Not ‘Saving Lives’ but Intentionally Killing People: COVID Injections Linked to Increase in All-Cause Mortality, Italian Study Shows
/
From [HERE] COVID-19 vaccines were linked to an increase in all-cause mortality in a new peer-reviewed study that analyzed data from the Italian National Healthcare System.
Based on their analysis, a team of Italian researchers verified what they called “the real impact of the vaccination campaign” by comparing the risk of all-cause death among vaccinated and unvaccinated residents of the Italian province of Pescara.
In their univariate analysis, the researchers found the risk of all-cause death to be over 20% higher for those vaccinated with two or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to the unvaccinated.
In contrast, prior research done in the same region suggested those with three or four doses had a lower risk of all-cause death.
“We also found a slight but statistically significant loss of life expectancy for those vaccinated with 2 or 3/4 doses,” they said in the report, which they published June 30 in Microorganisms.
Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender, “These findings call for an immediate halt of COVID-19 vaccination across the globe and a thorough investigation of what went wrong during the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.”
McCullough wrote on Substack that the paper’s main point is that “COVID-19 vaccination did not ‘save lives’ as so many in Washington have proclaimed without evidence.”
Alberto Donzelli, one of the Italian study’s authors, told The Defender the study is “an important advance” because it looks at all-cause mortality broken down by vaccination status, and accounts for confounding variables that may have affected earlier reports on COVID-19 vaccination and all-cause mortality.
Very few studies in the world have successfully done that, he said.
McCullough also told The Defender the study’s findings are “cohesive” with those of a recent German study — currently available as a preprint — which found COVID-19 vaccination was linked to increased all-cause death in 16 German states.
Researchers undertake study to correct for bias
For their study, Donzelli and his co-authors used the same data analyzed by other researchers in an earlier Italian study on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
The earlier study — which followed up with people two years after the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign — found that those who received one or two doses had a significantly higher risk of all-cause death, while those who received three or more vaccine doses had a lower risk of death.
However, these results were likely distorted due to “immortal time bias,” Donzelli and his co-authors said.
Immortal time bias is a common study design flaw that can throw off statistical estimations between an exposure (such as a COVID-19 shot) and an outcome (such as an increased risk of death), according to the University of Oxford’s Catalogue of Bias.
Donzelli said the bias “afflicts most observational studies on mortality from COVID-19.” So he and his co-authors took the necessary steps to correct for the bias and reanalyzed the same data.
They looked at vaccination records from Jan. 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2022, for people ages 10 and up.
They also looked at follow-up data collected from Jan. 1, 2021, through Feb. 15, 2023, for these people, as long as they hadn’t tested positive for COVID-19 on the date of the follow-up.
They also looked at other variables, such as pathologies other than COVID-19, that may have affected people’s health.
“The results are startling,” wrote McCullough, after doing calculations using the report’s data. “COVID-19 specific deaths were not reduced with vaccination, however there was a U-shaped trend of note when COVID-19 deaths were adjusted per 1000 population: unvaccinated 1.98/1000, one dose 0.27/1000, two doses 1.08/1000, and 3/4 doses 3.5/1000.”
Additionally, Donzelli and his co-authors in their multivariate analysis found that those who received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine had a hazard risk ratio — which is a statistical estimate of risk — of 2.4 for all-cause mortality, meaning they were much more likely to die compared to the unvaccinated.
“Those vaccinated with two doses showed an almost double hazard ratio of death: 1.98,” Donzelli pointed out.
These numbers are significantly worse than what was reported in the original study that hadn’t corrected for the immortal time bias, he said. Correcting for that bias changed the results for those who were vaccinated with three or more doses, too.
The original study authors had claimed that being vaccinated three or more times reduced the risk of mortality more than four-fold. Based on his and his co-authors corrected analysis, Donzelli called the claim “implausible.”
He said of the multivariate analysis, “Those vaccinated with three or more doses turned out to die at the same rate as the unvaccinated.” However, taken together with univariate analyses and life expectancy estimates, all COVID-19 vaccine dosing regimens show an overall increase in all-cause mortality.
CDC: COVID shots ‘save lives’
The Defender asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) if it planned to modify its statement that “COVID-19 vaccines save lives” in light of the study’s findings.
A CDC spokesperson told The Defender that the CDC “does not comment on findings or claims by individuals or organizations outside of CDC.” The spokesperson declined to provide studies or data supporting the agency’s claim that the vaccines save lives.
“CDC research has continuously found that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective,” the spokesperson said.
Censored Autopsy Study Finds that 74% of 325 Deaths Analyzed were Linked to COVID Shots. Says Autopsies Must Be Done on Anyone who Got the Shot. All "Vaccinated" Persons Should be Monitored for 1 Yr
/
From [HERE] A systematic review of autopsy-related literature following COVID-19 vaccination found that 73.9% of the 325 deaths were linked to the shots, suggesting “a high likelihood of a causal link” between the shots and death.
The review, published on June 21 in the peer-reviewed journal Forensic Science International, was first posted on July 5, 2023, on The Lancet preprint server, SSRN, an open access research platform.
However, Preprints with The Lancet removed the study from the server within 24 hours, “because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology,” according to a statement on the SSRN page, The Daily Sceptic reported.
The paper had been viewed over 100,000 times.
Authors submitting papers to Lancet journals for review post their work to the SSRN to make it publicly available while it undergoes peer review.
University of Michigan researcher Nicolas Hulscher authored the study, along with Dr. William Makis, Peter A. McCullough, M.D., MPH, and several of their colleagues at The Wellness Company.
The authors said autopsies should be performed on all deceased people who have received one or more COVID-19 vaccines and that vaccinated people should be clinically monitored for at least one year following vaccination. They called for further research into the issue.
McCullough told The Defender:
“Our study faced unprecedented censorship from the Lancet SSRN preprint server and was taken down after massive downloads by concerned physicians and scientists across the globe.
“Lancet did not want the world to know that among deaths that were autopsied after COVID-19 vaccination, independent adjudication found that the vaccine was the cause of death in 73.9% of cases.
“The most common fatal vaccine syndromes were myocarditis and blood clots. Investigative journalists should probe Lancet to uncover who was behind unethical suppression of critical clinical information to the public.”
Findings have wide-ranging implications
The authors searched the published literature archived in PubMed and ScienceDirect for all autopsy and necropsy — another word for autopsy — reports related to COVID-19 vaccination, where the death occurred after vaccination.
They screened out 562 duplicate studies among the 678 studies initially identified in their search. Other papers were removed because, for example, they lacked information about vaccination status.
Ultimately 44 papers containing 325 autopsies and one necropsy case were evaluated. Three physicians independently reviewed each case and adjudicated whether or not the COVID-19 shot was the direct cause or contributed significantly to the death reported.
They found 240 of the deaths (73.9%) were found to be “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination” and the mean age for death was 70.4 years old.
Primary causes of death included sudden cardiac death, which happened in 35% of cases, pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction, which occurred in 12.5% and 12% of the cases respectively.
Other causes included vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, multisystem inflammatory syndrome and cerebral hemorrhage.
Most deaths occurred within a week of the last shot.
The authors concluded that because the deaths were highly consistent with the known mechanisms for COVID-19 vaccine injury, it was highly likely the deaths were causally linked to the vaccine.
They said the findings “amplify” existing concerns about the vaccines, including those related to vaccine-induced myocarditis and myocardial infarction and the effects of the spike protein more broadly.
They also said the studies have implications for unanticipated deaths among vaccinated people with no previous illness. “We can infer that in such cases, death may have been caused by COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote.
The authors acknowledged some potential biases in the article.
First, they said, their conclusions from the autopsy findings are based on an evolving understanding of the vaccines, which are currently different from when the studies evaluated were published.
They also noted that systematic reviews have bias potential in general because of biases that may exist at the level of the individual papers and their acceptance into the peer-reviewed literature.
They said publication bias could have affected their results because the global push for mass vaccination has made investigators hesitant to report adverse events.
They also said their research did not account for confounding variables like concomitant illnesses, drug interactions and other factors that may have had a causal role in the reported deaths.
Trial and Error or Intentional Harm? More Experts Conclude Antibodies Produced by the COVID mRNA Shots were Purposefully Designed to Cause Disease and Unable to Protect Against Infection
/
From [HERE] Per data published by the inventors of the spike protein, the antibodies produced by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were purposefully designed to cause disease and unable to protect against infection.
More experts are coming forward verifying that the ‘spike protein’, SARS-2 ‘virus,’ and COVID-19 mRNA injections were designed to be resistant to antibodies and cause disease.
In a February 19, 2020, article in Science, authored by the inventors of coronavirus S-2P spike proteins, Barney Graham and Jason McClellan, the authors state that the S-2P ‘spike protein’ has stronger binding affinity to the ACE-2 receptors (in the hearts, lungs, kidneys, and endothelial cell line of blood vessels) than the original SARS-CoV-2 (S) spike protein.
Graham and McLellan also tested synthetically recreated antibodies for coronaviruses (SARS-CoV-2) against the S-2P spike proteins. Their research showed that none of the antibodies for coronaviruses bound to the new trimeric two-proline spike (S-2P) proteins and no coronavirus antibodies were able to neutralize it. [MORE]
Kansas AG Civil Suit Claims Pfizer Lied About COVID Shots to Get Paid. Pfizer Knew Injections Caused Death, Miscarriages, Heart Problems, Strokes and Knew “Vaccine” Didn’t Stop or Prevent Transmission
/
UNJUST ENRICHMENT, FRAUD, BATTERY AND MURDER. consent obtained by lies, halfTruths, non-disclosures, fraud, coercion is not lawful consent. A plaintiff cannot ordinarily be regarded as actually consenting to the defendant's conduct if the plaintiff assented to the conduct while mistaken about the nature and quality of the invasion intended by the defendant. — Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 18, at 119-20 (5th ed. 1984).
The failure to provide informed consent is a basis of medical malpractice. But it also may be the basis of a lawsuit for an intentional battery, negligence or fraud. Battery is an intentional, unwanted or offensive touching by another. A lawsuit for battery increases the likelihood of punitive damages and unlike a claim for negligence, no proof of injury or harm is necessary. A lawsuit for battery generally has a shorter statute of limitations than a claim for negligence. [MORE]
From [HERE] Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach brought 9 Counts against Pfizer under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and 1 Count of Civil Conspiracy for conspiring with the US government (including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS*), the media, social media, universities, the lobbying group BIO, and other organizations in order to generate billions of dollars in revenue by willfully concealing material evidence and misrepresenting the fraudulent safety and efficacy claims of Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA injections to Kansas residents.
In the lawsuit, AG Kobach correctly points out that after Pfizer received their FDA-approval on August 23, 2021, the pharma giant and HHS were legally obligated to disclose all clinical trial data, as well as adverse events reported to Pfizer and the government agencies.
The complaint states:
1. Pfizer misled the public that it had a “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccine.
2. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was safe even though it knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths. Pfizer concealed this critical safety information from the public.
3. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was effective even though it knew its COVID19 vaccine waned over time and did not protect against COVID-19 variants. Pfizer concealed this critical effectiveness information from the public.
4. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission of COVID-19 even though it knew it never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission of COVID-19.
5. To keep the public from learning the truth, Pfizer worked to censor speech on social media that questioned Pfizer’s claims about its COVID-19 vaccine.
6. Pfizer’s misrepresentations of a “safe and effective” vaccine resulted in record company revenue of approximately $75 billion from COVID-19 vaccine sales in just two years.
7. Pfizer’s actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated previous consent judgments with the State of Kansas.
8. Pfizer’s actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq., regardless of whether any individual consumer ultimately received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
9. Pfizer must be held accountable for falsely representing the benefits of its COVID19 vaccine while concealing and suppressing the truth about its vaccine’s safety risks, waning effectiveness, and inability to prevent transmission.
The suit says “Pfizer concealed, suppressed, or omitted material facts it possessed showing significant safety concerns associated with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. It states,
“As of February 28, 2021, Pfizer’s adverse events database contained 158,893 adverse events (from 42,086 case reports) from its COVID-19 vaccine. As of February 28, 2021, Pfizer’s database contained 1,223 fatalities after taking Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, although Pfizer did not make causality findings.
Pfizer was receiving so many adverse event reports that it had to hire 600 additional full-time staff and expected to hire more than 1,800 additional resources by June 2021. Pfizer’s representations that its COVID-19 vaccine did not have any safety concerns was inconsistent with the adverse events data it possessed.”
The suit claims the billionaire corporation knew its injections were harming pregnant women. As of February 28, 2021 Pfizer knew that its shots cause miscarriages, pre-mature births and “other adverse effects on the reproductive systems of women.“ Also, by April 2022, Pfizer knew of tens of thousands of adverse events connected to its COVID-19 vaccine including heavy menstrual bleeding (27,685); menstrual disorders (22,145); irregular periods (15,083); delayed periods (13,989); absence of periods (11,363); and other reproductive system effects.”
Furthermore, since at least early 2021 Pfizer knew its injections were causing myocarditis and pericarditis, especially in teenagers and children.
According to the lawsuit, while Pfizer kept advertising and promoting the so-called “vaccine” as effective against COVID they knew that it was not effective at preventing infection or hospitalization. It states, Pfizer’s concealment, suppression, and omission of the waning effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine allowed Pfizer to profit from vaccinations of Kansans who may have been deterred from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine had they known about its waning effectiveness.
The suit also claims that Pfizer never even tested the COVID shots to determine whether they were effective on stopping transmission. It explains, “Despite admissions by Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla and Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb that Pfizer did not know if its vaccine prevented transmission, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla warned Kansans on multiple occasions that not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would affect the lives of those around them, thus implying that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine prevented transmission.” Specifically, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said;
on December 2020, “I repeat once more, that this choice not to vaccinate will not affect only your health or your life. Unfortunately, it will affect the lives of others and likely the lives of the people you love the most, who are the people that usually you are in contact with.” CNBC’s ‘Squawk Box’ Today
on January 2021: “What I would say to people who fear the vaccine is that they need to recognize that the decision to take it or not will not affect only their own lives. It will affect the lives of others. And most likely it will affect the lives of people that they love the most, who are the people that they socialize the most with.” Bloomberg
on June 2021: “I try to explain to them that the decision to vaccinate or not is not only going to affect only your life. . . . But unfortunately will affect the health of others and likely will affect the health of people you like and you love the most. . . . When you try to explain that their fear could stand in the way of protecting their loved ones, I think this is the argument that mostly works.” CBS NEWS
on November 2021: “The only thing that stands between the new way of life and the current way of life, frankly, is the hesitancy to get vaccinated, the people that are afraid to get the vaccines, and they create issues not only for them. Unfortunately, they are going to affect the lives of others and, frankly, the lives of the people that they love the most because they are putting at risk the people that they hug, they kiss, [and] they socialize with.” Pfizer’s Albert Bourla on how the pandemic ends, ATLANTIC COUNCIL
“In other words, on multiple occasions, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Bourla represented to Kansans that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine prevented transmission since not getting vaccinated threatened the lives of loved ones with whom a person closely interacted.”
According to the filing, “Pfizer’s concealment, suppression, and omission of the waning effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine allowed Pfizer to profit from vaccinations of Kansans who may have been deterred from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine had they known about its waning effectiveness.”
The lawsuit seeks an unstated amount of financial damages.
Dennis Behreandt: Depopulation by Design
/From [HERE] Here is a bit of bad news: We are in the end stage of a multi-pronged, multi-front, multi- decadal war against life itself. It gets worse: Most people have only a vague idea, at best, that this war is raging around them and that they and their families and their nations are the target. The enemy’s objective is to destroy the family, the nation that inevitably has its roots in the family, the religion that supports and breathes life into this superstructure, and even a majority of the individual people who live within this “vital framework.” The goal is simply the complete revolution of life, resulting in a globally managed state run through the United Nations and its affiliate NGOs and peopled by a carefully “curated” and “managed” population of humans “who own nothing and are happy.”
One of the most significant battles in this war that is now in its “kinetic” phase in Ukraine and Israel is biowarfare — specifically the Covid pandemic and the seemingly insane response to it. The global “insane” response to the pandemic, in fact, was the “skeleton key” that unlocked the pathway to the truth about what was happening. From a public-health standpoint, none of the policies instituted did a single thing to help human health and well-being. From standing six feet apart, following arrows on the floor in grocery stores, wearing masks, and telling people that for the most part they were “non- essential workers,” pandemic response policies had zero to do with actually helping people stay healthy, but everything to do with controlling and managing a population through fear and peer pressure. And this was pandemic policy at its best.
At its worst, the most extreme pandemic responses were and remain outright deadly attacks on human life. The virus itself almost certainly was bioengineered. Many public policies directly intermingled the sick with the weak and elderly, in a barely concealed attempt to do in the old and infirm. Globally, life- saving medications such as ivermectin were ridiculed and removed from the market, while dangerous concoctions were prescribed to the sick and hospital “protocols” including “ventilation” turned healthcare facilities into killing fields and medical practitioners, mostly unknowingly, into executioners. Finally, the vax with a raft of deadly side effects was unleashed on billions who believed with starry- eyed faith that everything being done to them was for the their own good.
Worldwide, this was a globally managed operation to lead billions of good and trusting people to injury, sickness, and, in far too many cases, death. But Covid was just the most recent, and perhaps most egregious, event in the biowarfare front of the Deep State global war on everyone else. The triple aims sought by the Deep State on this front are population transformation, control, and reduction. As this special report of The New American will demonstrate, the Deep State death cult has made significant advances, to the bloody detriment of millions around the globe, just since 2019. [MORE]
Study: COVID Shots Possibly Fueled Millions of Deaths in 47 Countries Since Beginning of the Pandemic Due to “Adverse Events”
/From [HERE] A recently released significant study has confirmed the suspicions of so-called COVID “conspiracy theorists” by suggesting a link between the COVID-19 shot and millions of excess deaths worldwide.
As GB News reported on Tuesday, scientists from the Netherlands’ Vrije Universiteit discovered despite the rollout of 13.5 billion COVID vaccines across the globe, excess mortality remained shockingly high. These findings were published in BMJ Public Health.
The scientists wrote that this “new” information raised “serious concerns.” They then elaborated on adverse events that have been reported following the introduction of the Fauci ouchie, including severe injuries and deaths.
“Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well,” the authors wrote. “Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”
“During the pandemic, it was emphasized by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every Covid-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and Covid-19 vaccines,” they continued. “In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”
The scientists went on to cite numerous studies which revealed that COVID-19 vaccination may induce myocarditis, pericarditis, and autoimmune diseases.
“This commonality hinders clinical suspicion and consequently its detection as adverse vaccine reactions,” the authors wrote. [MORE]
Most Studies Show COVID Vaccine Affects Menstrual Cycles, BMJ Review Finds
/From [HERE] Women experienced menstrual cycle disruption following COVID-19 vaccination, including changes in cycle length, flow and menstrual pain, according to a new “state of the science” review published Monday in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.
Although women comprised about half of the participants in the original COVID-19 vaccine trials, no data were collected on how the shots affected their menstrual cycles.
Soon after the shots were rolled out, many women started reporting longer periods and heavier-than-normal bleeding, and many women who did not normally menstruate — including women on long-acting contraceptives and post-menopausal women — also reported unusual bleeding.
Tens of thousands of women reported symptoms to researchers and medical regulators in the U.S. and the United Kingdom respectively by mid-2021.
At the time, women’s concerns were often “blown off” and they felt “gaslighted,” Dr. Alison Edelman, one of the review article authors, told NBC.
Researchers called for studies into the issue, in part because they said disrupted menstrual cycles were driving “misinformation” that the vaccines were dangerous and fueling “vaccine hesitancy.”
Since then, dozens of studies have been published on the issue.
For the BMJ review, researchers from Harvard, Boston University, Michigan State University and Oregon Health & Science University surveyed and summarized the existing published literature in the PubMed database — which contains peer-reviewed research in the biomedical and life sciences literature — on the COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation. [MORE]
Fed Ct Rules COVID Shots are Not Vaccines b/c They Don’t Prevent the Spread of COVID. Thus, the LA Mandate is Not Rationally Related to Preventing Disease, Violates the Right to Refuse Med Treatment
/
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the COVID mandate in LA is unlawful and violates the individual’s right to refuse medical treatment. The court held that mRNA COVID injections are not “vaccines” within the meaning of Supreme Court case precedent because they don’t prevent transmission or provide immunity from COVID. As such, COVID shots are simply medical treatments and do not the pass strict scrutiny under the Constitution because individuals have the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.
While the decision is considered a victory to many people who take their freedom seriously, it is nevertheless cowardly because it is so late. That is, most mandates are no longer in effect and the decision comes after millions have already been forced by the government to take deadly, experimental injections - which was the point. Such is the nature of the lex-icon in the free range prison.
The ruling centers on a lawsuit brought by Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) and other plaintiffs who challenged Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) adoption of a policy that required its employees to get the Covid-19 vaccine to keep their jobs. LAUSD issued the initial vaccine policy March 4, 2021.
There was no trial. The government requested the court to make a judgement on the pleadings, which is a pre-trial motion like a motion to dismiss. To make a decision the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The district court granted the government’s motion by ruling that “mandatory vaccination laws are generally constitutional” and that “Supreme Court precedent did not require that a vaccine have the specific purpose of preventing disease.’ According to the District Court, Supreme Court precedent states that rational basis review (a low standard of review) applied to these facts and under rational basis review no case can plausibly challenge a mandatory vaccination policy. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court misapplied Supreme Court precedent which states that “the principle of vaccination is to prevent the spread of disease and or provide immunity.” The court must balance the an individual’s liberty interest with the government’s societal interest in preventing disease. The government’s interest of preventing societal disease will generally supersede an individual’s liberty rights with regard to a vaccine mandate.
However, in this case the plaintiffs alleged that due to the fact that COVID shots do not prevent the spread of COVID or provide immunity, they were simply individual medical treatments - not vaccines. The complaint stated, “According to most official sources, the most the shot could arguably do was to reduce an infected person’s symptoms. Thus, it is a therapeutic, no different than taking an aspirin or other medicine to reduce the symptoms of illness.” Plaintiffs argued that “the Covid-19 shots do not prevent the spread of Covid-19 and thus must be considered as a private health matter - compulsory medication - not a public one.” Importantly, the government did not properly dispute those claims and argued that the shots are intended to reduce an individual’s symptoms of COVID and were “safe and effective” at doing so. As such, the court overruled the district court decision due to the fact that COVID shots do not meet “the principle of vaccination” or legal standard for vaccinations because they don’t prevent transmission or provide immunity. The court explained that ‘a government has power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing a person from spreading disease to others but it may not force medical treatment that is solely for the recipient’s benefit.’ The court explained that even under rational basis review (‘not crazy review’), which is a very low standard of review, the COVID mandate is unlawful because its purpose is not rationally related to preventing the spread of COVID. This is so because the injections don’t prevent transmission or provide immunity. Rather, COVID mandates have the purpose of reducing an individual’s symptoms - thus Supreme Court precedent concerning vaccines does not apply to the COVID mandate.
Furthermore, the concurrence from judge Collins explained that the district court applied the wrong standard of review and should have applied strict scrutiny review because the mandate invoked the plaintiff’s Constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. Collins said, ‘a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.’ The Supreme Court’s case law clarifies that compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated—as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others—implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.’ Collins explained that the plaintiff’s allegations have invoked that right.’ Accordingly, the district court erroneously applied rational basis review and should used a higher standard to review the mandate because it infringed on fundamental Constitutional rights. Nevertheless, as explained, even under the lowest legal standard of review the mandate is unlawful because COVID shots are mere individual medical treatment, not a vaccine as defined by Supreme Court case law. [MORE]
The complaint stated that individuals have a Constitutional right to refuse to inject themselves with the Covid-19 shots. It stated,
The Supreme Court has recognized the right to bodily integrity as one of the most fundamental rights known to man. Indeed, it has been called “first among equals”. As the Supreme Court has said: ‘No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.’” Guertin v. State of Michigan, 912 F.3d 907, 918 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)). Indeed, the Supreme Court has “never retreated ... from [its] recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests.” Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 159 (2013). For more than a hundred years, the Supreme Court has applied meaningful judicial review to government actions that invaded this right to bodily integrity. It did so even before creating the modern tiers of constitutional scrutiny.
CORPSE BIDEN’S LIES FALSELY INDUCED CONSENT AND DESTROYED INFORMED CONSENT TO TAKE the DEADLY, EXPERIMENTAL COVID INJECTIONS. his lies killed and physically harmed millions and MANDATES destroyed jobs, CAREERS, businesses anD THE FREEDOMS OF MILLIONS.
In a similar suit that also challenges a federal COVID mandate in the US District Court for the District of Utah (funded by Dr. David Martin) the same arguments were made. The complaint in that case explains,
“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).32
As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.
No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.
["Doggy wants you to just barely survive—not to be fully alive"] 'If I Dont Comply I Lose My Freedom, My Career, My Business. What is Slavery Then? Rage at Elites Who Crammed COVID-19 Down Our Throats
/According to FUNKTIONARY:
Doggy – Uncle Brother—the condition and conditioning which serves you your problem doubling as your very own ambition. 2) a situation such that the fulfillment of the conditions necessary to achieve a desired result produces its failure. 3) the entity that goes by many names, including bank-monopolized capitalism, the Spectacle, the Hall of Mirrors and the Looking Glass society, the Mega-machine, Statism, Global Imperialism, Scientific Socialism, cooperative federalism, corporate religion, and the phallacy of “progress”—the manifestation and embodiment of the tool of the Wallflower Order. 4) any shrewd trickster. 5) Leviathan’s Big Brother. 6) the creators of the source code for the global dis-information “system.” 7) Dr. Sam and Mr. Brother. 8) the collective name ascribed to inert abstractions that we have given artificial lifesupport to and unwittingly sanctioned or accorded superiority over life. Doggy is the cultural conditioning system that maintains its hold over all things and all people, even our minds and opinions, by getting us to be informers and informants on each other, by getting us to be the trustees in and of their mind prism prison. Doggy is any and all conditioning, often self-imposed and when necessary involuntarily inflicted, that promotes your belief in illusion (both grand and petit) as a way of life. Doggy creates the conditions wherein an undetected and undeclared war is waged on us directly through us. The result of this on-going psychological war is that you, like many others, willingly destroy your freedom without the possibility of recognizing or overcoming the oppressions of control. The belief in illusion is the agreement to oppression. Doggy is the violent programming we have sustained all of our lives. Doggy wants you to just barely survive—but not to be fully alive—wants you to remain barely alive, but not to fully live. Say Uncle! Bad Doggy. (See: “THEY,” Hidalgo, Vampires, Society, Thoughtforms, CrimethInc., Beasthood, Corporate State, Governments, Uncle Sam, Wallflower Order, Cell, The Collective, Fishbowlers, Big Brother & “Greater System”)
Master’s rent – Federal and state income tax and property tax. When citizen-slaves in America are not working, they can come and go when they want and therefore have the illusion of true freedom—called “free-range slavery.” They only work from January until May for their master and they get to keep part of the “money” the sale of their labor earns them. They have the illusion of owning their own home and their master will only evict them out of it if they fail to pay the master’s rent (which he calls income tax and property tax). The citizen-slaves are treated so well by their master that they don’t want to see, much less leave their cage. American citizen-slaves are content because they usually have enough “money” to buy all the roaming freedom they need. American citizen-slaves realize that they will be punished if they do not comply willingly with master’s demands or commands. A man ceases to be free anytime an obligation is forced upon him, regardless of how small. (See: Involuntary Servitude, Slavery, Citizen, Slave, Serf, Feudalism, Cooperative Federalism, Allegiance, Voluntiered Servitude, “Credit,” Usury, Interest, Labor, Freedom, Corporate State, Govern & Ruler)
Voluntiered Slavery – First Tier—working for the banksters (paying tribute on the cost of “capital,” i.e., debt used as-if it were, or even could ever truly be “money”) under global Hegelian Banking. Second Tier—working for Uncle $cam via the unlawful and criminal misapplication of the Internal Revenue Code coincident with the misinterpretation of the federal revenue taxing laws and apportionment provisions of the Constitution, manifested in the form of federal and state income tax withholding schemes and gambits from one’s paycheck and voluntary compliance with so-called “tax returns.” Third Tier—working for a corporation (a deadly cartoon) which has no existence but through your energy under the corporate fiction of its charter from yet another legal fiction—a Corporate State. (See: Banking, Declaration of Undiependance, Property, Slavery, Wealth, Labor, Asset, Paycheck, Real Tax & Constitution for the United States of America)
Speaking thru Their Dummy (Fauci) Elites Casually Admit there was No Scientific Basis for Social Distancing, Masking or COVID Lockdowns that Destroyed Small Businesses, Jobs and Freedom of Movement
/
From [HERE] In April 2020, The Daily Mail had absolutely no issue with publishing and promoting the obviously flawed Science™ of the pandemic Experts™ like Pantsdown Ferguson:
Meanwhile, Professor Neil Ferguson from Imperial College London, who is advising ministers, said 'significant' social distancing will most likely be needed until there is a vaccine.
He told the Today programme that as restrictions are eased, more testing will be needed to isolate individual cases and trace their contacts to keep future outbreaks under control.
'Because without that, our estimates show we have relatively little leeway,' he said.
'If we relax measures too much then we'll see a resurgence of transmission.
'What we really need is the ability to put something in their place. If we want to open schools, let people get back to work, then we need to keep transmission down in another manner.
'And I should say, it's not going to be going back to normal. We will have to maintain some form of social distancing, a significant level of social distancing, probably indefinitely until we have a vaccine available.'
Now, in June 2024, they casually report that Archcriminal Fauci, responsible for much of the worldwide plandemic response nonsense admits that he made it all up, conveniently forgetting the part they played in promoting it:
Speaking to counsel on behalf of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic earlier this year, Fauci told Republicans that the six foot social distancing rule 'sort of just appeared' and that he did not recall how it came about.
'You know, I don't recall. It sort of just appeared,' he said according to committee transcripts when pressed on how the rule came about.
He added he 'was not aware of studies' that supported the social distancing, conceding that such studies 'would be very difficult' to do.
In addition to not recalling any evidence supporting social distancing, Fauci also told the committee's counsel that he didn't remember reading anything to support that masking kids would prevent COVID.
Oh, never mind all the social, economic and public health harms it caused then? Not to mention the detriment to a generation’s education?
I guess Fauci simply can’t remember the (in)famous Imperial paper then? Funny how someone in such an influential position has no recollection when a complete nobody like me has it all chronicled? Here’s a couple of concise analyses that might aid his memory: [MORE]
An NIH Scientist with Ties to Big Pharma Retracted a Journal Study Showing COVID Injections May Cause Cancer, according to Emails Compelled through FOIA Request
/From [HERE] and [HERE] A recent investigation by Australian journalist Rebekah Barnett suggests politics and financial interests, not scientific concerns, led to the retraction of a 2021 peer-reviewed study finding the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 and the mRNA vaccine impair critical DNA repair mechanisms, which could lead to cancer.
Viruses, published by MDPI, retracted the study in 2022, despite objections by the lead author, Ya-Fang Mei, Ph.D., of Sweden’s Umeå University.
Subsequent research and case studies have largely validated the findings of the retracted study conducted by Mei and Hui Jiang, Ph.D., of Stockholm University in Sweden.
Barnett’s investigation, built on work by independent journalist John Davidson and Dr. Ah Kahn Syed, included emails released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealing that Eric O. Freed, Ph.D., editor-in-chief of Viruses, oversaw its retraction.
Freed, a scientist with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), suggested the retraction could proceed without evidence of scientific misconduct, raising questions about his impartiality.
The study’s co-author originally requested the retraction. However, Mei strongly objected, claiming Stockholm University “forced” the retraction due to external pressure.
The NIH rejected Davidson’s FOIA request for Freed’s emails related to the retraction, citing trade secret exemptions. However, Barnett’s FOIA to Stockholm University uncovered some of these emails.
Barnett’s article contains images of many FOIA’d emails describing the progression of arguments among various scientists and journal and university personnel leading up to the retraction.
Retracted paper showed spike protein could cause cancer
Mei and Jiang found that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein — and its mRNA-vaccine-derived analog — significantly inhibits DNA damage repair, which is essential for maintaining genomic stability and preventing cancer.
The researchers demonstrated that the spike protein localizes in the cell nucleus and inhibits DNA repair by hindering the recruitment of key repair proteins BRCA1 (breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein) and 53BP1 (p53-binding protein 1) to the damage site.
The spike protein’s suppression of the p53 gene, known as the “guardian of the genome,” is particularly concerning, as the gene is crucial in preventing cancer development — particularly, breast, ovarian and other cancers affecting women.
Moreover, the study found that the spike protein impairs V(D)J recombination, a complex genetic process occurring in the early stages of T and B lymphocyte development, which are key components of the adaptive immune system.
This process is essential for generating a diverse repertoire of T-cell receptors and antibodies (immunoglobulins) that can recognize and combat a wide range of pathogens. [MORE]
Karen Kingston: COVID-19 was a Planned Bioweapon Attack. It and other ‘Pandemics’ are caused by mRNA viruses that can be aerosolized, used to contaminate food, beverages or injected into the blood
/From [HERE] Per EcoHealth Alliance, DARPA, and peer-review publications COVID-19 was a pre-planned global bioweapon attack that used aerosolized mRNA nanoparticles to cause a pandemic of illness and fear.
December 20, 2023: Many influencers are stating that there was never a pandemic caused by a biological gain-of-function SARS-CoV-2 virus, but there was something that targeted select individuals and communities causing a range of symptoms from loss of taste and smell to severe respiratory infections and in some cases, cytokine storms or even massive blood clotting. Per my analysis, confirmed by Russian military General Igor Kirollov, COVID-19 and other ‘pandemics’ are caused by synthetic pathogens, or mRNA viruses that can be aerosolized, used to contaminate food, beverages, or surfaces, or…directly injected into a person’s bloodstream via ‘vaccination.’
May 16: 2023: (Originally published on December 15, 2022) To this day there is debate amongst medical freedom leaders and experts as to what caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Personally, I’ve invested many thousands of hours throughout 2021 and 2022, in reviewing documents such as EcoHealth’s Alliance pitch to DARPA, peer-reviewed publications regarding the ground zero attacks in China, Italy, and the US, scientific publications and manufacturer’s documents regarding nanoparticle technologies, Pfizer’s private and government contracts, dozens of patents, nanoparticle and SynBio forecasting reports, and reviewed many DARPA communications regarding the current and future applications of nanoparticle technologies.
In March of 2023, the Russian military issued a statement that COVID-19 and many other recent pandemics were caused by artificial pathogens or synthetic viruses. These artificial pathogens are mRNA nanoparticles, the same mRNA nanoparticle technologies found in the COVID-19 mRNA injections.
Stew Peters and I Reiterate that COVID-19 is Caused by BioSynthetic Pathogens on December 15, 2022
On December 15, 2022, Stew Peters allowed me on his platform so that I could make the following statement in order to clearly articulate to concerned citizens how the mRNA nanoparticle technology caused COVID-19:
“Residents of Wuhan and other cities of China, Italy and the United States, were victims of a coordinated nanoparticle bioweapon attack, a bioweapon attack using the same nanoparticles that are in all COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Most victims became infected with the nanoparticles via a direct aerosol attack, surface transmission, or food and beverage contamination.
US citizens should be horrified to learn that EcoHealth Alliance, the NIH, the DOD, and other departments within our US government refer to lipid nanoparticles (nanocarriers) as vaccine technology that can a deliver toxin, chemical weapon, and/or weapon of biowarfare.
The EcoHealth Alliance proposal to DARPA clearly identifies nanoparticle bioweapons as spike proteins, spike protein nanoparticles that are ‘bat vaccines.’ EcoHealth lays out the plan to ‘vaccinate’ residents of select Chinese cities as well as US residents with spike-protein nanoparticle bat-vaccines via aerosol attack, surface transmission, and food and beverage contamination. The purposes of the nanoparticle bat-vaccines are to suppress the human immune system while turning human beings into carriers of lethal diseases.
The DARPA proposal states that EcoHealth will ask the CDC to ‘vaccinate wild vampire bats’ in the United States. The US military will have an app so they can track the ‘vaccinated bats.’
There are three critical points that need to be stated regarding Wuhan, SARS-CoV-2, and COVID-19:
There weren’t mass COVID-19 deaths in 2020. Many people became ill, some became very ill, and some died, but 99.99% didn’t die. EcoHealth states that the point of the nanoparticle vaccines are to weaken the immune system so that animals (humans) can carry lethal viruses without dying from the viruses.
Most COVID-19 diagnoses in 2020 were diagnoses based on pure financial incentives and fraudulent.
COVID-19 is caused by an advanced nanoparticle bioweapon that uses mRNA technology to strategically deteriorate and destroy cardiovascular, neurological, immune and reproductive systems. COVID-19 is NOT caused by a virus, gain-of-function, wild-type or otherwise.
Lastly, the victims who were originally inoculated with the bioweapon in 2020 were not highly-contagious, if infectious at all. The first round of nanoparticle bioweapons did not contain mRNA codes. They were ‘empty rounds.’ There were also over 200 mRNA sequences of SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020. The virus was never isolated because multiple mRNA sequences were released. At ground zero, from the Wuhan Seafood Market, 9 patients who were sampled for the SARS-CoV-2 sequence, their sequences didn’t match. It’s scientifically impossible for a virus to mutate that quickly.
In regards to the injections, Sergeant Jason Murphy of the US Marines states in his letter that when victims are injected with mRNA nanoparticles that then directly enter into their blood streams, that in effect turns them into gain-of-function bioweapons labs capable of shedding and infecting others.
Details supporting these statements can be found in EcoHealth’s Alliance pitch to DARPA, and are substantiated by peer-reviewed publications regarding the ground zero attacks in China, Italy, and the US, as well as scientific publications and manufacturer’s documents regarding nanoparticle technology, including the patents.”
Note: It’s important to understand that ‘gain-of function viruses’ are lipid nanoparticle technologies programmed with mRNA codes. mRNA is not a biosynthetic substance itself, mRNA are software codes. SARS-CoV-2 is not a virus, it’s a software code programmed into nanoparticles. The nanoparticle is a modRNA-LNP (modified ribonucleic acid/lipid nanoparticle).
