drosten, scientific advisor to Angela Merkel of Germany. The paper was comprehensively rebutted by an international team.7
The WHO released a series of guidance notes on PCR,8 and it was clear that their technical staff did not approve of mass testing the population, because it's possible to return wholly false positives. Indeed, at times of low genuine prevalence, that's all they can be.
I often wonder if this 2007 real-life example of a PCR-based testing system which returned 100% false positives, yet convinced a major hospital that they had a huge disease outbreak for weeks, might have been the inspiration for the untrustworthy methods used in the Covid-19 deception?9
Drosten also led the TV publicity around the idea of asymptomatic transmission. One lucky scientist is at the centre of the two most important deceptions in the entire Covid- 19 event!
Professor Norman Fenton here presents a multi-part lecture with two main elements.I° First, he describes how mass testing of people with no symptoms unavoidably drives up the proportion of positive PCR test results that are false. The second part deals with the possibility that data fraud entirely accounts for the apparent efficacy of the vaccines, while attempting to hide vaccine deaths, by classifying them as unvaccinated for 14 days after injection.
Page7of31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Masks are effective in preventing the spread of this virus.
IMPORTANCE
This is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others' masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you're told, even if the measure is useless.
THE REALITY
We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.
Cloth masks definitely don't stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The
authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.
Some people speak of "source control" catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
It's not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don't do anything.
Many don't know that blue medical masks aren't filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that's all.
This is a good review of the findings with masks in respiratory viruses by a recognised expert in the field. No effect.11
Neither masks nor lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. This review summarizes 400 papers. 12
Page8of31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number of cases and deaths.
IMPORTANCE
The most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful.
Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce interpersonal contacts. This measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy countries, because "furlough" schemes were put in place, compensating many people for not working, or requiring them to work from home.
THE REALITY
The measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. This is an example of how far off-course uninformed intuition can be.
The core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person. Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it doesn't, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. Those with symptoms are UNWELL. They remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
A general lockdown had no detectable impact on epidemic spreading, cases, hospitalisations, or deaths.
This is now widely accepted, after a meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins University (interestingly, as the JHU repeatedly features as an actor in a documentary about pandemic-related fraud by German journalist Paul Schreyer).13
This is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are fit and well and such contacts didn't result in transmission. Essentially, if you're fooled by the "asymptomatic transmission" lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the voluminous literature confirms this.
This concept is unequivocally known to multiple public health scientists and doctors. This is why "lockdown" had never been tried before.
Importantly, WHO scientists drafted a detailed review of all the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in 2019 and distributed copies of the report to all member states.14
This means that ALL member states already knew, late in 2019, that masks, lockdowns, border restrictions, and business or school closures were futile. Only "stay home if you're sick" works at all, and people don't need to be told this, for they are too unwell to go out.
Page9of31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
There are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond support in hospital.
IMPORTANCE
Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus.
Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there be no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency
Use Authorisation would not have been available.
THE REALITY
In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation
of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and effective early treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a policy of mass murder.
Contrasting with the official narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a sizeable handful of well-understood, off-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have been characterised.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
The official position was that the disease Covid-19 could not be treated and the patient only "supported" often by mechanical ventilation. Ventilation is wholly inappropriate
because Covid-19 is rarely an obstructive airway disease, yet has a high associated morbidity and mortality. An oxygen mask is greatly preferred.
In my view, due to the very large amount of empirical treatment and good communication, Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever. We knew in the first three months of 2020 that hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin were empirically useful, provided treatment was started early and tackled rationally.15
It's very important to note that it has been known for a decade and more that elevating intracellular zinc acts to suppress viral replication.16
There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called "zinc ionophores" compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
This is a starting point for all of the clinical trials in Covid-19,17 including especially ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores).Is
It should be noted that using known safe agents for experimental purposes as a priority has always been an established ethical medical practice and is known as "off-label prescribing".
Page 10 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
It's not certain if you can get the virus more than once.
IMPORTANCE
The idea of natural immunity was flatly denied and the absurd idea that you might get the same virus twice was established. This ramped up the fear, which might otherwise have passed swiftly.
THE REALITY
Those with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that senior advisors to government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying. Certainly, in the author's case, it was a pivotal point. I shared a foundational education in UK
universities at the same time as the UK government's Chief Scientific Advisor. This
shared education meant we'd have had the same set texts. I reasoned that he knew what I knew and vice versa. I was as sure as it is possible to be that it wouldn't be possible to get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it. I was right. He was lying.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
There have been scores of peer-reviewed )ournal articles on this topic.19 Very few clinically important reinfections have ever been confirmed.
Beating off a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.
You wouldn't know it for the misdirection around antibodies in blood, but such antibodies are not considered pivotally important in host immunity. Secreted antibodies in airway surface liquid of the IgA isotype certainly are, but most important are memory T-cells.2°
Those infected with SARS in 2003 still had dear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated immunity 17 years later.21
Page 11 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.
IMPORTANCE
I believe the purpose of this fiction was to extend the apparent duration of the pandemic--and the fear--for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is
controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the parsimonious explanation.
THE REALITY
I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent indicating that recovery after infection affords immunity extending beyond the sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2.
The number of confirmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue, epidemiologically speaking.
We have good evidence from those infected by SARS in 2003: they not only have strong T-cell immunity to SARS, but cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is very important because SARS-CoV-2 is arguably a variant of SARS, there being around a 20% difference at the sequence level.
Consider this: if our immune systems are able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 as foreign and mount an immune response to it, despite never having seen it before, because of prior immunity conferred by infection years ago by a virus which is 20% different, it's logical that variants of SARS-CoV-2, like delta and omicron, will not evade our immunity.
No variant of SARS-CoV-2 differs from the original Wuhan sequence by more than 3%, and probably less.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
Normal rules of immunology apply here)2 Despite the publicity to the contrary, SARS- CoV-2 mutates relatively slowly and no variant is even close to evading immunity acquired by natural infection.
This is because the human immune system recognises 20-30 different structural motifs in the virus, yet requires only a handful to recall an effective immune memory)3
The variants story fails to note "Muller's Ratchet" the phenomenon in which variants of a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which "typographical errors" are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality.
If this was not the case, at some point in human evolution, we would have expected a respiratory viral pandemic to have killed off a substantial proportion of humanity. There is no historical record for such an event.
I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. This would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.
Page 12 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
The only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.
IMPORTANCE
This, I believe, was always the ob)ective of the largely faked pandemic. It's NEVER been the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.
THE REALITY
The interventions imposed on the population didn't prevent spread of the virus. Only individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that's clearly impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).
All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome.
Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so faster and with less suffering and death had we adopted measures along the lines
proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging vitamin supplements.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to "end the pandemic" with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even
than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it.
It's simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last.
Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against
humanity.
It quickly became apparent that natural immunity was stronger than any protection from vaccination,24 and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.25
Even children who were immunocompromised are not at elevated risk from Covid-19, so advice that such children should be vaccinated is lethally flawed36
These agents are clearly underperforming against expectationsY
Page 13 of 31
THE NARRATIVE POINT
The new vaccines are safe and effective.
IMPORTANCE
I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies. I outline the inevitability of the toxicity of all four gene-based agents below.
Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate. They were conducted in people
not most in need of protection from safe and effective vaccines. They were far too short in duration. The endpoints only captured "infection" as measured by an inadequate
PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to confirm real infection. Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalisation and death.
There's evidence of fraud in at least one of the pivotal clinical trials. I think there is also clear evidence of manufacturing fraud and regulatory collusion. They should never have been granted emergency use authorisations (EUAs).
THE REALITY
The design of the agents called vaccines is very bothersome. Gene-based agents are new in a public health application. Had I been in a regulatory role, I would have informed all the leading R&D companies that I would not approve these without extensive longitudinal studies, meaning they could not receive EUA before early 2022 at the earliest. I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected-recovered. Point blank, rd need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.
The basic rules of this new activity, gene-based component vaccines, are: (1) to select part of the virus that has no inherent biological action--that rules out spike protein, which we inferred would be very toxic, before theylt even started clinical trials;2s (2) select the genetically most stable parts of the virus, so we could ignore the gross misrepresentations of variants so slight in difference from the original that we were
being toyed with via propaganda--again, this rules out spike protein; (3) choose parts of the virus which are most different from any human proteins. Once more, spike protein is immediately deselected, otherwise unnecessary risks of autoimmunity are carried forward.
That all four leading actors chose spike protein, against any reasonable selection criteria, leads me to suspect both collusion and malign intent.
Finally, let nature guide us. Against which components of the virus does natural immunity aim? We find 90% of the immune repertoire targets NON-spike protein responses.29 1 rest my case.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
These agents were always going to be toxic. The only question was, to what degree? Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to
be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design. Page 14 of 31
Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events, including death.
There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including,
for the mRNA "vaccines" that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection site and home to the liver and ovaries,3° among other organs,31 but this evidence is enough to get started.
See this interview for evidence of clinical trial and other fraud, publicised by Edward Dowd, a former BlackRock investment analyst.32
See this video for evidence of official data fraud (UK Office of National Statistics): especially at 2min 45sec for the heart of the matter.33
See here for evidence of manufacturing fraud.34 The same methodology was used to obtain regulatory authorisations, and so it is my contention that there is also regulatory fraud.
In the Pfizer clinical trial briefing document to FDA, which was used for issuing the EUA (on p. 40 or thereabout), there is a paragraph stating that there were approximately 2,000 "suspected unconfirmed Covid cases"--meaning people were sick with symptoms but were not tested (otherwise, it would be stated that the tests were negative). Of these, in the first seven days after injection, there were 400 in the vaccine arm and 200 in placebo. These subjects were excluded from the dataset used to assess efficacy. It's as clear evidence of fraud as you can get; they admit to it in the FDA briefing! Nobody paid any attention to this that I am aware of.
There's also evidence of data fraud in that clinical trial as summarised by Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal).
Though many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the number of adverse events and deaths soon after Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse effects and deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years. Here is a simplified view of Covid vaccine-related mortality reports from VAERS.3s
This excellent presentation by a forensic statistician, well used to presenting analyses for court purposes, dismantles the claims that the vaccines are effective and shows how toxicity is hidden (see the second half of the recording).1° Another paper published by the same group questions vaccine efficacy.36
Page 15 of 31
References
1. Ioannidis JPA, Axfors C, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals
without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters. Environ Res. 2020 Sep; 188:109890.
2. Ioannidis JPA. Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID- 19: an overview of systematic evaluations. Eur ] Clin Invest. 2021 May;51(5):e13554.
3. Doshi P. Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity? BM]. 2020;370:m3563.
4. Joffe AR. COVID- 19: Rethinking the lockdown groupthink. Front Public Health. 2021 Feb 26;9:625778.
5. Madewell ZJ, Yang Y, Longini Jr IM, Halloran ME, Dean NE. Household transmission of SARS-Cov-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ]AMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec
1;3(12):e2031756.
6. "Exposing the lie ofasymptomatic transmission, once and for all:' May 10, 2021. https://www.bitchute.com/video/llj22KttYq7z/
7. https://cormandrostenreview.com/
8. World Health Organization. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Interim guidance, Sep. 11, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/lO665/334254/WHO-2019- nCoV-laboratory-2020.6-eng.pdf?sequence= 1 &isAllowed=y
9. Kolata G. Faith in quick test leads to epidemic that wasn't. New York Times, Jan. 22, 2007. Available at https://eumeswill.wordpress.com/2020/08/11/faith-in-quick-test-leads-to-epidemic-that-wasnt/
10. "Prof. Norman Fenton - Open science sessions: How flawed data has driven the narrative" PANDA, Feb. 3, 2022. https://rumble'c°m/vtxilh-°pen-science-sessi°ns how_flawed_data_has_driven_the_narrative.html
11. Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 20;11(11):CD006207.
12. Alexander PE. More than 400 studies on the failure of compulsory Covid interventions (lockdowns, restrictions, closures). Brownstone Institute, Nov. 30, 2021. https:// brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the-failure-of-compulsory- covid-interventions/
13. Dinerstein C. The Johns Hopkins lockdown analysis. American Council on Science and Health, Feb. 16, 2022. https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/O2/16/johns-hopkins- lockdown-analysis- 16135
14. World Health Organization. Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza: annex: report of systematic
15. McCullough PA, Kelly RJ, Ruocco G, et al. Pathophysiological basis and rationale for early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection. Am 1 Meal. 2021 Jan;134(1):16-22.
Page 16 of 31
16. Te Velthuis AJW, van den Worm SHE, Sims AC, Baric RS, Snijder EJ, van Hemert MJ. Zn(2+) inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture. PIoS Pathog. 2010 Nov 4;6(11):e1001176.
17. COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,609 studies. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2022 from https://c19early.com/.
18. Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, et al. Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis to inform clinical guidelines. Am J Ther. 2021 Jun 21;28(4):e434-e460.
19. Alexander PE. How likely is reinfection following Covid recovery? Brownstone Institute, Dec. 29, 2021. https://brownstone.org/articles/how-likely.-is-reinfection- following - covid-recovery_/
20. Wyllie D, Mulchandani R, Jones HE, et al. SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cell numbers are associated with protection from COVID-19: a prospective cohort study in keyworkers. MedRxiv, Nov. 4, 2020.
21. Le Bert N, Tan AT, Kunasegaran K, et al. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):457-462.
22. Tarke A, Sidney J, Methot N, et al. Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. BioRxiv, Mar. 1,2021.
23. Tarke A, Sidney J, Kidd CK, et al. Comprehensive analysis ofT cell immunodominance and immunoprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes in COVID-19 cases. BioRxiv, Dec. 9, 2020.
24. Gazit S, Shlezinger R, Perez G, et al. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections. MedRxiv, Aug. 25, 2021.
25. Alexander PE. 150 plus research studies affirm naturally acquired immunity to Covid-19: documented, linked, and quoted. Brownstone Institute, Oct. 17, 2021. https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired- immunity-to-covid- 19-documented-linked-and-quoted/
26. Chappell H, Patel R, Driessens C, et al. Immunocompromised children and young people are at no increased risk of severe COVID-19. J Infect. 2022 Jan;84(1):31-39.
27. Alexander PE. 46 efficacy studies that rebuke vaccine mandates. Brownstone Institute, Oct. 28, 2021. https://brownstone.org/artides/16-studies-on-vaccine-efficacy/
28. Grobbelaar LM, Venter C, Vlok M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein $1 induces fibrin(ogen) resistant to fibrinolysis: implications for microclot formation in COVID- 19. MedRxiv, Mar. 8, 2021.
29. Ferretti AP, Kula T, Wang Y, et al. Unbiased screens show CD8+ T cells of COVID-19 patients recognize shared epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 that largely reside outside the spike protein. Immunity. 2020 Nov 17;53(5): 1095-1107.
30. Schidlich A, Hoffmann S, Mueller T, et al. Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary: a neglected toxicity risk? J Control Release. 2012 May 30;160(1): 105-112.
Page 17 of 31
31. https://www.docdroid.net/xq0Z8B0/pfizer-report-japanese-government- pdf#page=14
32. "Edward Dowd interview portion on Steve Bannons War Room Ep #1602" https:/www.onenewspage.com/video/20220204114277521/Edward-Dowd-Interview- portion-on-Steve-Bannons-War.htm
33. "Norman Fenton interviewed by Majid Nawaz, LBC Radio 4 Dec 2021" Truth Archive 2030, Feb. 21, 2022. https://www.bitchute.com/video/KApFxhjiWLqI/
34. "COVID vax variability between lots - independent research by international team" Craig-Paardekooper, Dec. 15, 2021. https://www.bitchute.com/video/4HlIyBmOEJeY/
35. ht__tp.s://....__openvaers.com/covid- data/mort ality.
36. Neil M, Fenton NE, Smalley J, et al. Latest statistics on England mortality data suggest systematic mis-categorisation of vaccine status and uncertain effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination. ResearchGate, December 2021. DOI:10.13140!RG.2.2.14176.20483
Page 18 of 31
How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True? Additional Reflections
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to demonstrate that all of the key narrative points about the SARS-CoV-2 virus said to cause the disease Covid-19 and the measures
imposed to control it are incorrect. Given that the sources of these points are scientists, doctors, and public health officials, it is evident that they were not simply mistaken. Instead, they have lied in order to mislead. I believe the motivations of those who I call "the perpetrators" become clear, once it is internalised that the entire event is based on lies.
In recent days, breaking news indicates that coronavirus antibodies are present in blood stored in European blood banks from 2019.1 The implications are momentous.
Unprecedented Pronouncements
In the first three months of the Covid event, I started noticing senior scientific and medical advisors on UK television saying things that I found disturbing. It was hard to
put my finger on the specifics, but they included remarks like:
"Because this is a new virus, there won't be any immunity in the population". "Everyone is vulnerable".
"In view of the very high lethality of the virus, we are exploring how best to protect the population".
I had been reading extensively about the apparent spread of SARS-CoV-2 in China and beyond, and had already arrived at a number of important conclusions. Essentially, I
was sure that, objectively, we weren't going to experience a major event. I based some of my conclusions on the Diamond Princess cruise ship experience. Note that no crew members died, and only a minority on the ship even got infected, suggesting substantial prior immunity, a steep age-lethality relationship, and an infection fatality ratio (IFR) not much different, if at all, from prior respiratory virus infections. But what was happening was that, in my view, senior people were acting a lot more frightened than seemed appropriate.
It was with this heightened interest that I began to closely examine all aspects of the alleged pandemic. I suspected something very bad was happening when the Imperial College released its modelling paper by Neff Ferguson. This claimed that over 500,000 people in the UK would die unless severe "measures" were put in place. Ferguson had over-projected all of the last five disease-related emergencies in the UK and had been responsible for the destruction of the beef herd through his modelling of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.
I had also been reading about all sorts of"non-pharmaceutical interventions" (NPIs), and what this had taught me was that there was absolutely no experimental literature around any of the NPIs being spoken of, except masks--which were clearly ineffective in blocking respiratory virus transmission. Moreover, the non-experts in the
Page 19 of 31
mainstream media drew on a very limited group of experts, and I noticed that none were immunologists.
I had, in parallel, watched the evolving scene in Sweden and was pleased to note that the Swedes' chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, seemed to know what he was doing and had dismissed the panic. I knew he had been the deputy of his predecessor, ]ohan Gieseke, who was still around in an emeritus role. Gieseke was also reassuringly calm.
The final straw was when on March 23, 2020, the British prime minister initiated the first "lockdown". This was wholly without precedent. I knew Sweden had rejected
lockdown measures as wholly unnecessary and extremely damaging.
Instigating Fear
From that day forward, the team from the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) put up one or more members every day to appear alongside the
prime minister or the health minister. These press conferences were meandering affairs, and it wasn't clear what their purpose was. The questions asked never sought to place things in context, but instead seemed to always explore the outer edges of possible outcomes and then follow up with remarks that didn't seem adequately prepared.
In retrospect, I think the aim was to make the press conferences the only "must watch" thing on TV, and with such a large, captive audience, a form of fear-based hypnosis was instigated. Much later, Belgian professor and clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet informed us that this was indeed the aim, calling the process "mass formation".2 This process can become malignant, as have past beliefs in events that were later conceded to have been episodes of societal madness, like the Salem witch trials, satanic abuse of children, and other delusions.
Some experts believe that modern societies are more--and not less--susceptible to mass panics because of the ubiquity of easily-controlled messaging (properly termed "propaganda" since it was completely deliberate and carefully planned). An August
2021 animated video titled "Mass Psychosis - How an Entire Population Becomes Mentally Ill" illustrates this phenomenon; despite the animation format, the film leans heavily on academic research from luminaries such as Gustave Le Bon, Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, Stanley Milgram, and Solomon Asch, as well as later researchers and studies.3
It is important to be cautious about the purported importance of "mass formation" however. In a sense, it might be seen as wholly impersonal and something that is thrown at the population and lands more or less effectively on people at random. Worse, it comes with the notion that, if you are susceptible, it cannot be resisted. There is a contrasting school of thought that holds that information technology (IT), data, and artificial intelligence (AI) are capable of assembling a "digital prison" that is tailored to each individual and shaped over time by choices that we each make.4 The outcome isn't in any way preordained. However, incentives and deterrents are associated with innumerable decisions we make, such as how to pay for something, whether we sell our data for tiny rewards, whether we consciously decide to open links suggested for us, whether we leave location services running permanently, and more.5
Page 20 of 31
Using Mass Testing to Promote Fear
As soon as the UK lockdown was initiated, the focus turned full force onto mass testing, and especially on testing people without symptoms. I knew this didn't make any sense, because if a large enough number of people are tested daily, without knowledge of the
false-positive rate, it could certainly very quickly panic people into thinking there were lots of people walking around with the virus, unaware they had it and allegedly spreading it to others.
Once the lockdown was in place, in addition to testing, the press conferences focused
on numbers in hospital, numbers on ventilators, and ultimately, the daffy deaths "with Covid". Early treatments and improved lifestyle were never spoken of. The first lockdown lasted 12 weeks, with most office staff told to work from home while being paid "furlough" (a word never before used in Britain). The "fear porn" continued all the way into high summer, long after daily Covid deaths had reached approximately zero.
The introduction of mandatory masking in all public areas in the heat of summer, when they had never been required before, was the last straw for me. It was all theatre.
At that point, I set out to investigate a couple of core concepts: the "PCR test" and "asymptomatic transmission". I'm embarrassed to say, however, that it wasn't until the autumn of 2020 that I had clear in my mind, with mounting horror, that the entire event, if not completely manufactured, was being grossly exaggerated, with the intent of deceiving the entire "liberal democratic West". Scores of countries were economically being squeezed to death. I knew that from a financial perspective, borrowing or printing enough money to subsidize tens of millions to remain at home could not be long sustained without destroying the sovereign currency. Strangely, exchange rates didn't move much--another clue that powerful forces were managing this event as well as its consequences. Around this time, country leaders started talking about "Build Back Better" and Klaus Schwab's book, COVID-19: The Great Reset, appeared.
All of this contributed to my developing the idea of"The Covid lies". It seemed to me that everything we had been told about the virus wasn't true, and also that all the NPIs imposed upon us couldn't work, and so were for nothing more than show.
One Dominant Narrative
As already mentioned, repetition and fear were key to instigating "mass formation" as described by Mattias Desmet.2 This narrowing of focus, according to Desmet, means those "in the mass" (crowd) literally are incapable of hearing anything that challenges
the narrative of which they've been convinced. Any explanation other than the truth is marshalled to dismiss rational counter-arguments. And indeed we saw that anyone challenging the dominant narrative was attacked, smeared, censored, and cancelled on social media, and no reasonable and independent voices were ever seen or heard on TV or radio.
Desmet argues that mass formation, to be successful, requires that certain conditions be in place: high levels of free-floating anxiety; a strong degree of social isolation (where devices replace real human interactions); and finally, low levels of "sense-making" that is, many things do not make sense to many people. When a crisis is dropped into a population where these conditions obtain and is repeated ad nauseam, it is possible in effect to hypnotise them.
Page 21 of 31
When the narrative has taken hold, what happens next?
Now, the population's anxiety has an obvious focus, which is felt as a relief.
The routines--masking, lockdowns, testing, hand sanitizing--become for some a ritual, which provides daily meaning.
Finally, so many people are acting the same way and echoing the same lines (the lines they've heard time and again on TV, radio, newspapers, and their devices), that people can feel part of a national effort in a way they've not felt before.
This combination, coupled with visible and strong punishment for anyone who questions the narrative or simply refuses to comply, reinforces the groupthink.
It is, according to crowd psychology experts, nearly impossible to extract those who are this deeply "in the mass". However, there is always another group of individuals who never fall for such tricks. Outwardly pleasant and easygoing, these individuals typically are sceptical and go along with things only if they make sense to them personally, and not because an authority figure tells them to.
There is also a third group in the middle--individuals who often sense that something is wrong but lack the courage of their own convictions and tend to side with whatever they're told to do, rather passively. They are not hypnotised, but to third parties, they
can seem to be.
Crowd psychology experts encourage those who've seen through the lies (the second group) to speak out and continue to do so. This legitimises speaking out by all others not persuaded by the narrative and might even extract some from the middle group. Even those in the "mass" group will be prevented from sinking yet more deeply into the narrative, from where those orchestrating events can otherwise prompt such people to commit atrocities.
Vaccine Lies
In the second half of 2020, the conversation turned to the oncoming vaccines. Having spent 32 years in pharmaceutical research and development (R&D), I knew that what we were being told about vaccines was )ust lies. It's not possible to bypass a dozen years of careful work or to compress it into a few months. The product that was to emerge was almost certain, to my mind, to be very dangerous. And after I began reading my way into this area, I grew more concerned still.
In my "Covid Lies" comments, I isolate ONLY the ma)or narrative points themselves
and show that none of them are true. In other words, this was not )ust a little lying here and there--no, the entire construct was false. After I describe all the main lies, I show how the perpetrators were able to get away with it. At the conclusion, I believe the reader will share my view that the whole event was manufactured or exaggerated from a mild situation.
Remember, no alternative views were permitted in the "public square". In fact, in July 2019--well before the declared pandemic--a group of powerful media organisations
had already assembled and founded the Trusted News Initiative (TNI). The purpose of TNI was both to control mass media messages and crush alternative voices from any direction.6
Page 22 of 31
Again, all of the Covid narrative was lies. Not mistakes. Many of the politicians who repeated others' lines might try to offer as defence that they relied on experts to inform them. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Rochelle Walensky recently did )ust that when she said that the CDC made vaccination recommendations because CNN published Pfizer's press release saying that their Covid-19 vaccine was 95% effective. (You can't make this up.) However, the true sub)ect matter experts who promoted the false narrative from the public health departments-- such as Chief Scientific Advisor Sir Patrick Vallance in the UK and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci in the U.S.--knew their statements were untrue.
The Question of Motive
The question of motive has to arise. What possible motive might there have been to create this state of fear? Who must have been involved to have granted authorisation to do it?
I have tried to find benign explanations and have failed to do so. The logical conclusions I'm drawn to make for very disturbing reading. I look forward to discussing them with you and indeed with anyone. Although it's unlikely I am correct on every point, what I
am sure of is that the overall picture is one of extreme deception and a highly-organised fraud. Moreover, I am not alone in reaching this view. For example, in an essay titled "if
I were going to conquer you" one author walks us through what the perpetrators would do in order to take over the world through a simultaneous "coup d~tat" of the liberal democracies.7 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. summarised a plausible explanation in a speech in Milan in November 2021.8
I appear to be the ONLY former executive-level scientist from big pharma anywhere in the world speaking out. I have invested two years pro bono in identifying the key elements of the fraud, in the sincere hope I can connect with upright individuals who can help bring this to wider attention and, ultimately, to a halt and to )ustice. As a result of these efforts, I can describe a global fraud operating for two years at tremendous cost in lives, the economy, and the very structure of human societies, which could only have been undertaken by powerful people, organised for a purpose that is not to the benefit of ordinary people.
Additional Observations
Though not all central, there are a large number of ancillary points that reinforce my conclusions. I have assembled some of them below. This list is not exhaustive and may
be added to.
Fraud Assessed
In a series of five short videos,9 you will find remarkable similarities in a Canadian team's interpretation of the same fraud. Note, in particular, the second film (3.5 minutes) on non-pharmaceutical interventions.1°
Page 23 of 31
Fraud Rehearsed
German investigative journalist Patti Schreyer shows that this fraud was rehearsed for many years, increasingly, with all the stakeholders now running the alleged Covid-19 fraud,n
Autopsies
Why were autopsies strongly discouraged worldwide in 2020 and still today? My conclusion is that this was to cover up the lack of Covid-19 deaths. After vaccination, a
large fraction of deaths have been judged to be due to the vaccines, and the lack of autopsies covers them up, too.12
PCR Test
The Nobel-prize-winning inventor of the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, stated definitively that PCR must not be used to diagnose viral illnesses.13 On what basis, therefore, were "cases" determined purely by the restflts of this one test, much disputed as to its appropriateness?
Cause of Death
A death from any cause, within 28 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, is recorded
as a "Covid death". It's absurd--we have never assigned cause of death like this before, ever. The effect of untrustworthy PCR tests and the arbitrary assignment of a dubious "positive" as somehow causative of death has been a very effective way to fool and frighten people. Most do not know that there are literally scores of viruses, even
common cold viruses, which can infect human airways, some of which--in elderly and infirm people--can give rise to severe illness.
Hospital Protocols
Hospital treatment protocols, where I have explored them, look designed to kill:
In the UK, the pathway starts with everyone being tested with untrustworthy PCR tests, which are applied repeatedly for an inpatient. Given that 2% of hospital admissions end in a hospital death, repeated poor testing guarantees a lot of"Covid deaths".
A patient "diagnosed" as "positive" Covid is then placed in isolation, and visitors are not allowed until the patient is moribund.
A standard treatment involves intravenous midazolam (a benzodiazepine used for sedation) and morphine from a syringe driver, at doses up to 10 times greater than advisable for a patient capable of breathing unaided. This often results in respiratory failure and either immediate death or mechanical ventilation, accompanied by withdrawal of an care; of course, these patients then expire. It's murder.
In the UK, we have documentary evidence that the UK National Health Service (NHS) stockpiled a year's supply of midazolam by ordering it normally but banning 2019 prescriptions. By April 2020--over no more than two months--the entire supply was exhausted. Another year's supply was then bulk-purchased from a generics company in France, cleaning out their stock.
Page 24 of 31
Something similar occurred in U.S. hospitals, with ramped-up cash bonuses for each stage passed, up to and including mechanical ventilation.
Mechanical ventilation is rarely appropriate, because Covid-19 is NOT an obstructive lung disorder. Blood oxygen desaturation is best addressed using non-invasive masks with elevated oxygen levels. When hospitals tried this in Italy in February 2020, they ceased mechanical ventilation within a week, so stark were the differences in outcomes; that is, most ventilated patients died, while most masked patients survived. Apparently, the method of treatment the Italian health care providers had been given from "colleagues in Wuhan" was what they called "the Wuhan protocol". In this, the guidance given was that the sooner they sedated and ventilated an agitated patient, the better the patient's chances. This was a lie. Panicked patients needed anxiolytics (anti-anxiety drugs) and an oxygen mask, but instead, they were killed.
Experimental Vaccines
I have been incensed by the misuse of novel, experimental "vaccines" particularly in Covid-recovered individuals, pregnant women, and children.
Recovered individuals are immune, and the risks of adverse events are greatly increased because the body is already poised to attack any cells expressing spike protein.
Pregnant women are not at greatly elevated risks from Covid-19 because they tend
to be young and healthy. NEVER, since thalidomide (1956-1962), have we approved the use of experimental agents in pregnant women, and certainly not without reproductive toxicology studies. None of the vaccines have a completed "Reprotox" package (summaries on the reproductive effects of chemicals, medications, physical agents, or biologics). I filed a short expert opinion in court with America's Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) on this topic.14 The vaccine makers also didn't complete something called an ADME-Tox (Absorption Distribution Metabolism Excretion- Toxicity) package. Documents obtained in March 2022 through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show that Pfizer was "planning to study" vaccination in maternity as of April 30, 2021--that is, after they had already manufactured and shipped close to 100 million doses.
The misuse of these agents in healthy children has, without question, reverse risk/ benefit: the injections kill far more children than the virus could.
The whole thing stinks of a purpose different from public health, because if it was a legitimate public health effort, we definitely would NOT do any of these things. When I co-authored the world's first treatise explaining some of these concerns, officials lied on the nationally broadcast BBC and other media outlets, smearing me and others like me who were raising questions. Note that the petition in question, filed with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), was co-authored by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, the public health doctor and minor politician from Germany who stopped the fraudulent "swine flu pandemic" in 2009.15
Revised Definitions
I observed two strange occurrences. First, the WHO altered the definition of "immunity" from "that obtained after natural infection or vaccination" only mentioning vaccination and excluding "natural immunity". 16 That meant that only
Page 25 of 31
vaccination could accomplish the goal. They eventually changed this back, but for many, the damage was done, leaving non-experts not trusting natural immunity, even though it is superior to that from vaccination because the body has been exposed to all parts of the virus and will, therefore, respond to any part of it if reinfected. The definition of a "vaccine" was also changed, so that it wasn't necessary to prevent infection or transmission, whereas traditional vaccines almost always do this. They do so because they prevent the development of clinical illness and, in the case of respiratory viruses at least, lack of symptoms renders the person all but incapable of infecting anyone else.
In addition, the WHO changed the definition of "pandemic:' Previously, "pandemic" meant the simultaneous spreading across many countries of a pathogen, causing many cases and deaths. The definition was changed to eliminate the need for many deaths. (See Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg [at 45 min, 50 sec], interviewed on UK TV in 2010 after the exaggerated swine flu pandemic, which I now believe was something of a rehearsal for the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic.)17
This is a critical point, because PCR can be designed against any pathogen, and protocols can be adopted such that a large number of false positives appear. This grants bad actors the ability, relatively easily, to create the illusion of a pandemic, almost to order. Dr. Wodarg recaps his 2009 experiences and shows interesting similarities with recent events in an January 2021 interview,is
Many people simply don't believe experts when they talk of a "very high fraction of positive test results being false positives". I assure you, however, there have genuinely been a number of events where the entire suspected epidemic was an illusion, and 100% of positives were false positives. In 2007, the New York Times reported on an example of "an epidemic that wasn't" which, when I first read it, gave me a crawling sensation.19 I wonder if it was this genuine event--a false alarm in which experts admitted placing
"too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray"-- that birthed the method for exaggerating (or even fully faking) a pandemic such as the one we are currently living?
Bizarre Statements
I noticed early on that Bill Gates said, "We won't return to normal until pretty much the whole planet has been vaccinated". This is a bizarre statement from a person with no
medical or scientific training (or indeed a college degree in anything). It is never necessary to vaccinate the entire population, when only the elderly and infirm are at serious risk of death if infected. Note, too, that the median age of deaths from/with Covid was the same or even older than the median age of death due to all causes.
For his part, former UK prime minister Tony Blair insisted that vaccine passports would be essential to restore confidence. Again, this was absurd, especially once we learned that these vaccines do not prevent transmission. Once this became clear, the case for coerced vaccination vanished, and this is still the present position. Yet, my unvaccinated relatives may not enter the U.S. If you fear infection, the safest person to be around isn't a vaccinated person but a person who is fit and well, with no respiratory symptoms.
Page 26 of 31
Boosters and Antibodies
The practise of"boosting"--giving people dose after dose of poorly-designed agent, ostensibly to reinforce their immunity--has no immunological basis. No genuine immunity wanes in a few months, or sometimes even in a few weeks. The perpetrators have exploited the public's understanding of the annual influenza vaccine to somehow normalise something that is both dangerous and ineffective.
I also noticed that early on, in discussing immunity, antibodies were the discussion
topic, whereas T-cells were an "extremist plot". This is another absurdity. I can assemble expert witnesses who will attest alongside me that blood-based antibodies are relatively unimportant, potentially irrelevant to infection by respiratory viruses. This is because the virus infects the air side of the airways and blood-based antibodies cannot leave the blood and enter this "compartment". Blood antibodies and respiratory viruses never meet except under unusual circumstances. On the contrary, T-cells leave the blood and migrate through infected airway tissue, removing infected cells.
Ferguson Track Record
Professor Neff Ferguson at Imperial College has a poor record of modelling and predictions.2°
Prescient Testimony
A former WHO staffer, lane Bfirgermeister, shared frighteningly prescient testimony in 2010. Her understanding was that respiratory virus pandemics will be used to force
near universal vaccination and that this had sinister motives.21 1 dismissed this the first time I saw it. Many of us turn away instinctively from evil because we cannot or do not want to believe that other humans are capable of that which our logic tells us is happening. I now no longer reject it. It fits far too well with the totally independent Paul Schreyer documentary. 11
More Prescient Testimony
Another doctor, Dr. Rima Laibow, made similar claims.22 This testimony speaks of population rejection, and like lane Biirgermeister, locates the fraud in a conceptual world government. Again, one can reject it, or consider it alongside other pieces of information.
Conclusions
I think it's worth developing the theme of turning away from evidence of sheer evil, and I have to say more, because it is THE pressing issue today. The evidence I set forth
makes it perfectly plain that the entire world is being lied to in ways that led-- predictably--to huge suffering and death. Given that none of the "measures" imposed could have mitigated illness and death from a respiratory virus, the only outcome was to be the fracturing of civil society and damage, potentially fatal, to the economy and financial system. I emphasise again here that WHO scientists had conducted a detailed review of control measures for respiratory virus epidemics and pandemics as recently as 2019, and they concluded that no imposed NPI measures make any difference at all.23 The claims made for control in Wuhan are not credible.
Page 27 of 31
The stakeholders who must have approved this action own or control the majority of the world's capital and assets. Their motivation cannot be for money, for they stand astride the money-creating apparatus in the central and private banks. Equally, it cannot be to obtain gross control over the population, since they already demonstrably have that. This is what leads me inexorably to propose that the motives behind this are terrible--at the very least, to secure totalitarian control through mandatory, digital IDs (in the guise of useless "vaccine passports" useless because none of these so-called vaccines reduce transmission, the only possible justification for them). Add to this a "financial great reset" with withdrawal of cash and introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and we have a wholly controlled population, controlled automatically without human intervention on the ground. All that's needed is to require the population to show their health passport or else they will not be allowed to cross a regulated threshold, like accessing a food store, or make a transaction using digital money unless the AI algorithm permits it. If those operating this takeover of humanity wished then to eliminate a portion of the population, with plausible deniability, I doubt a more propitious starting point could be had.
I do not believe it's a fault in those who fall for the narrative that they cannot see the lies. People want to believe that governments and experts, for all their well-known flaws and occasionally uncovered corruption, are trying to do the best they can. They cannot accept the truth, that there is a group of powerful people who regard the ordinary members of the public as surplus to requirements. They want to deny evil because it makes them feel bad, sad, and uncomfortable to think about the world this way. They want to deny reality; that's their coping mechanism, which is being exploited by the perpetrators of evil. It gives a cloak of invisibility to those who want to commit mass murder, quite literally, since so many people are so willing to imagine that it is not happening.
It is not clear to me what to do with the information I've gathered here. I believe that a calm review of the summary that I call "The Covid Lies" will result in any open-minded person agreeing that we all have been subjected to a monstrous fraud with lethal consequences, and that there is overwhelming evidence of long-term planning and deliberately injurious acts. There is no easy way to say that, but it could be represented objectively and taught, in the manner of a workshop, so that participants get to derive their own conclusions (albeit being led by the evidence).
I doubt just talking to a group of people who hold the dominant narrative view as "true" would respond at all well to this, delivered as a lecture. Nobody wants to accept that they've been fooled, even if the blow is softened by telling them that this has been brought about by highly experienced professionals in the covert services and has required huge amounts of money to buy off several groups. On the positive side, an increasing number of people have detected that fraud is ongoing. A particularly good example comes from the financial analyst community and refers to life insurance claims among many other pieces of evidence of wrong-doing. 24 Ignoring this and hoping it will go away is naive and very dangerous for us all. The perpetrators have not gone away and will likely return in the fall. I expect this year or the next will see them assume totalitarian tyranny, if we have not, before then, "inoculated" important stakeholder groups to understand what has happened so far and cautioned them to be alert to the many potential presentations of the next fear- provoking episode.
