Liar Fauci Forgets: The white coat supremacist can’t seem to remember the destructive policies he imposed on the American people

From [HERE] “If there are oversight hearings, I absolutely will cooperate fully and testify before the Congress if asked. You may not know, but I’ve testified before the Congress a few hundred times over the last 40 years or so. So I have no trouble testifying. We can defend and explain and stand by everything that we’ve said. So I have nothing to hide.”

That was White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci last Tuesday, one day before he was to give a deposition in a case brought by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, charging that the federal government outsourced censorship to tech companies. As it emerged in his deposition the next day, Fauci had plenty to hide. 

“It was amazing, literally, that we spent seven hours with Dr. Fauci—this is a man who single-handedly wrecked the U.S. economy based upon ‘the science, follow the science,’” Landry told the Epoch Times. “we discovered that he can’t recall practically anything dealing with his Covid response . . . He just said, ‘I can’t recall, I haven’t seen that. And I think we need to put these documents into context.’”

One of the things Fauci failed to recall was his collaboration with National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins in “a quick and devastating published takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration. Authors Dr. Martin Kulldorff (Harvard), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford), and Dr. Sunetra Gupta (Oxford), and many other medical scientists, called for an end to Fauci’s draconian lockdown policy. 

According to New Civil Liberties Alliance attorney Jenin Younes, representing plaintiffs Kulldorff and Bhattacharya, Fauci said, “I have a very busy day job running a six billion dollar institute. I don’t have time to worry about things like the Great Barrington Declaration.” But Fauci was indeed worried. In an email to Dr. Deborah Birx, Fauci wrote, “I have come out very strongly publicly against the Great Barrington Declaration.” 

The man who publicly proclaimed “I represent science,” now replicates the performance of FBI boss James Comey, who in 2018 testified “I can’t recall” in response to more than 200 questions about matters in which he was directly involved. While Fauci feigns memory lapse, Americans should not forget the sort of person they are dealing with.  

Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but if he ever practiced medicine it was only for a short time. In 1968, to avoid service in military hospitals, Fauci became a “yellow beret” with a cushy job at the National Institutes of Health. 

Fauci’s bio shows no advanced degrees in biochemistry or molecular biology but by 1984 he was heading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID). Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), said Fauci “doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. He should not be in a position like he’s in.” In other words, Fauci was unqualified, and that reality was soon to become evident. 

As Michael Fumento noted in The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, Fauci was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that AIDS would ravage the heterosexual population. As UC Berkeley molecular biologist Peter Duesberg showed in Inventing the AIDS Virus, Fauci was a pioneer of cancel culture, quashing media appearances by better-qualified persons of different views. Despite his costly blunders, Fauci remained in command of NIAID, with steadily increasing salary and power.

According to the Office of Science Policy of the National Institutes of Health, gain of function research can “enhance the pathogenicity or transmissibility of potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs)” and that can raise “biosafety and biosecurity concerns.” In 2012, Fauci cited the risks of such research, wondering, “what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” 

The NIH banned gain of function research in 2014 but revived it in 2017 with no objection from Fauci. In January of 2017, Fauci proclaimed “we will definitely get surprised in the next few years” by an infectious disease outbreak. 

Fauci’s NIAID funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in Communist China, where gain of function research could be conducted in secret, with no accountability. The WIV, a partner with China’s military, also received shipments of deadly pathogens from a Chinese agent at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. 

In early 2020, Fauci opposed President Trump’s ban on flights from China and praised China’s response to the pandemic. Fauci recommended the lockdowns that wrecked the economy, trampled constitutional rights, shut children out of school, and caused untold suffering across the nation. 

In early 2021, a report by New York Attorney General Letitia James revealed thousands more nursing home residents may have died from COVID-19 than New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had publicly acknowledged. Jim Sciutto of CNN asked Fauci to comment on Cuomo’s claim that he was only following federal guidelines.

“You know, Jim, I can’t,” Fauci responded. “I mean, excuse me. I really am—I’m honestly not trying to erase your question, but I’m not really sure of all the details of that, and I think if I, if you make a statement, it might be wrong or taken out of context. So, I prefer not to comment on that,” and so on. In reality, Fauci had already clarified the details. 

As Fox News recalled, Fauci told PBS that, unlike other parts of the country, New York responded “properly” and “correctly” to the pandemic. That is part of what Fauci now claims not to remember. 

Anthony Fauci is a physician who first does harm and has no use for informed consent. Dr. Fauci wields executive-level power—Joe Biden even jokes that Fauci is the real president—but never has to face the voters. The late Angelo Codevilla called out Fauci as a “deep state fraud,” which might be too kind.

As the nation’s chief “pusher man,” a front man for Big Pharma, Fauci understands the green side of white coat supremacy. Remember, the NIAID and his government colleagues profit from the potions they recommend. In June, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked Fauci if anybody on the vaccine committee “ever received money from the people who make vaccines?” Fauci failed to answer and claimed that his own royalties averaged less than $200 per year. 

As Americans might recall, the jury is still out on the long-term effects of the vaccines Fauci wants administered to everyone, including children. The people who make vaccines have been heavily advertising new boosters for sub-variants of the Omicron variant. 

Vitamins C and D Finally Adopted as Coronavirus Treatment

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• Vitamins C and D were adopted in the conventional treatment of novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. This fortunate turn of events is likely to save thousands of lives, while keeping health care costs down

• During the pandemic, seriously ill coronavirus patients in New York state’s largest hospital system received 1,500 milligrams of intravenous vitamin C three to four times a day, in conjunction with other conventional treatments

• Vitamin C at extremely high doses acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses

• In recent articles, former CDC chief Dr. Tom Frieden and Dr. John C. Umhau, a public health specialist at NIH, highlight the usefulness of sun exposure and/or vitamin D supplementation to reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection

• Although vitamin D does not appear to have a direct effect on viruses, it does strengthen immune function, thus allowing the host body to combat the virus more effectively. It also suppresses inflammatory processes

From [HERE] Remember when Washington Post reporters were boldly declaring that vitamins C and D could not (and should not) be used against respiratory infections? The information I was sharing about their use was deemed so dangerous to public health that I was branded as a "fake news" site by self-appointed, pharma-owned arbiters of truth like NewsGuard.

How times have changed. After having defamatory lies published about me, vitamins C and D are now (finally) being adopted in the conventional treatment of novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

That just goes to show that when push comes to shove, the truth eventually prevails. When the medicine cabinet is empty, and doctors have limited options, suddenly the basics become viable again, and that is good news indeed, as it's likely to save thousands of lives, while keeping health care costs down.

Vitamin C Treatment Implemented for Coronavirus Infection

As reported by the New York Post, March 24, 2020:1

"Seriously sick coronavirus patients in New York state's largest hospital system are being given massive doses of vitamin C ... Dr. Andrew G. Weber, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist affiliated with two Northwell Health facilities on Long Island, said his intensive-care patients with the coronavirus immediately receive 1,500 milligrams of intravenous vitamin C.

Identical amounts of the powerful antioxidant are then re-administered three or four times a day, he said ... The regimen is based on experimental treatments administered to people with the coronavirus in Shanghai, China ...

'The patients who received vitamin C did significantly better than those who did not get vitamin C,' he said. 'It helps a tremendous amount, but it is not highlighted because it's not a sexy drug' ...

Weber ... said vitamin C levels in coronavirus patients drop dramatically when they suffer sepsis, an inflammatory response that occurs when their bodies overreact to the infection. 'It makes all the sense in the world to try and maintain this level of vitamin C,' he said."

A Northwell Health spokesperson reportedly confirmed that vitamin C treatment was being "widely used" against coronavirus within the 23-hospital system. According to Weber, vitamin C was used in conjunction with the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin, which have also shown promise in coronavirus treatment.2

Vitamin C Is a Vastly Underutilized Antiviral 'Drug'

According to Dr. Ronald Hunninghake, an internationally recognized expert on vitamin C who has personally supervised tens of thousands of intravenous (IV) vitamin C administrations, vitamin C is "definitely a very underutilized modality in infectious disease," considering "it's really a premiere treatment" for infections.

In my interview with him, Hunninghake suggested one of the reasons why conventional medicine has been so slow to recognize the importance of vitamin C has to do with the fact that they've been looking at it as a mere vitamin, when in fact it's a potent oxidizing agent that can help eliminate pathogens when given in high doses.

There are also financial factors. In short, it's too inexpensive. Conventional medicine, as a general rule, is notoriously uninterested in solutions that cannot produce significant profits. One of the primary reasons we started seeing its use against COVID-19 is undoubtedly because at the time we had no expensive drugs in the medical arsenal that could be turned to.

In my March 17, 2020, interview with Dr. Andrew Saul, editor-in-chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, he mentions being in contact with a South Korean medical doctor who was giving patients and medical staff an injection of 100,000 IUs of vitamin D along with as much as 24,000 mg (24 grams) of IV vitamin C. "He's reporting that these people are getting well in a matter of days," Saul says.

As explained by Saul, vitamin C at extremely high doses acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses. While it does have anti-inflammatory activity, which helps prevent the massive cytokine cascade associated with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, it's antiviral capacity likely has more to do with it being a non-rate-limited free radical scavenger. As explained by Saul in our interview:

"Cathcart's view is that you simply push in vitamin C to provide the electrons to reduce the free radicals. This is the way Cathcart and Levy look at vitamin C's function (at very high doses) as an antiviral.

At modest doses, normal supplemental doses ... vitamin C strengthens the immune system because the white blood cells need it to work. White blood cells carry around in them a lot of vitamin C ... So, vitamin C is very well-known to directly beef up the immune system through the white blood cells." [MORE]

Complaint Filed Against Pfizer’s CEO for making ‘Disgracefully Misleading Statements’ that; 'COVID is Thriving Among Kids.’ In Reality, There’s No Evidence Healthy Kids Have Any Significant Risk

From [HERE] and [HERE] Dr Albert Bourla used an interview with the BBC last December to claim that “there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely, are in favour of” vaccinating youngsters aged five to 11 against Covid-19. 

He argued that “Covid in schools is thriving” adding: “This is disturbing, significantly, the educational system, and there are kids that will have severe symptoms.”

The interview was published on Dec 2 - before the vaccine had been approved by Britain’s medical regulator for this age group. 

Shortly after the article’s publication, a complaint was submitted to the pharmaceutical watchdog - the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) - by UsForThem, a parent campaign group which was set up to promote the plight of children during the pandemic. 

‘Extremely promotional in nature’

The complaint alleged that Dr Bourla’s remarks about the children’s vaccine were “disgracefully misleading” and “extremely promotional in nature”, arguing that it breached several clauses of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s (ABPI) code of practice. 

“There is simply no evidence that healthy schoolchildren in the UK are at significant risk from the SARS COV-2 virus and to imply that they are is disgracefully misleading,” they said. [MORE]

FDA is Coin-Operated: Although the FDA doesn't accept corporate money, it gets money funneled via a nonprofit foundation, which receives money from other nonprofits funded by private interests

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself does not accept corporate money, it does receive money funneled via a nonprofit foundation, which receives money from other nonprofits funded by private interests

• The Reagan-Udall Foundation is a nonprofit foundation created by Congress in 2007 to support scientific research that is of interest to the FDA. It accepts grants from government, individual donors and other nonprofits — even when those nonprofits are created and funded by industry

• The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

• Ellen Sigal, who currently chairs the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s board of directors, is also vice president of the Cancer Moonshot program, funded by the Gates Foundation, and she’s on the board of the Parker Institute, which is partnered with Inovio, a Gates-funded company that is currently working on a COVID-19 vaccine

• According to the rules, no more than four of the 14-member board of the Reagan-Udall Foundation are supposed to be representatives of FDA-regulated industries, yet in 2017, nine of the then 13-member board had financial ties to industry at the time of their appointment

From [HERE] If you’re like most people, you probably assume that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is funded by the U.S. government and therefore isn’t catering to private industries.

The agency itself certainly tries to present itself as independent from the industries it regulates but, in reality, legal loopholes have led to the FDA receiving money from, and being captured and corrupted by, private interests.

While the FDA itself does not accept corporate money, it does receive money funneled via a nonprofit foundation, which in turn receives money from other nonprofits funded by private interests. It’s really all a façade because the end result is the same. Those donating the money ultimately end up with the ability to pull strings, when needed.

The Reagan-Udall Foundation

As explained by NPR1 back in 2012, the Reagan-Udall Foundation is a nonprofit foundation created by Congress in 2007 to support scientific research that is of interest to the FDA. According to NPR:2

“The idea was that this foundation could do things the FDA can't. It would raise money from private sources, fund research in areas where the FDA lacks expertise, and organize collaborations involving industry, patient groups and academia.”

As explained in a 2008 article3 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the creation of the Reagan-Udall Foundation was part of a larger plan to establish a private-public partnership to facilitate the Critical Path Initiative.

The Critical Path Initiative was part of the FDA’s attempts to streamline and modernize the drug approval process by having companies pay user fees. Part of the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s responsibilities was to set goals and priorities for the Critical Path Initiative, and then award grants to meet those goals.

Massive Loophole: Nonprofits Funded by Industry

However, critics voiced concern, saying the Reagan-Udall Foundation might allow the food and medical industries “to sway FDA decisions,” since it could raise money from private, including industry, sources. To quell some of these fears, the Reagan-Udall Foundation said it would only accept grants from government, individual donors and other nonprofits, not industry.

After a few years of scraping by on small, private donations, the foundation received a $150,000 grant from the PhRMA Foundation, another nonprofit foundation funded by drug companies. Being a nonprofit, the PhRMA Foundation fit the description of an acceptable funding source, but just how independent can it actually be when it’s founded and funded by drug companies?

As noted by consumer advocate Sidney Wolfe with Public Citizen, while the PhRMA Foundation is technically a nonprofit, “one can hardly expect that they're going to do things that are not in the interests of their funders."4

Indeed, and this influence is in addition to the influence food, drug and medical device companies already have, by way of user fees. Again, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act established an accelerated application process for new drugs. The sped-up process is funded through industry-paid fees.

This fee, however, works more like a payoff or soft bribe. When a company pays the FDA for an accelerated review, the agency no longer has an incentive to find fault with the product or demand more extensive testing.

FDA Foundation Funded by the Gates Foundation

Not surprisingly, the Reagan-Udall Foundation has received large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which we now know rarely does anything that doesn’t benefit Gates’ personal bottom line and overall agenda.

As detailed in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” Gates has used his philanthropy to shape public policy in ways that benefit his own agenda.

A March 17, 2020, article5 in The Nation titled, “Bill Gates’ Charity Paradox,” even points out that the Gates Foundation has given $2 billion in tax-deductible charitable donations to private companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, Vodafone, the Mastercard affiliate MasterCard Labs for Financial Inclusion,6 7 Scholastic Inc. and NBC Universal Media.8 9

Many of these so-called donations end up benefiting the Gates Foundation, as it also invests in the very same companies and industries that it donates money to. This circular economy is why Gates just keeps getting richer, the more money he gives away.

Part of this wealth growth also appears to be due to the tax breaks given for charitable donations. In short, it’s a perfect money-shuffling scheme that limits taxes while maximizing income generation.

If donating to for-profit companies sounds oddly illegal to you, you’d be right. Gates is a tax evader for doing so — he’s simply getting away with it. The nonprofit foundation is a disguise to avoid taxes while funding the research arms of for-profit organizations that his foundation is invested in, which is illegal.

The image below shows donations received by the Reagan-Udall Foundation in 2013. Topping the list is the Gates Foundation, whose contributions for the year amounted to $977,165, followed by a string of drug companies. [MORE]

Who are the Eugenicists Mandating Genocidal COVID Shots for Children? CDC’s So-Called ‘Independent’ Vaccine Advisors are Tied to US Health Agencies, Big Pharma

From [HERE] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) “independent vaccine advisers” voted 15-0 on Oct. 20 to add COVID-19 vaccines to the 2023 childhood, adolescent and adult immunization schedules, prompting Americans to question the integrity of the agency’s panel tasked with making vaccine recommendations for kids.

Schools and state legislatures use the CDC’s immunization schedules to set vaccine requirements for students who wish to attend school, which will inevitably force millions of children across the U.S. who live in states where there are no religious or philosophical exemptions to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Only 21 states have explicitly banned mandating the shots for students.

According to the CDC, its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) committee consists of medical and public health experts who develop recommendations on the use of vaccines in the U.S.

Their recommendations form the basis of the CDC’s public health guidance for the “safe use of vaccines and related biological products,” and set the agency’s immunization schedule.

Since the first COVID-19 vaccine was authorized on Dec. 14, 2020, people have witnessed what can only be described as shocking guidance issued by the CDC, which not only signed off on COVID-19 vaccines for kids but recently authorized bivalent boosters for children that have not been subjected to human clinical trials.

Although the CDC and corporate media claim the agency’s vaccine advisory panel making COVID-19 vaccine recommendations are independent experts capable of rendering objective opinions, and by extension, objective votes, this is simply not true. Every single panel member has ties to either U.S. regulatory agencies or the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the vaccines they’re tasked with regulating.

What is the ACIP committee and who decides who’s on it?

The ACIP was established under Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. §2l7a) and is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App 2).

The ACIP provides advice and guidance to the CDC’s director on the use of vaccines. If accepted, the recommendations are published as official recommendations by the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

According to the CDC’s website, the ACIP includes 15 voting members tasked with making vaccine recommendations for the entire country. Members are selected by the secretary of HHS following an application and nomination process.

This is the same HHS that gave billions of U.S. tax dollars to pharmaceutical companies to develop and manufacture COVID-19 vaccines, gave billions to Pfizer and Moderna to purchase vaccine doses, collaborated with Johnson & Johnson to produce millions of “investigational” vaccine doses, was given $10 billion by the Biden administration to “expand access” to vaccines, launched a public education campaign with only positive messaging to increase confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, gave $3 billion to the CDC to fund similar initiatives, and through public relations agencies, contracted with the corporate media to advertise only positive messaging about COVID-19 vaccines — depriving the American people of informed consent.

Currently, 14 members of ACIP have expertise in “vaccinology, immunology, pediatrics, internal medicine, nursing, family medicine, virology, public health, infectious diseases and/or preventive medicine. One member is a “consumer representative” who provides insight on the “social and community aspects” of vaccination.

In addition to 15 voting members, ACIP includes eight “ex officio members,” who have their position simply because of the office they hold. These ex officio members represent other federal agencies with “responsibility for immunization programs” in the U.S.

Ex officio members are expected to “represent the position and views of their sponsoring organizations, and to contribute to Committee discussions when issues of importance to their organization are being discussed and when they possess information important to the discussion.” Ex officio and liaison members also may serve on work groups to “provide expert advice” and apprise the work group of the position their organization endorses.

According to the CDC, ex officio members generally do not vote; however, if fewer than a quorum of ACIP members are eligible to vote due to absence or other conflicts of interest, the designee can temporarily designate the ex officio member — with obvious conflicts of interest — as a voting member.

There are also 30 non-voting representatives of “liaison organizations” with “related immunization expertise,” such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Immunization Registry Association, American Medical Association, American Pharmacists Association, Association for Prevention Biotechnology Industry Organization and National Medical Association.

Although the 15 voting members and representatives serve on the ACIP committee voluntarily — allowing the CDC to claim they are an “independent” panel of vaccine advisors — these members have conflicts of interest with both the CDC and pharmaceutical companies whose products they are regulating.

The one member of the current ACIP committee with no medical expertise runs an organization founded in the name of her child who allegedly died of pertussis and is funded by the CDC to promote vaccines for kids.

Excluded from these meetings are experts and scientists who have questioned COVID-19 vaccines and treatment protocols, organizations like the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, America’s Frontline Doctors and the almost one million doctors and experts who signed on to the Great Barrington Declaration.

There is not one member of the committee representing the thousands of vaccine-injured children, nor any organizations advocating for the millions of reported COVID-19 vaccine injuries represented.

It would seem on its face, that the CDC’s “independent” committee of vaccine advisors is biased and financially incentivized in other ways toward creating recommendations that favor a particular outcome. The only challenges to scientific consensus they receive come from the handful of public submissions — both for and against vaccine policy — that are allowed to be featured during a meeting.

Although thousands of public comments are posted for ACIP on the CDC’s website and agency guidelines state “comments will be addressed as soon as possible,” public commenting appears to be a mere formality, giving the public a false impression their voices are being heard.

As quickly as the CDC moves, and given the fact they had published an interim 2023 immunization schedule prior to the meeting that included the COVID-19 vaccines, it’s likely most of these comments joined the internet abyss of the millions ignored before them.

CDC ‘independent’ vaccine advisors have ties to CDC and Big Pharma

According to the CDC, the 15 members of its ACIP committee making the COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for U.S children and adults include:  

1. Lynne Bahta is a registered nurse and the immunization program clinical consultant for the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). In the fiscal year 2021, MDH received $11.6 million in Public Health Emergency Preparedness funding from the CDC and $34 million in crisis response funding for COVID-19.
   
   The CDC on Sept. 20, 2022, announced $90 million in funding to establish the Pathogen Genomics Centers of Excellence (PGCoE) network. The PGCoE network is a genomic surveillance program designed to “foster and improve innovation and technical capacity in pathogen genomics, molecular epidemiology, and bioinformatics to better prevent, control and respond to microbial threats.”
   
   MDH, where Bahta is employed, is one of five recipients of the $90 million CDC grant.

2. Dr. Beth Bell is a clinical professor in the Department of Global Health at the University of Washington School of Public Health; however, she spent most of her career in “government service” at the CDC before joining the CDC’s “independent” panel of vaccine advisors.
   
   Bell started working with the CDC in 1992 and is the former director of the agency’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases.
   

3. Dr. Oliver Brooks is the chief medical officer at Watts Healthcare Corporation in Los Angeles, California. He is a past president of the National Medical Association, chairman of the Immunize LA Families Coalition and past president and current director of the California Immunization Coalition — which worked with Vaccinate California to secure the passing of SB 277 that removed the religious vaccine exemption for children.
   
   According to Dollars for Docs and Open Payments, Brooks received thousands of dollars as a consultant and promotional speaker for vaccines prior to joining the CDC’s “independent” committee of vaccine advisors.
   
   Brooks received payments from Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. for Pentacel (DTaP-IPV/Hib 5-in-1 vaccine), Menactra (meningococcal conjugate vaccine), and influenza vaccines (Flublok Quadrivalent and high-dose Fluzone), GlaxoSmithKline for SHINGRIX (shingles), Merck for Gardasil and RotaTeq, Adacel for its Tdap vaccine and PREVNAR 13, manufactured by Pfizer.
   

4. Dr. Wilbur Chen is a professor of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and director of the University of Maryland Baltimore Travel Medicine Practice. Chen is also an investigator within the Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Unit and Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Centers, both of which are funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) run by Dr. Anthony Fauci.
   
   The University of Maryland has received millions of dollars in grants from the NIAID and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The university’s “Prevention Research Center” (PRC) is one of 26 PRCs funded by the CDC’s 2019–2024 funding cycle.
   
   According to the CDC, in April 2021, the agency funded all 26 PRCs to form the PRC Vaccine Confidence Network (VCN) to support the agency’s vaccine strategy for COVID-19. [MORE]

Unelected Ruler Fauci "Can't Recall" Much During 7-hr Deposition by State AG’s Alleging Collusion to Censor Info About the Dangers of COVID Shots. Defended Lockdowns that Destroyed Jobs/Businesses

From [HERE] and [HERE] Dr. Anthony Fauci was subjected to a seven-hour-long deposition Wednesday when he was grilled about his knowledge and/or involvement in the Biden administration’s collusion with tech oligarchies to censor speech regarding COVID-19. 

Dr. Anthony Fauci faced questions from Attorneys General Eric Schmitt (Missouri) and Jeff Landry (Louisiana) in their lawsuit against the federal government for allegedly colluding with Big Tech platforms to censor content critical of COVID-19 vaccines and countermeasures.

Fauci sat for a deposition one day after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted the depositions of three other Biden administration officials.

The lawsuit, filed in May by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, alleges a “collusion enterprise” based on previously revealed internal emails between the federal government and social media companies. Judge Terry Doughty ruled in favor of deposing top Biden officials, including former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, current White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and Anthony Fauci. 

While the deposition will be sealed under court order, some of the attorneys have already dropped teasers on social media about their deposition with the 81-year-old public health chief. 

“One thing is clear from the 7 hour deposition of Dr. Fauci today: When Fauci speaks — social media censors,” wrote Attorney General Eric Schmitt on Twitter Wednesday. 

Some takeaways from the deposition of Fauci: 

• Fauci knew the Lab Leak theory had merit but it’d come back to him & sought to immediately discredit it

• He defended lockdowns

• The rest of us ‘don’t have the ability’ to determine what’s best for ourselves

“More to come—Stay tuned,” Schmitt added. 

“Wow! It was amazing to spend 7 hours with Dr. Fauci,” tweeted Louisiana AG Landry. “The man who single-handedly wrecked the U.S. economy based upon ‘the science.’ Only to discover that he can't recall practically anything dealing with his Covid response!” [MORE]

In a statement released Tuesday in advance of Fauci’s deposition, Schmitt said:

“Tomorrow, along with my colleague from Louisiana, my Office and I will depose Dr. Anthony Fauci in our lawsuit against the Biden Administration for allegedly colluding with social media companies to censor freedom of speech.

“Since we filed our landmark lawsuit, we have uncovered documents and discovery that show clear coordination between the Biden Administration and social media companies on censoring speech, but we’re not done yet. We plan to get answers on behalf of the American people. Stay tuned.”

Schmitt and Landry sued President Biden, Fauci and others on May 5. New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonprofit group representing outspoken critics of COVID-19 vaccines and countermeasures, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty and also Jill Hines, joined the lawsuit in August, as did Jim Hoft, founder and editor-in-chief of The Gateway Pundit.

According to the complaint, government officials colluded with and coerced Big Tech and social media platforms to “suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content” relating to COVID-19.

Several officials named in the suit, including former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, argued they shouldn’t be required to be deposed, but a federal judge on Monday denied a request to quash Psaki’s subpoena.

The same judge, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, on Oct. 21 ordered Fauci and other government officials to provide depositions under oath.

In addition to Fauci and Psaki, other government officials slated to be deposed include:

• FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan

• Carol Crawford, chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Digital Media Branch

• Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly

• White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty

• Daniel Kimmage, an official at the State Department’s Global Engagement Center

• U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy

Two lower-level officials were listed as alternates: Lauren Protentis of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in place of Easterly, and former White House COVID-19 adviser Andrew Slavitt in place of Flaherty.

A previous ruling had forced the above-named individuals to provide written testimony.

Judge rejects ‘self-serving blanket denials’

In his Oct. 21 ruling, Judge Doughty agreed with the plaintiffs that Fauci’s prior “self-serving blanket denials” regarding his role in censoring certain types of content and viewpoints on social media could not be taken at face value, necessitating a deposition.

Fauci challenged the order to sit for a deposition, arguing the communications in question are protected by executive privilege. But Judge Doughty ordered Fauci to turn over the documents within 21 days and to answer the plaintiffs’ questions in full.

Landry and Schmitt filed a request for depositions Oct. 10. In a statement released at the time by Schmitt, he said:

“After finding documentation of a collusive relationship between the Biden administration and social media companies to censor free speech, we immediately filed a motion to get these officials under oath.

“It is high time we shine a light on this censorship enterprise and force these officials to come clean to the American people, and this ruling will allow us to do just that. We’ll keep pressing for the truth.”

Depositions of three Biden administration officials on hold

In an order issued Monday, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit temporarily halted the scheduled depositions of Easterly, Flaherty and Murthy.

According to Politico, the three-judge panel unanimously found Judge Doughty had erred in approving the depositions without first examining whether there were “other means” of obtaining the information the plaintiffs are seeking.

The court sent the case back to Doughty for further review. According to the order:

“Thus, before any of the depositions may go forward, the district court must analyze whether the information sought can be obtained through less intrusive, alternative means, such as further written discovery or depositions of lower-ranking officials.

“Written findings as to the availability and sufficiency of alternatives need to be entered.”

In a statement provided to The Defender by Landry’s office, Landry said, “These developments do not change my pursuit of the truth. We respect the court’s decision and will continue in the discovery phase of this case.”

Thursday’s court order came after lawyers for the government argued the plaintiffs should not have the ability to depose the three officials in question, on the basis that they are high-ranking government officials, and that the depositions would “unavoidably distract” them from “their important and time-sensitive duties,” which would “cause irreparable harm.”

However, the federal government’s motion for a partial stay of Judge Doughty’s deposition order was denied. The Nov. 21 order stated, “We make no ruling on the petition … at this time.”

Easterly, Flaherty and Murthy were scheduled to be deposed in early December.

On Wednesday Judge Doughty, in a separate ruling, ordered Psaki to sit for a deposition and rejected an attempt to shield FBI Agent Chan from answering questions under oath.

Plaintiffs in the case argued that none of the officials were “high-ranking,” and Judge Doughty agreed, finding that the “burdens” the officials would face as a result of sitting for depositions were outweighed by the necessity of gathering more information regarding the allegations in question prior to ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction.

According to the 5th Circuit’s order:

“It is not enough, as the district court found, that these officials may have ‘personal knowledge’ about certain communications.

“That knowledge may be shared widely or have only marginal importance in comparison to the ‘potential burden’ imposed on the deponent.”

According to the court, the government already produced “extensive written discovery.” The government claims that these documents do not reveal any violations of the First Amendment, while the plaintiffs claim otherwise.

Politico also reported that the 5th Circuit asked Judge Doughty to consider ruling on the overall viability of the lawsuit before allowing the depositions to proceed.

The 5th Circuit said Judge Doughty should have not issued a ruling regarding the depositions until the courts decided on the government’s motion to dismiss — even though that motion was withdrawn after plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the government has not filed a new motion to dismiss.

According to Politico, the 5th Circuit’s order is not final: Judge Doughty may still decide, based on a newly clarified analysis, that depositions of Easterly, Flaherty and Murthy are needed.

Politico also reported that the 5th Circuit’s order may strengthen efforts by Psaki and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to halt her deposition.

At a recent hearing, Psaki’s lawyers claimed there is no evidence she had met or had been in contact with any social media executives regarding purported “misinformation,” although she did express critical remarks about social media platforms during White House press briefings.

In his Nov. 21 order, Judge Doughty rejected that claim, writing:

“Despite the fact that Psaki is a former high-ranking official, the potential burden upon Psaki was outweighed by the need to determine whether free speech had been suppressed.”

Previously, a federal judge in Virginia rejected the arguments made by Psaki and the DOJ, including that sitting for a deposition would place an “undue burden” on her, taking her away from her family and her new job at MSNBC for several days.

Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia passed the issue to Judge Doughty. Davis dismissed Psaki’s claims, arguing that Psaki and the DOJ were attempting an “end-run” around the deposition order.

Judge Doughty previously found “that Plaintiffs have proven that Jennifer Psaki has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19.”

“Psaki has made a number of statements that are relevant to the Government’s involvement in a number of social-media platforms’ efforts to censor its users across the board for sharing information related to COVID-19,” Judge Doughty added. “Any burden on Psaki is outweighed by the need to determine whether free speech has been suppressed.”

Wave of Litigation Over COVID Mandates — Nike, Others Face Suits from Fired Workers who Declined to Take Deadly, Experimental Shots Granted Immunity by Government for Any Injury or Death Caused

From [HERE] Nike and Washington State University (WSU) are two of the latest employers to face lawsuits from employees who lost their jobs over COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Three former senior employees last week sued Nike, demanding punitive damages for religious discrimination, medical discrimination and battery after they were fired or lost their jobs due to Nike’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate.

On Nov. 11, Nick Rolovich, former WSU football coach, sued the university, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and WSU athletic director Pat Chun seeking damages after he was fired last year for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

The two lawsuits came on the heels of another suit filed last week by three former National Basketball Association (NBA) referees who sued the NBA after they were fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds.

It’s all part of a “wave of vaccine mandate litigation” that has grown to more than 1,000 lawsuits challenging vaccine mandates and filed primarily against employers in the last several months, according to the National Law Review.

Individual employers have had success on some of the claims made against them, but the increase in litigation is having an effect, according to the National Law Review, which reported:

“With worker shortages, changing attitudes toward COVID-19, updated CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance and the litigation risks, many employers who are not required to have vaccine mandates have decided to move forward without them.”

Nike: a diverse, equitable and inclusive employer, except when it comes to COVID

Nike presents itself as a “diverse, equitable, and inclusive employer,” but when it came to its COVID-19 mandatory vaccination policies, it “displayed blatant disregard for its own privacy policies and violated state and federal law,” according to the Health Freedom Defense Fund, which is helping the former Nike employees sue the company.

In February 2022, Nike began terminating employees for failing to demonstrate vaccination against COVID-19, implementing one of the strictest vaccine policies in Oregon where its headquarters are located.

In their complaint, filed Nov. 15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in Portland, three former senior employees allege Nike “enforced its mandatory vaccine policy aggressively,” refusing to consider reasonable accommodations for some employees who declined vaccination.

Nike continued its mandatory vaccination policy, begun in October 2021, after it was apparent that the vaccines did not stop transmission of COVID-19 and after the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s mandate that large employers require their employees to get the vaccine, according to the claim.

The lawsuit alleges Nike fired two of the claimants, Doug Kerkering and Hannah Thibodo, because they had a “perceived disability” — their immune systems did not sufficiently protect them from COVID-19.

The plaintiffs’ attorney Scott Street told The Defender:

“Since the COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread, we contend that Nike viewed the unvaccinated as having inferior immune systems with respect to COVID which prevents them from being able to work. That is a perceived disability protected from discrimination under federal law.”

The plaintiffs proposed accommodations such as testing, masking or working from home, but Nike fired them instead.

The lawsuit also alleges Nike disregarded “sincerely held religious beliefs or practices” of the third claimant, Wanda Rozwadowska.

According to Street, Rozwadowska applied for religious accommodation and was denied. She appealed, and eventually, the company granted the accommodation — but only after business hours on the date of the vaccine deadline, so she was coerced into getting the shot before her accommodation was approved.

Rozwadowska suffered a severe autoimmune response to vaccination that rendered her unable to work and compelled her to leave the company.

“We are helping the plaintiffs to sue Nike because we want to send a loud and clear message to corporate America that their employees’ rights are not negotiable and that their employees are not disposable,” said Leslie Manookian, president of Health Freedom Defense Fund.

This is not the first time employees sued Nike over its vaccine policy. In August, an Oregon judge ruled that an employee who refused to document his COVID-19 status should have been eligible for unemployment benefits after the company fired him.

It is unclear how many employees Nike fired in total for its vaccine mandate, which the company rescinded last week. 

‘Ugly conversations’ with WSU administration preceded Rolovich’s termination

Rolovich filed his lawsuit against WSU in Whitman County Court, alleging “breach of contract, discrimination against religion, wrongful withholding of wages and violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as the First and 14th Amendments.”

WSU fired Rolovich and four assistant coaches in October 2021 for failing to comply with the state’s vaccine mandate, even after Rolovich, who is Catholic, applied for a religious exemption.

The university fired Rolovich for cause, which prevented him from collecting the remaining $9 million on his contract.

Rolovich’s attorney, Brian Fahling, said at the time his client would take legal action for religious discrimination. He filed a 34-page letter with the university appealing the university’s decision to fire Rolovich, but the appeal was denied.

In April 2022, Rolovich filed a $25 million wrongful termination tort claim against the school — a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against a state agency.

Rolovich seeks unspecified damages from the university, the governor and the athletic director for lost past and future income, liquidated damages from his employment, punitive damages and legal costs.

WSU Vice President for Marketing and Communications Phil Weiler told The Seattle Times in an email that Rolovich’s lawsuit “is wholly without merit” and that in denying Rolovich’s exemption request, the university enforced the vaccine mandate “in a fair and lawful manner.”

In an interview with The Daily Wire’s BreakAways series in September, Rolovich spoke publicly for the first time about the lawsuit, detailing the “ugly conversations” he said went on with school administrators prior to his firing, ESPN reported.

He told host Allison Williams that he refused to take the vaccine because of the “lack of answers, lack of dialogue” about the effects of the vaccines and because of his beliefs as a Catholic.

Rolovich said when he informed WSU Athletic Director Pat Chun that he planned to request a religious exemption, Chun responded, “We’re not going to believe you, you know, the governor’s not happy with you.”

Rolovich also alleged that the human resources department approved his exemption, but that Chun wrote a memo challenging Rolovich’s right to an exemption.

Responding to William’s question about how losing his job would affect him financially, Rolovich said:

“What about all the people who lost and that were going check-to-check? Those people deserve credit for having conviction in their beliefs too, more than me … firefighters that I know, or police officers, or frontline doctors and nurses, it’s like, those people, in my opinion of what they gave up, was more than mine. I just happened to have a higher-profile job.

“The hypocrisy of the last two years, just all over, it’s just not a real good look on our society.”

Massachusetts Death Certificates Show Excess Mortality Could Be Linked to COVID Injections

From [HERE] John Beaudoin, Sr., who analyzed nearly seven years of Massachusetts death certificates he obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Beaudoin’s findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 death toll in Massachusetts was largely confined to a short window of time in 2020, and that COVID-19 deaths in 2020 resulted from pulmonary causes — in contrast to COVID-19 deaths in 2021, which were more closely linked to illnesses of the heart and blood.

There is no reasonable way to explain how SARS-CoV-2 dramatically changed the way it attacks and kills human beings and why it did so at precisely the time the experimental mRNA inoculations were deployed.

Beaudoin’s analysis also suggests that medical fraud and negligence may have been in play on a scale yet to be definitively determined.

Massachusetts: a center of COVID controversy

Beaudoin is a fellow resident of Massachusetts. Just down the road from us sit some of the most renowned hospitals and centers for medical research. None seem interested in validating or refuting the devastating implications of Beaudoin’s findings.

Boston was home to the infamous Biogen conference held in March 2020. The event was considered to be one of the first “super spreader events” in the country.

In the summer of 2021, an outbreak of COVID-19 in Massachusetts’ Barnstable County forced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to acknowledge that the injectable mRNA therapies were worthless.

When all was said and done, the vaccinated comprised a larger percentage of those who contracted COVID-19 than you would expect from a random sample of the county’s residents.

Of those who were hospitalized in this outbreak, 80% were fully vaccinated. The “vaccines” offered no protection against severe disease.

In other words, there was no evidence that the vaccine offered any protection against infection.

Furthermore, vaccination status had no bearing on the viral load of those who got sick. Because viral load is correlated with infectiousness, the vaccine did not offer any reduction in transmissibility.

In one of its first real-world tests, the rapidly developed, tested and deployed therapy failed completely on all counts.

Massachusetts researchers can’t seem to move on from mask mandates

Earlier this month, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) found there was an increase in COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts school districts that lifted their mask mandates.

The authors of the study were researchers from the Boston Public Health Commission and venerated, local academic institutions in Boston (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Boston University, the Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School).

According to the authors, school districts with mask mandates had 39.9 fewer cases per 1,000 students over a 15-week period.

I wish to pose a simple question to the dutiful scientists down the road: so what?

Although districts that continued to enforce mask mandates after the statewide mandate was dropped had a lower COVID-19 incidence rate, mask mandates did not eliminate the transmission of the disease. Those districts still had 60 cases per 1,000 students.

The NEJM authors also proved that COVID-19 is transmissible whether or not masking precautions are implemented.

Children are going to get COVID-19 whether they are forced to wear a mask or not. There is no longer a need to “flatten the curve” until a miracle “vaccine” can be developed at “warp speed.”

COVID-19 is a disease that will be with us for the foreseeable future. What is the point of such a study? To convince Massachusetts residents that a modest decrease in school days missed is worth the imposition of perpetual mask mandates upon their children?

The ‘Big Story’ in Massachusetts

While the NEJM researchers were busy tabulating COVID-19 infection rates in different school districts during the first part of 2022, a far more important story was unfolding in Massachusetts.

Through a FOIA request made to the state’s department of public records, Beaudoin, an electrical engineer, obtained access to every death certificate in the state of Massachusetts between 2015 and September 2022.

His investigation into these records paints a disquieting picture of how the COVID-19 “vaccine” likely devastated the health of Massachusetts residents.

Beaudoin’s analysis is detailed and rigorous and stands as an example of why a medical degree or an academic appointment is not required to uncover explosive evidence.

In fact, those kinds of credentials can often be impediments rather than assets. There is no excuse why the Massachusetts Department of Public Health has not done the analysis Beaudoin chose to do himself.

For the purposes of this article, I will focus on the summary points. A deeper dive can be found on Mathew Crawford’s “Rounding The Earth” podcast or in Beaudoin’s own Substack, which he writes under the name “Coquin de Chien.”

Below is a plot of the raw numbers of daily deaths (confirmed by death certificates) over time for the years 2015-2021 overlayed:

The takeaway is impossible to miss. The rise and fall of daily deaths over a 10-week period in the early-to-late spring of 2020 is representative of a non-immune population encountering an infectious and virulent pathogen for the first time. This bump in the black line was from the casualties of the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Massachusetts.

Whether or not the state was still in the throes of a pandemic emergency beyond the first few weeks of June 2020 is debatable because it is quite clear that daily deaths quickly returned to baseline and stayed there until the autumn — when a far less lethal second wave hit the state. Recall that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) stipulates that a public emergency is required before any mitigating therapy can obtain EUA.

The rapid rise and fall of deaths in Massachusetts in early 2020 is unmistakable, but who died? Beaudoin answers this question here:

This graphic visualization technique is called a heat map. Each cell in the array represents the deviation from the expected number of deaths in specific age groups at a specific time in 2020, based on values from 2015-2019. The deeper the red, the greater the difference is over expected levels. The deeper the blue, the lower the difference.

The majority of the casualties were confined to the elderly (65 and older) over a 10-week period. This is represented by the deep red cells in ages over 65 starting April 1.

Contrary to the endless deluge of news reports that suggested otherwise, official death certificates indicate the pandemic in Massachusetts was short-lived and affected only the most vulnerable.

Beaudoin gives us the equivalent heat map for the year 2021. Once again comparisons are made with the years 2015-2019: [MORE]

Despite Media Propaganda 50% of Americans Now Question Vax Safety. VAERS Data Shows Over 1.4M Adverse Events and 30K Deaths Caused by COVID Shots. No Other "Vaccine" has ever Caused as Many Injuries

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has now logged over 1.4 million adverse events associated with the COVID-19 shots, including more than 30,000 deaths, half of which are from the United States. No other vaccine has ever caused as many injuries

• While the harms are undeniable, health authorities are still doing what they can to deny the risks associated with the COVID shots. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fought for 15 months to avoid releasing V-Safe data. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is also refusing to release autopsy reports of those who died post-jab

• The culture wars that are going on in the world are really about collectivism versus individualism. The globalist cabal are desperately trying to convince countries to adopt a collectivist philosophy, which they refer to as “prosociality,” and move away from respect for the individual and individual rights. Nowhere is this currently more apparent than in the medical field and public health policy

From [MERCOLA] This week, we celebrate our 13th anniversary of Vaccine Awareness Week. In this video, Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) — which celebrated its 40th anniversary as a nonprofit organization in April 2022 — summarizes some of the high and low points we’ve experienced over the past year.

As usual, I will match all donations made to the NVIC during this week, so it’s a great time to contribute, as each dollar you give will be doubled. As a company, we’ve supported the NVIC for 14 years. In 2023, it’ll be 15 years since I made the commitment to support this extraordinary charitable organization, which fights for protection of informed consent rights and medical freedom like no other.

Onslaught of COVID Shot Injuries

Needless to say, it’s been a rough couple of years in terms of defending the human right to autonomy and medical freedom. Unconstitutional and dangerous COVID shot mandates have resulted in the greatest avalanche of medically-induced injuries ever seen. As explained by Fisher:

“It was parents of DPT vaccine-injured children [who] launched the vaccine safety and informed consent movement in this country — the modern vaccine safety and informed consent movement — because, really, we owe a debt of gratitude to the parents, doctors and scientists back in the 1800s and early 1900s [who] rang the first warning bell about the risks associated with the smallpox vaccine — one of the most reactive vaccines that has ever been used — until the COVID shots.

The statistics in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) on MedAlerts, which has been operating since 2003 ... has logged in over 1.4 million adverse events associated with the COVID-19 shots and over 30,000 deaths. About 15,000 of those death reports are from the United States, because the VAER system also accepts reports from foreign countries that use U.S. vaccines. 

There's never been a vaccine that has generated that kind of adverse event reporting ever ... at least since 1990 when they started [operating] VAERS. The VAER system was created under the [1986] National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

The VAER system was a unique contribution that we [parents of vaccine-injured children] made. We insisted [on] a centralized vaccine adverse event reporting system that was transparently open to the public, accessible by the public, and that the public could report reactions [to], not just doctors.

The 1.4 million adverse events associated with COVID ‘vaccines’ is the highest number ever reported for a vaccine since 1990, and comprises about half of all reports that have been made to VAERS since 1990. It's a stunning statistic. 

It's something they cannot deny, even though they try to say, ‘Well, not everything that's reported is causally associated with the vaccines.’ Of course, they don't know how many are or are not. The stark fact that more than half of the reports in VAERS have been made for COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ is something that can't be denied.” 

Lies and Cover-Ups 

While the harms are undeniable, based on the statistics, health authorities are still doing what they can to deny the risks associated with the COVID shots. For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fought for 15 months to avoid releasing V-Safe data.1,2 They eventually lost the fight and the data confirm what we’re seeing in VAERS.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is also refusing to release autopsy reports,3 even though those reports can be de-identified. They also will not release de-identified information on myocarditis, which is strongly associated with the COVID shots.

“When I look back at the last three years of this COVID pandemic, all I see are lies and cover-ups,” Fisher says. “It breaks my heart. We tried for many, many decades, we presented [information] to state legislatures, to the federal government, to the CDC, NIH [National Institutes of Health], FDA. 

I sat on government vaccine advisory committees begging them to do the science, the biological mechanism work that would inform the policy makers about what happens in the body when vaccines are injected. They refused to do that work so they could identify people who are genetically, biologically and environmentally at high risk for having a vaccine reaction. 

They refused to reform the system that would take out the vaccine safety oversight mechanism from HHS [Health and Human Services], which has the legal responsibility for developing vaccines, for regulating vaccines, for making policy for vaccines, and also has the safety oversight mechanism.

There is so much corruption now in this mass vaccination system — because it has been hijacked by Pharma and because Congress refused to have oversight on the whole vaccine program. They have allowed Pharma to hijack the system ... There were failures all along, for 40 years, failures to deal with the problem of conflicts of interest within the mass vaccination program ...

When I finally realized after several decades that they had absolutely no intention of fixing anything, or of learning, or trying to screen out people, that they didn't care [about injuries] — that's when I realized that this was a much bigger problem than I originally had thought when we were looking at just DPT vaccine ...

These public-private partnerships that have grown and been allowed by Congress have corrupted the system. You cannot have the same people who are profiting from the product in charge of making policy, regulating and [conducting] oversight on the safety of the product.”

Obedient Self-Sacrifice Is the New Virtue

Fisher cites The Lancet Commission’s report on “Lessons for the Future of the COVID-19 Pandemic,”4 and an accompanying editorial, “COVID-19: The Case for Prosociality,”5 both of which are published in the October 8, 2022, issue of The Lancet. The Commission’s report politicizes the COVID pandemic response and both it and the editorial try to make a case for what the authors call “prosociality.”

“What they want is for all countries to adopt a collectivist philosophy and move away from focusing on the individual,” Fisher explains. “The culture wars that are going on in the world are really about collectivism versus individualism. The United States of America was founded on the basic concept that the individual has rights which limit the power of the state. 

That's why we have a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, and why we have had in this country respect for freedom of thought, speech, conscience, religious belief and assembly — all of those things in the Bill of Rights that allow the individual to limit the power of the state. 

These people, and I'm talking basically the World Health Organization, these folks want a major reorganization and a refocus on the collectivist ideology, which means that the individual is less important than the state. What they're calling for is more power and more money to be given to the WHO so that future pandemics can be handled better. 

One of the top things they focus on is the fact that in the societies that are more individualistic — like the U.S. and Europe, [and] have more civil liberties, more respect for the individual — there was disobedience. People protested, people would not agree uniformly to masking and lockdowns and vaccination. 

They want more power and more money to create basically a quasi-world government that is led by WHO, by public health officials. Reading this report, I could not believe that they think they can get away with this. It is completely political. It is not scientific or medical. 

They blame everybody but themselves for the pandemic response that has ruined economies, that has affected the mental health and the educational status of children and adults, and has caused such devastation ...

We better start realizing that what happened with COVID had as much to do with politics and ideology as it did about a virus. If you look at the World Economic Forum (WEF), which has called for The Great Reset of society, it’s the same thing that was said in this Lancet Commission report.

They [authors of the report] talk about hiring more behavioral psychologists and others to persuade people to be more obedient the next time around. It's really shocking.”

Healthy Policy Based on False Assumptions and Lies

Surveys now show trust in public health officials is on the decline, which should come as no surprise considering how they’ve flip-flopped on their policies and denied easily provable facts. One of the biggest lies perpetuated was that the COVID shots would prevent infection and transmission.

Everybody assumed this was the case, as all other vaccines have been promoted as a way to prevent infection and transmission. Only those who actually read the FDA briefing document issued at the very beginning, like Fisher and I did, saw that manufacturers were only required to prove a 50% efficacy in preventing severe COVID disease — not in preventing infection and transmission.

“Only if you looked at that would you realize, from the get-go, that they knew the vaccines were not going to prevent infection and transmission,” Fisher says.

They never tested it, and without testing, no claims can be made whatsoever. And yet that’s what they did. They claimed the shots would stop COVID, that you wouldn’t get sick or spread it to others. This was the sole premise behind the vaccine passports. Vaccination was supposed to be a way to make you “safe” to be around. They pushed this lie for all it was worth, knowing they didn’t have a scientific leg to stand on.

Another way by which health authorities deceived the public into thinking the shots would work like a traditional vaccine was by changing the very definition of a vaccine. No longer is a “vaccine” something that actually prevents infection and transmission of disease. Rather, it’s now defined as something that triggers an “immune response,” which may or may not prevent disease.

Clearly, they knew what they were doing and they developed a strategy to deceive the public in a variety of different ways.

They also misled people into thinking the shots were far more effective than they were by conflating relative and absolute risk. While the relative risk reduction was around 95%, the absolute risk reduction was below 1%.6 As noted by Fisher, the idea of vaccine-induced herd immunity is also terribly flawed, and we’ve certainly seen that with the COVID shots.

Modern Day Child Sacrifice

The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that has pushed these lethal and completely useless COVID shots on young children. Fortunately, uptake in this age group has been low. As of July 20, 2022, only 2.8% of children under 5 had received at least one dose.7

That may soon change, however, as the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) unanimously voted, October 20, 2022, to add the COVID shot to the recommended CDC’s vaccination schedules for both children and adults.8

An estimated 50% of the American population now question vaccination, and not just the COVID shots. The distrust is also spilling over into other vaccines.

The day before that, October 19, ACIP also recommended the shots become part of the CDC’s Vaccines for Children Program (VFC),9 a federal entitlement program that pays for vaccines for children who don’t have insurance. So, clearly, the FDA and CDC have no intention of coming clean about the dangers of these shots.

They may have miscalculated their ability to keep people brainwashed, however. Fisher estimates that about half of the American population now question vaccination, and not just the COVID shots. The distrust is also spilling over into other vaccines.

Censorship Has Had Lethal Consequences

The truth would be even more widespread were it not for Big Tech censoring public conversations about COVID and COVID shots that criticize government public health policies and laws. Yes, it’s illegal and unconstitutional for government officials to violate freedom of speech and censor by proxy, using private companies to do their dirty work, but they’re doing it anyway. Fisher continues:

“One of the reasons they were successful too in these last three years is because they shut down all [dissenting voices] ... There was an article published in The Lancet in March 2021, talking about how these anti-vaccine groups, these groups criticizing the COVID vaccine, how they were to blame for [public health officials] not being able to get everybody to line up and take this vaccine. 

NVIC was deplatformed in March 2021 by Facebook and Instagram. Then we were deplatformed by Twitter. Then we were deplatformed by YouTube. All of my commentaries for over a decade, completely gone.

Then PayPal, in December 2021 ... in the midst of our year-end fundraising campaign - without warning one night blocked all donations to NVIC, completely tanking our fundraising campaign. 

We were completely taken off of social media in 2021. This hampers the ability of people who have history, who have knowledge, who have something to say from being able to communicate in the public square. Online access is the new 21st century public square. We're completely blocked from communicating with the majority of people here or in other countries.”

Go Google “Died Suddenly” and See What Pops Up: If You Believe the Substantial Rise in "Sudden Deaths" Has Nothing to Do With COVID Injections Then You're Probably a Plaything in the Hands of Others

New documentary “Died Suddenly” (murdered by COVID Injections), not suitable for chidults.

According to FUNKTIONARY:

chidults – children in adult bodies—unweaned and often seen. 2) Kidults. Dependency and irresponsibility are the offspring of a nation and society obsessed with truth and law instead of reality. Chidults are the type of insecure misfits who hide behind rules they use to siphon money from their victims. They know nothing of wisdom or love. Chidults, unaware of their pathetic weakness, have no power to protect themselves when the karma of their actions come due. Chidults hide their insecurity by a curious inversion technique. If you can’t have real power (wisdom and self-confindence), then obviously you must find a substitute. Childults are the blame for the 101 Damnations and Miserabelia. Teach and/or demonstrate chidults how to make truths that increase their awareness, thereby increasing their love. As long as we cannot be children we cannot fully become adults. The childhood that we have not fully experienced draws us back to it—even so in our adult bodies. Remember, you’re only young once, but you can be immature indefinitely. (See: Weaning, 101 Damnations, Fear, Miserabelia, Religion, Male-Fraud, Responsibility, Spiritual Maturity & Childish)

Irene Cara Dead from Natural Causes or Dangerous Genocidal COVID Shots? [Coincidence Theorists Believe Things Happen Spontaneously, Elites Never Conspire to Harm and Gov/Media Would Never Lie to them]

Pastor SNAG [Snitch Ass Negro Aiding Gov] Suddenly Drops Dead After Pushing Vax and Myth-Information Onto Blacks, Inducing Consent to Take Genocidal Injections Causing Untold Deaths, Injuries

Dr Seneff Explains How COVID Injections Cripple Immune Function: Rising Numbers of "Vaccinated" [infected with poisons] People Contracting and Dying from COVID and other Infections

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• In “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The Role of G-quadruplexes, Exosomes and MicroRNAs,” Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Drs. Peter McCullough, Greg Nigh and Anthony Kyriakopoulos explain how the COVID shots suppress your innate immune function, and how they may cause neurological diseases

• Their landmark paper was the source of major controversy in that the prominent journal in which it was published receive much negative feedback and the editor of the journal was forced to resign although the paper has not been retracted at this time

• G4s are genome-wide targets of transcriptional regulation. The “G” stands for guanine. G4 is DNA sequence of four guanines, which plays an important role in diseases such as cancers and neurological disorders. The COVID jab spike protein produces far more G-quadruplexes (G4) than the virus. The G4 causes prion protein to misfold, which can result in prion diseases such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and Alzheimer’s

• Two specific microRNA have been found in people who got the jab, and these microRNA’s interfere with Type 1 interferon response, which is a key part of your immune system. When Type 1 interferon is suppressed, you become more prone to infection and chronic disease

• The COVID jab produces high levels of immunoglobulin (IgG) antibodies, which are associated with autoimmune disease. It does not produce mucosal antibodies

• Antibodies against the spike protein may be responsible for cases in which patients developed highly aggressive prion disease after their second jab

From [MERCOLA] In this interview, return guest Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades,1 discusses her paper,2 “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The Role of G-quadruplexes, Exosomes and MicroRNAs,” published in the June 2022 issue of Food and Chemical Toxicology.

The paper was co-written with Drs. Peter McCullough, Greg Nigh and Anthony Kyriakopoulos. In May 2021, Nigh and Seneff published a paper3 detailing the differences between the spike protein and the COVID jab spike protein.

In the “Innate Immune Suppression” paper, they and their other co-authors delve deep into the mechanisms of the COVID shots, showing how they suppress your innate immune system.

The paper caused quite a stir when it was first posted, prior to publication. A campaign was launched to have it retracted on the premise that it would discourage people from getting these life-saving shots — regardless of whether the mechanisms described were true or not.

Ultimately, the controversy led to the resignation of the editor of the journal. Many have also tried to discredit Seneff, and McCullough has since been stripped of his medical credentials.4

Understanding G-Quadruplexes

G-quadruplexes (G4) are genomewide targets of transcriptional regulation, and as such as a novel target for drug design. The “G” in G4 stands for guanine, so G4 is DNA sequence of four guanines. It’s one of the four nucleotides — the basic code — in DNA, and it’s known to play an important role in diseases such as cancers and neurological disorders.5

As explained by Seneff, prions, when misfolded, build beta sheets and precipitate out of the cytoplasm, causing plaque to form. This plaque is a hallmark of several neurodegenerative diseases in animals and humans, such as Mad Cow disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, scrapie (which affects sheep) and chronic wasting disease in deer.

“So, there are all these debilitating neurodegenerative diseases that come out of the prion protein, and the prion protein actually binds to its own G4s, which are in its own RNA,”Seneff explains. “In so doing, it promotes [the prion protein] to misfold into the wrong shape ... [which] causes prion disease.

The [COVID jabs] produce a version of the messenger RNA (mRNA) that codes for the spike protein. Their version is enriched in guanines — it produces a lot more G4s than the original mRNA that the virus produces — so, it's a different form.

And there's lots of mRNA in the [COVID jab]. It's a big dose of this mRNA that is enriched in G4s ... which then ... causes the cell to produce the prion protein. So, the cell is producing the prion protein in the context of a situation with lots of G4s lying around from the mRNA from vaccine. That's a really dangerous situation for causing the prion protein to misfold and causing prion disease.”

How the COVID Jab Can Induce Autoimmune Disease

As explained by Seneff, the mRNA in the jab is taken into your lymph system and spleen, germinal centers where antibodies are produced, and in order to produce the antibodies, these germinal centers release exosomes. This can help explain the phenomenon of “shedding,” but it also helps explain the immune destruction we see occurring. Seneff explains:

“The exosomes are part of the process by which the cells communicate to induce the antibody production, which is the goal of the [COVID jab]. The [jab] does a fantastic job of producing high levels of IgG [immunoglobulin] antibodies, which are the ones that are associated with autoimmune disease.

It doesn't make the mucosal antibodies. It makes IgG, which is actually much more dangerous if there are too many antibodies. They can cause autoimmune disease through molecular mimicry, and that's another aspect that I think is going on. 

That's why you're getting this platelet problem where platelet count goes down to zero, because you get antibodies to the platelets by molecular mimicry, or even because the spike protein is binding to the platelets. They're getting antibodies to the complex and you're wiping out the platelets.

Some people are getting thrombocytopenia and VITT [vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia], conditions that can be life-threatening. And there's a huge signal for thrombosis. The paper talks about thrombosis. We have ... seven tables for different aspects of the symptoms of the vaccine.

There's a table on the liver, there's a table on thrombosis, there's a table on cancer, there's a table on the vagus nerve, and all of the inflammations of the nerves because those exosomes are traveling up the vagus nerve, making their way to the heart, brain and liver.

They're causing disease in all of those organs, and you see that very clearly in the various databases — 98%, 99% of the [adverse event] reports in 2021 for these conditions were [from the] COVID shots and 1% was all the other vaccines combined.”

Mechanism of Action

Swiss researchers recently reported finding elevated troponin levels in 100% of COVID jabbed individuals, indicating everyone is suffering some degree of heart damage, even if they’re asymptomatic.6,7 Seneff explains the mechanism by which the COVID shot damages your heart.

“I think the whole issue is the spike protein being released by the immune cells in the germinal centers — the lymph system and the spleen releasing these exosomes that then travel along their fibers and reach all these critical organs. 

The spleen has a very good connectivity with the liver, heart, brain and gut via the nerve system, starting with the splanchnic nerve and then hooking up to the vagus nerve ... So, these exosomes are migrating along the vagus nerve and they're arriving at these organs and are getting taken up by cells there. And everywhere they go, they cause inflammation. 

The spike protein is very good at causing inflammation. That's been shown in multiple studies ... It causes the immune cells to migrate to the heart, and that's how you get myocarditis, this inflammation in the heart.

You also get inflammation in the muscles. I was looking at myositis, which is muscle inflammation, and that's another issue. I've been in contact with multiple people who suffered severe muscle damage from the spike protein, even to the point of being debilitated because of [inflammation in the] muscles. 

So, not just the heart, but the skeletal muscles are also affected in a really bad way. Inflammation in the brain also causes neurons to be damaged and that's causing cognitive disorders.

So, I think the long COVID is caused by the spike protein reaching the brain. Many papers have talked about long COVID, and they think it's the spike protein, not the virus, but the spike protein itself [that is causing it].”

The Role of MicroRNAs

Another piece of the puzzle is related to the role of microRNAs, which are embedded in the exosomes that travel to the tissues. MicroRNAs should not be confused with mRNA. They’re two different things. The microRNAs are short pieces of RNA, about 22 nucleotides long. Unlike mRNA, microRNA do not code for protein.

The mRNA in the jabs are designed to be extremely resilient. Normally, mRNA lasts a few hours, but the mRNA in the jabs stick around producing protein in cells for several months, at minimum primarily because of the substitution of the nucleotide uridine with pseudouridine.

Because the mRNA is so resilient, spleen cells have to try to cope with all the spike protein that they cannot stop making, and one way they do that is by pushing the spike protein out in the form of exosomes. Those exosomes also contain microRNAs. Indian researchers found two specific microRNAs in people who got the jab, and these microRNAs interfere with Type 1 interferon response.

“This is a big topic of our paper,” Seneff says. “We talk about innate immune suppression ... due to the effect of these microRNAs that are packaged up with the spike protein. 

Everywhere [the exosomes] go, they deliver these microRNAs, which disrupt the immune cell's ability to respond to Type 1 interferon. These microRNAs actually have a very high-level controlling role in the regulatory process of biology. They control which genes are expressed.” 

Hypothesis to Explain Post-Jab Sudden Death

Seneff goes on to cite animal research from 2005, in which mice were exposed to a virus that causes myocarditis. They wanted to see what would happen if the mice were suffering from myocarditis and then got a shot of adrenaline. So, the mice were infected with the myocarditis-inducing virus, and then, 120 days later, they injected them with adrenaline.

The dose given killed 70% of them. Meanwhile, control mice that did not have myocarditis suffered no ill effect when injected with the same dose of adrenaline. The mice that died, died of heart failure. Basically, their hearts were too damaged to withstand the adrenaline rush. Today, we’re seeing a similar effect in athletes, who are dropping dead while exerting themselves.

Digging for other papers, Seneff found one that detailed the Type 1 interferon response in chromaffin cells, the cells that make adrenaline. Type 1 interferon inhibits and reduces their production of adrenaline.

Seneff’s theory is that the COVID jabs interferes with your body’s ability to respond to Type 1 interferon, thereby allowing too much adrenaline to be released. If your heart has been damaged by the spike protein, the outcome could be lethal, as we’ve seen.

“I think that could be what's going on with the sudden death problem, because we certainly are seeing lots of young people suddenly dying of heart issues,” she says.

At the same time, microthrombi (micro blood clots) are activated by the spike protein, which could have lethal effects, and endothelial cells (the cells lining your blood vessels) are also inflamed. So, there’s not just one mechanism by which the jabs could kill you.

Spike Protein Creates Incredibly Tough Blood Clots 

According to Seneff, blood clots are also connected to the prion aspect. Many different proteins are amyloidogenic and can misfold, causing them to precipitate out, including proteins in your blood. Blood clots are tough to break down, and when you add spike protein into them, they become even tougher.

Seneff suspects the spike protein binds to fibrin, causing it then to misfold in a way that makes it very resistant to breaking down. The same thing happens with prion proteins. When they misfold, they create a gel that becomes denser over time, eventually becoming completely inaccessible to the water base.

“It just precipitates out as this thing that just sits there for the rest of your life,” Seneff says. “Nothing can get at it. The immune cells can't break it down. It just stays there. It can't be cleared.”

This is why I recommend taking fibrinolytic enzymes like lumbrokinase (which is the most effective), serrapeptase and nattokinase, several times a day one hour before or two hours after a meal, if you’re struggling with long COVID, as they help break down the fibrin. To work, you have to take them between meals, on an empty stomach, or else they’ll just act as a digestive enzyme to break down food.

Another technique is to use a near-infrared sauna, which will help address the misfolding of proteins by encouraging autophagy, your body’s natural clean-out process.

The Role of Antibodies in Prion Disease

Antibodies may also play a role in the devastating side effects from the COVID jab. We know that prion protein is upregulated in cells that produce it under stress, and the COVID jab spike protein has been shown to cause cells to make more prion protein. One possibility is that antibodies to a particular part of the spike protein end up binding to the prion protein through molecular mimicry.

As explained by Seneff, researchers have discovered that if you produce antibodies to the C-terminal end of the prion protein, it can cause disease that looks a lot like prion disease but develops much faster.

As it turns out, the antibodies to the C-terminal end of the prion protein prevent the prion protein from going into the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), where it needs to go in order to do its job. Instead, the antibodies keep the prion in the cytoplasm.

Subsequently, the cell gets sick because of these antibodies. The late Luc Montagnier posted a case study with 26 people who developed symptoms of prion disease within the first month after their second vaccine. All died, many within three months of their diagnosis. All were dead within a year, from what was basically an extremely aggressive form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (the human Mad Cow disease equivalent).

Seneff believes antibodies against the spike protein are to blame, because it didn’t happen until they got their second dose. Antibodies developed after that first dose, which primed the cells. Then, after the second dose the cells started making loads of spike protein again, which the antibodies bound to.

This exosome package then traveled up the vagus nerve to the brain, where neurons took them up. Seneff suspects this explains the disease process on those 26 patients.

“It would be explained completely by this model of spike protein antibodies binding to the C-terminal domain and preventing the prion protein from going into the ER,” she says, “and then, it causes [the prion protein] to break down. 

It gets broken down by the proteasome and disappears. So, it's causing a loss of function problem for the prion protein in the neuron at a very accelerated rate, much faster than what goes on with the normal prion disease ...

Montagnier and his team identified a segment of the spike protein that they thought had characteristic prion-like features. Within that segment is a piece that has five amino acids, YQRGS.

The prion protein has [the same] piece ... Except for the middle one, the other four [amino acids] are all identical with this piece near the C-terminal end of the prion protein. So, it's really perfect. It's a place where, if you get antibodies to that, it’s basically a death sentence.” 

COVID Jabs Impair Your Immune Function

To circle back to where we began, it seems the reason so many jabbed individuals are now contracting COVID and other infections, and are dying from them, is because Type 1 interferon is suppressed. That suppresses your immune function, making you more prone to contracting infections.

In the interview, Seneff also reviews how chronic exposure to glyphosate is a predisposing condition for bad COVID-19 outcomes, as glyphosate disrupts the immune system. For more details on that, please listen to the interview in its entirety. We also review how glycine supplementation can help displace glyphosate in your body, thereby limiting its damaging influence.

One of the Most Powerful Videos I've Ever Seen

The following video from Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the most powerful videos that I have ever seen. I am hopeful that watching this video will inspire you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence.

There is a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that results in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues. If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve. Please take a few minutes to watch this video. [MORE]

Contrary to The Dependent Media's Coin-Operated Science, Actual Scientists Studied 12 Masks — Every One Contained Titanium Dioxide, a Cancer-Causing Compound

Story at-a-glance:

• In a study of 12 face masks, every mask contained titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles in at least one layer, at levels that “exceeded the acceptable exposure level.”

• The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies titanium dioxide as a Group 2B carcinogen, which means it’s “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by inhalation.

• A meta-analysis called for a rethinking of nano-TiO2 safety, citing numerous toxic effects in humans and aquatic animals.

• Masks take both a physical and psychological toll; the journal Pediatrics highlighted the emotional burden felt by parents, clinicians and patients due to wearing masks in pediatric cancer wards.

• YouTube has updated its policies about what constitutes “misinformation” and now allows you to say masks don’t work.

From [MERCOLA] The face masks that were supposed to protect your health may turn out to be detrimental to it, as increasing evidence points to toxins within their fibers. Titanium dioxide is one such toxin, one that’s particularly troubling in face masks because it’s a suspected human carcinogen when inhaled.

Not only have adults been unwittingly exposed to this likely cancer-causing substance due to widespread mask mandates put in place during the pandemic, but so too have children, whose bodies are especially vulnerable to toxic influences.

Coupled with evidence suggesting that mask mandates and use did not lower the spread of COVID-19, forced mask mandates become all the more atrocious.

Group 2B carcinogen detected in masks

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies titanium dioxide as a Group 2B carcinogen, which means it’s “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by inhalation. Prior to the pandemic, this occurred primarily in occupational settings during the production of titanium dioxide powders or in the manufacture of products containing the substance.

There’s also been some concern about spray-on (aerosolized) sunscreens, hair color sprays and cosmetic powders containing microscopic particles of titanium dioxide that could be inhaled.

Specifically, the state of California includes titanium dioxide in the form of airborne particles measuring 10 micrometers or less on its Proposition 65 list, stating, “titanium dioxide (airborne, unbound particles of respirable size) is on the Proposition 65 list because it can cause cancer. Exposure to titanium dioxide may increase the risk of cancer.”

Despite the fact that titanium dioxide’s carcinogenicity when inhaled is well-known, the compound is commonly used in face mask textiles to improve stability to ultraviolet light and for use as a white colorant and matting agent.

Nanoparticle technology is also being used in face masks, and nanofibers containing titanium dioxide have been used to make antimicrobial filters, often in combination with silver and graphene, while titanium dioxide nanoparticle coatings may also be applied to cotton fabric to enhance antibacterial properties.

Not only have adverse effects been reported in animal studies involving inhalation of titanium dioxide particles, but a team of researchers warned of “possible future consequences caused by a poorly regulated use of nanotechnology in textiles,” expanding on potential human health and environmental effects.

The researchers stated:

“Although originally classified as biologically inert, there is a growing body of evidence on the toxicity of TiO2 [titanium dioxide] to humans and non-target organisms … Artificial sweat was also used to test the concentration of the silver and TiO2 released from fabrics. The release rate was found to depend on the concentration of nanomaterials in the fabric and the pH of sweat.”

A meta-analysis published in the journal Small, which focuses on science at the nano- and microscale, also called for a rethinking of nano-TiO2 safety, citing numerous toxic effects in humans and aquatic animals:

“Genotoxicity, damage to membranes, inflammation and oxidative stress emerge as the main mechanisms of nano-TiO2 toxicity. Furthermore, nano-TiO2 can bind with free radicals and signal molecules, and interfere with the biochemical reactions on plasmalemma [cell membrane].

“At the higher organizational level, nano-TiO2 toxicity is manifested as the negative effects on fitness-related organismal traits including feeding, reproduction and immunity in aquatic organisms.”

TiO2 in masks exceeds ‘acceptable’ exposure level

In a study published in Scientific Reports, researchers tested the amount of titanium — used as a proxy for TiO2 particles — in 12 face masks meant to be worn by the public, including single-use disposable varieties as well as reusable masks. The masks were made of various materials, including synthetic fibers like polyester and natural fibers, such as cotton.

Every mask contained titanium dioxide particles in at least one layer, although they weren’t found in cotton fibers or meltblown nonwoven fabrics.

Generally, the amount of titanium dioxide particles in nonwoven fabrics was lower — by a factor of 10 — than in polyester and polyamide fibers. Further, all of the masks except one contained TiO2 nanoparticles, which present an elevated inhalation hazard.

Nanosized particles are typically described as being less than 100 nanometers (nm). The median size of the titanium dioxide particles in the masks ranged from 89 to 184 nm.

Based on a model in which face masks are “worn intensively,” the study found that exposure to titanium dioxide “systematically exceeded the acceptable exposure level to TiO2 by inhalation (3.6 µg).”

On Twitter, Federico Andres Lois shared, “The best (lowest contamination) has more than 5 times the acceptable limit. Ohh and by the way, you are forcing your kid to breathing through it.”

This, the researchers concluded, calls for in-depth research to avoid adverse effects:

“[T]hese results urge for in depth research of (nano)technology applications in textiles to avoid possible future consequences caused by a poorly regulated use and to implement regulatory standards phasing out or limiting the amount of TiO2 particles, following the safe-by-design principle.”

How masks make you sick

The potential consequences of breathing in carcinogenic particles from face masks worn during the COVID-19 pandemic won’t be known for years, but red flags have been raised from the beginning that face mask usage has consequences, with no meaningful benefit.

Dr. Zacharias Fögen conducted a study to find out whether mandatory mask use influenced the COVID-19 case fatality rate in Kansas from Aug. 1 to Oct. 15, 2020. He chose the state of Kansas because, while it issued a mask mandate, counties were allowed to either opt in or out of it.

His analysis revealed that counties with a mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without a mask mandate.

“These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention,” he concluded.

That threat, he explained, may be something called the “Foegen effect” — the idea that deep reinhalation of droplets and virions caught on facemasks might make COVID-19 infection more likely or more severe.

Fögen explained that wearing masks could end up increasing your overall viral load because instead of exhaling virions from your respiratory tract and ridding your body of them, those virions are caught in the mask and returned. This might also have the effect of increasing the number of virions that pass through the mask, such that it becomes more than the number that would have been shed without a mask.

According to Fögen:

“The fundamentals of this effect are easily demonstrated when wearing a facemask and glasses at the same time by pulling the upper edge of the mask over the lower edge of the glasses. Droplets appear on the mask when breathing out and disappear when breathing in.

“In the ‘Foegen effect,’ the virions spread (because of their smaller size) deeper into the respiratory tract. They bypass the bronchi and are inhaled deep into the alveoli, where they can cause pneumonia instead of bronchitis, which would be typical of a virus infection.

“Furthermore, these virions bypass the multilayer squamous epithelial wall that they cannot pass into in vitro and most likely cannot pass into in vivo. Therefore, the only probable way for the virions to enter the blood vessels is through the alveoli.”

A 2021 report focused on health, safety and well-being of face mask usage further noted potential permanent physical damage to the lungs caused by fibrosis from inhalation of fibrous nanoparticles.

“There are real and significant dangers of respiratory infection, oral health deterioration and of lung injury, such as pneumothorax, owing to moisture build-up and also exposure to potentially harmful levels of an asphyxiant gas (carbon dioxide [CO2]) which can cause serious injury to health,” the authors explained.

Masks take an extreme psychological toll

The physical repercussions are only one aspect to consider, as the psychological consequences of mask mandates are also severe. The journal Pediatrics recently highlighted the burden felt by parents, clinicians and patients in pediatric cancer wards when they were forced to wear masks.

Hidden by face masks, clinicians felt powerless to display empathy and compassion during the most difficult conversations with their patients and their families.

Wrote one clinician, who had to deliver devastating health news about the child of a friend:

“My mask covered my expression. Perhaps the only way she could have known just how devastated I was to learn of this news was by the tears welling up in my eyes. My natural response was to wrap my arms around my friend and tell her everything would be okay. ‘I will help you, I will fix her, I will do everything in my power to make this go away.’

“But how do I show you when my words are muffled by the mask? How can I softly share my words of condolence when I am struggling to catch enough air myself through the 3 layers of fabric? How does anyone break this kind of awful news with personal protective gear creating a barrier between doctor and patient?”

The children were also affected, as they couldn’t see their parents’ faces during a time when they needed them most.

Wrote one parent:

“When a policy change mandated that parents be masked 24/7 while in the hospital, my child was furious. She would rip the mask off my face and, if it was a paper mask, would pull off the strings so it could not be worn again. ‘I need to see my mommy’ she told me, along with ‘I need kisses to make me feel better and you can’t kiss me with a mask.’”

A 2021 psychology report also stated that masks are likely to be causing psychological harm to children and interfering with development.

“The extent of psychological harm to young people is unknown,” the report stated, “due to the unique nature of the ‘social experiment’ currently underway in schools, and in wider society.”

YouTube now lets you say masks don’t work

You may recall that countless public figures have been de-platformed by multiple social media and other online outlets for speaking out against the narrative, including the misguided notion that masks were useful for reducing COVID-19 cases.

Indeed, it wasn’t long ago that even physicians who spoke out against mandatory masks were hunted down like a modern-day witch hunt.

Now, it seems, YouTube has changed its tune, as it has updated its policies about what constitutes “misinformation.” Stating that “masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19,” or that “wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects,” was previously a violation of their policy, but this verbiage has since been removed from its examples of misinformation.

Other mask-related statements that have been removed from YouTube’s definition of misinformation include:

• Claims that wearing a mask causes oxygen levels to drop to dangerous levels

• Claims that masks cause lung cancer or brain damage

• Claims that wearing a mask gives you COVID-19

Curiously, while YouTube no longer classifies “claims that COVID-19 vaccines are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19 as misinformation,” “claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or WHO” are still off limits.

It’s also against YouTube’s guidelines to post “content alleging that vaccines cause chronic side effects” or “content claiming that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease,” — the latter being a blatant contradiction to their COVID-19 vaccine terms.

So, while YouTube now allows you to say masks don’t work, you still can’t contradict WHO on vaccines. Little by little, however, the truth will emerge, as is already occurring with face masks and their carcinogenic contents.

Pfizer, Moderna Claim to be Studying Long-Term Risk of Myocarditis After COVID Shots but the Risks of their Deadly Injections are Already Clear

From [HERE] Pfizer and Moderna are launching clinical trials to track long-term health issues following a diagnosis of vaccine-associated myocarditis and pericarditis in teens and young adults.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are heart problems that multiple medical studies have shown to be associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, particularly among young men.

Studies also show that the risk of myocarditis — which can cause permanent damage to heart muscle — increases with the number of boosters a person has taken and can in some cases cause death.

Health officials contacted by NBC News did not suggest that official guidance on COVID-19 vaccination will change while the studies of long-term health issues from vaccine-related heart problems are underway.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declined to comment on Pfizer’s and Moderna’s studies, but an agency official told NBC News the chance of having myocarditis occur following vaccination is “very low.”

Too little, too late?

Commenting on the news, Dr. Peter McCullough — internist, epidemiologist, cardiologist and leading expert on COVID-19 treatment — said in a Nov. 16 Substack post:

“Now two years after public release and mounting cases of fatal myocarditis published in the peer-reviewed literature, both Pfizer and Moderna have announced they will begin studies of cardiac safety that the FDA required in their 2021 Biological Licensing Agreement letters from the FDA.”

“Why did the US government and the vaccine companies wait so long? Do they anticipate their own bad news will kill the failing product line?”

McCullough, who authored “The Courage to Face COVID-19” and developed the McCullough Protocol for early treatment of COVID-19, said only an internal document review from government agencies and vaccine developers will tell the public what was going on during this “biological product safety disaster.”

“As a cardiologist, I can tell you the entire discipline of cardiovascular disease is oriented to preserving heart tissue. Heart muscle is largely terminally differentiated with low rates of turnover; hence, we cannot afford to lose any cardiomyocytes to damage caused by vaccines.”

McCullough listed a number of studies on how the mRNA vaccines affect the heart:

“Aldana-Bitar et al., described the excursion of cardiac troponin as about four days with COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis which is oddly about the same duration as an ischemic myocardial infarction due to blocked coronary arteries. …

“Hence the confusion with the terms ‘myocarditis’ ‘myopericarditis’ and ‘heart attack’ in the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] and the media.

“The first two prospective cohort studies, where blood cardiac troponin level was measured before and after receiving mRNA injections, both demonstrated unacceptably high rates of troponin elevations indicating predictable heart damage.

“Mansanguan et al. found the rate of heart injury was 2.3% on the second injection of Pfizer in children 13-18 years old. … Two children were hospitalized with myocarditis in this 301-person study.

“Le Pessec et al., in a presentation at the European Society of Cardiology, revealed 2.8% of healthcare workers (n=777) had elevated troponin by day 3 after the third mRNA injection. …

“Given the known relationship of coronavirus spike protein and cardiac toxicity from the 1990’s, the vaccine companies should have been measuring troponin during their randomized trials in 2020.

“Baric et al. in 1999 reported: ‘We have shown that infection with RbCV [rabbit coronavirus] results in the development of myocarditis and congestive heart failure and that some survivors of RbCV infection go on to develop dilated cardiomyopathy in the chronic phase.’”

But this prior research was apparently overlooked by COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and public health officials, McCullough suggested.

“Sadly and ineptly,” McCullough said, “BARDA [Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], vaccine consultants, and the manufacturers had no measures in place to identify expected cardiac damage in humans.”

‘Do we really need to wait years to be absolutely certain this condition is serious?’

According to ZeroHedge, existing data and the freshly-launched clinical trials blatantly contradict the “safe and effective” narrative that Pfizer and Moderna have defended since they launched their vaccines.

“Why is Big Pharma investigating their own COVID vaccines for myocarditis side effects if the vaccines were already supposedly tested and proven safe and effective?” ZeroHedge asked.

“In all likelihood, Pfizer and Moderna are trying to get out ahead of burgeoning side effects with their own studies as a means to spin or mitigate bad press in the future. The chances of these studies providing honest data-driven assessments are low,” they said.

Pfizer is currently embroiled in a whistleblower lawsuit alleging fraud during its initial COVID-19 vaccine trials.

Comedian and political commentator Russell Brand also took aim at the news, asking viewers, “What kind of reality are we living in now” where pharmaceutical companies … whose products were widely mandated by elected officials who later show up on reality TV, are only now, two years later, beginning to investigate heart problems associated with their products?

Brand was referring to a former U.K. British Health Minister who resigned in June 2021 after he was caught breaking COVID-19 lockdown rules and is now starring in a reality TV show.

Brand also called out the media coverage of Pfizer and Moderna’s announcement, reading NBC News’ byline that said, “Both Pfizer and Moderna are launching clinical trials to track health issues — if any — in the years following a diagnosis of vaccine-associated heart problems in teens and young adults.”

Brand accused NBC News of using the phrase “if any” to suggest there may be no adverse health issues following a diagnosis of vaccine-related myocarditis.

“There are certainly some interesting graphs and data available that seem to suggest that there could be significant findings in those areas,” he said, alluding to research mentioned in the rest of the NBC article.

NBC news also summarized a recent CDC-funded study in The Lancet that examined health outcomes in 519 teens and young adults who reported a diagnosis of myocarditis following an mRNA vaccination concluding, “Most got better at least three months after symptoms.”

“Yes. Most of them got better after three months,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, senior science editor for The Defender. “But 1 in 5 were still not cleared for physical activity. One in 4 required daily medication to treat their condition. Ninety-nine of them required intensive care as a result of their vaccine injury.”

Setty added:

“We are talking about young, healthy people that required ICU admissions, that now cannot exert themselves and may require heart medications indefinitely. Do we really need to wait years to be absolutely certain this condition is serious? It is as serious as a heart attack. Literally.

“If the CDC is admitting that it does not know what the long-term repercussions of vaccine-induced myocarditis are in young people, why are they continuing to recommend that they receive these products when they already know there is little to no benefit for this demographic?

“It is nonsensical for an agency of public health to promote these therapies while waiting years for proof that they are NOT dangerous.”

Moderna: ‘We don’t understand’ why vaccines cause heart damage

The FDA in January told Pfizer and Moderna they must conduct several post-marketing safety studies due to the “known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis” and the “unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.”

Moderna launched two trials, the most recent in September. Pfizer told NBC News it plans to start at least one of its trials, which will include up to 500 individuals age 20 and younger, over the next few months.

In collaboration with the Pediatric Heart Network, Pfizer will monitor participants for five years, according to Dr. Dongngan Truong, a pediatrician at the University of Utah Health and a co-lead on the Pfizer study.

Participants will include people who were previously hospitalized with vaccine-related myocarditis and those who were more recently diagnosed.

Dr. Paul Burton, Moderna’s chief medical officer, told NBC News scientists still don’t have a clear explanation yet for why the vaccines cause the condition.

He suspects the virus’s spike protein, once produced in the cell after vaccination, may generate a reaction in the body that can cause inflammation in the heart.

“We don’t understand yet and there’s no good mechanism to explain it,” he said.

Burton did not comment on whether or not he was privy to the cardiology studies McCullough cited in his Substack post that showed a clear association between mRNA vaccines and heart damage.

According to Burton, the two myocarditis studies Moderna has started — one of which is being conducted in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology — are examining public and private health data from tens of millions of people who received the company’s vaccine.

He said the study would answer basic questions including: “Did they get myocarditis? When did it occur? How was it treated? How severe was it?”

Moderna also is conducting two more studies with the European Medicines Agency that will span five different countries.

The drugmaker will assess outcomes for a year or more, Burton said, with results expected to be made public in the summer of 2023.

CDC downplays risk of myocarditis as vaccine makers protected from liability claims

According to some experts, when statistically significant levels of myocarditis reports began appearing in VAERS, government health officials were slow to warn the public of the possible risk — and the agency continues to downplay the risk as “rare.”

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E, in October published research on data showing that although a statistically significant vaccine adverse event “signal” for myocarditis in males ages 8-21 was seen on the VAERS database as early as Feb. 19, 2021 — just two months after the release of the COVID-19 vaccine to the U.S. public — CDC officials buried the connectionbetween COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis until May 27, 2021.

“By this date, over 50% of the eligible U.S. population had received at least one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine,” Hooker, chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender.

“Withholding this type of information is criminal,” he added.

According to Steve Kirsch, executive director of Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, the CDC continues to downplay and underestimate the likely number of vaccine-related myocarditis cases.

On Thursday, Kirsch wrote:

“Large Canadian hospital: before COVID, they’d see 2 cases per year.

“Now they see 27 in just 6 weeks. That’s a 117X increase.

“But the CDC says it’s only ‘slightly elevated.’”

“You would think this is a problem, but it isn’t,” Kirsch said. “When 2 car owners die, the car manufacturer tells people to stop using the car. The reason for this is simple: liability.”

Kirsch added:

“But with these vaccines, there is no liability, so there is no need to set a stopping condition.

“The US government will happily injure hundreds of thousands or millions of kids and it simply just doesn’t matter because there is no liability. That’s just the way it goes.”

As of Nov. 4, there have been 24,608 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis and 4,878 reports of myocardial infarction (i.e., heart attack) reported to VAERS since mid-December 2020.

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

A New Study Shows that Moderna's COVID Shot May Cause as Much as Triple the Rates of Pericarditis and Myocarditis

From [HERE] While public health agencies continue to downplay the seriousness of adverse events after the receipt of the experimental mRNA jabs for COVID, a new study shows that one drug maker’s shot may cause as much as triple the rates of pericarditis and myocarditis.

Researchers said the rates of Moderna’s shot were 35.6 and 22.9 per million doses, respectively, for Moderna compared to 12.6 and 9.4 per million for Pfizer. Men and younger recipients were found to be affected the most.

Still, the scientists insisted that the side effects are “extremely rare” and “self-limiting.” Despite what the officials say, MSN reports that many medical professionals are questioning the shots’ safety and have “pulled back on recommending the mRNA vaccines for young men in particular due to the less favorable risk-reward balance compared to other demographic groups.”

Ed Dowd: A Quick Overview Of The Devastating Impact COVID Injections Are Having On the US and World

I Can't Breathe: Thousands Of Breathing Impairments Caused by Dangerous COVID Injections Including Many Severe Issues