Vaccine Mandate Dissenters Smeared

Vaccine Mandate Dissenters Smeared

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • October 4, 2021, Southwest Airlines sent an announcement to its employees informing them the airline is “required to comply with the government federal contractor mandate for employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19”
  • The following weekend, October 9 and 10, 2021, Southwest Airlines was forced to cancel some 1,800 flights. While some claim the cancellations were due to a coordinated “sickout” in protest of the vaccine mandate, Southwest Airlines blamed “disruptive weather” and “air traffic issues” for the cancellations
  • An estimated 50 to 60 NBA players remain unvaccinated. In a recent article, the Rolling Stone accuses me of capitalizing on players’ refusal to get the jab
  • Rolling Stone again relies on the propaganda narrative of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, despite Facebook having refuted the organization’s made-up claims
  • As of November 30, 2021, unvaccinated Canadians will be barred from planes and trains “to ensure a minority of people cannot sabotage Canada’s economic recovery” by spreading the virus and getting people sick. This despite the scientific fact that the COVID jab does not prevent infection or spread of the virus

October 4, 2021, Southwest Airlines sent an announcement to its employees informing them that “because Southwest Airlines is a federal contractor,” the airline is “required to comply with the government federal contractor mandate for employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”1

The following weekend, October 9 and 10, 2021, the airline was forced to cancel some 1,800 flights. The reason for the mass cancelations remains unclear, however.

While some claim the cancellations were due to a coordinated “sickout” in protest of the vaccine mandate, Southwest Airlines blamed “disruptive weather” and “air traffic issues” for the cancellations. Curiously, bad weather did not have the same devastating effect on most other airlines. American Airlines, for example, which is much larger, cancelled just 63 flights that weekend.2

The pilots’ union also denied involvement, saying that “our pilots are not participating in any official or unofficial job actions.”3

The timing is interesting though. Friday October 8, 2021, Southwest’s pilot union asked a Dallas, Texas, court to temporarily block the vaccine mandate until its preexisting lawsuit4 against the company, filed August 30, 2021, is resolved. According to the pilot union’s legal filing:5

"The new vaccine mandate unlawfully imposes new conditions of employment and the new policy threatens termination of any pilot not fully vaccinated by December 8, 2021. Southwest Airlines' additional new and unilateral modification of the parties' collective bargaining agreement is in clear violation of the RLA [Railway Labor Act]."

While the mass cancellations of flights surely made life difficult for many people, coordinated walkouts appear to be the only way to make our voices heard. The COVID-19 shot is far from harmless, and any blood clotting issue would be a clear career killer for pilots and flight attendants. Pilots also aren’t allowed to fly when they report being fatigued, and fatigue is a very common side effect of the jab as well.

Interestingly, a few weeks ago, there was a report of a Delta pilot who had recently received his second dose of the COVID jab, who died during the flight. The plane was landed safely by the co-pilot. You can learn more details in the video below.

NBA Players Take a Stand

In related news, an estimated 50 to 60 NBA players have refused to take the COVID jab.6 Among them is Kyrie Irving, who is predicted to be sidelined from dozens of games during the 2021-2022 basketball season. As reported by USA Today:7

"New York City's vaccine mandate requires professional athletes playing in public arenas to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and Irving's vaccination status remains unclear. Now, for the first time, Nets coach Steve Nash is acknowledging that the team expects Irving to miss home games at Barclays Center due to the mandate.

'I think we recognize he's not playing home games,' Nash told reporters Sunday. 'We're going to have to for sure play without him this year. So it just depends on when, where and how much.'"

In early August 2021, the NBA Union had held its annual summer meeting online. One of the agenda items was whether the league office should mandate that 100% of players had to get the COVID jab. Across the board, those in attendance said such a mandate would be a “non-starter.” As reported by Rolling Stone magazine:8

" … unvaccinated players were pushing back. They made their case to the union summit: There should be testing this year, of course, just not during off-days. They'd mask up on the court and on the road, if they must. But no way would they agree to a mandatory jab. The vaccine deniers had set the agenda; the players agreed to take their demands for personal freedom to the NBA's negotiating table."

Rolling Stone also disparages Orlando Magic’s Jonathan Isaac, who has refused the COVID jab on religious grounds:

"When NBA players stated lining up for shots in March, Isaac started studying Black history … He learned about antibody resistance and came to distrust Dr. Anthony Fauci. He looked out for people who might die from the vaccine, and he put faith in God.

'At the end of the day, it's people,' Isaac says of the scientists developing vaccines, 'and you can't always put your trust completely in people.' Isaac considers un-vaxxed players to be vilified and bullied, and he thinks 'it's an injustice' to automatically make heroes out of vaccinated celebrities.'"9

Another player who has spoken out against the COVID jab mandate is Golden State Warriors Draymond Green, who during a September 30, 2021, press conference said he will not pressure other players to get vaccinated.10

He said he believes the vaccination issue has become a political issue. In the process, we’ve lost the notion that people’s personal medical decisions must be honored. He also noted that the pressure levied to force people into taking the jab is causing many to get suspicious. “Why are you pressing this so hard?” he said.

Rolling Stone Attacks Me

In another article,11 Rolling Stone reporter Matt Sullivan takes aim at yours truly, referring to me as “the anti-vax godfather.” The article appears to be an emergency response to a tweet in which I said that “NBA players are being very courageous to speak up.”12

“… consistently increased engagement on social posts in support of vaccine-denying athletes from accounts linked to what they call The Disinformation Dozen.

The nonprofit estimated in March that this group … accounted for 73 percent of all anti-vax content on Facebook; the social network responded by shutting down their main accounts and penalizing their other ones, but Silicon Valley’s Covid police haven’t stopped the anti-vaxxers from re-emerging to ally themselves with celebrities.

‘The Disinformation Dozen are sort of saying, ‘They’ve got Biden, we’ve got Kyrie Irving,’ and they’re trying to see if they can use it to access Black audiences, young audiences and basketball fans,’ says CCDH chief executive Imram [sic] Ahmed.

‘This cancer is seeking to replicate itself in another organ of society. The hope is that it can be contained and doesn’t metastasize from there. But the worst thing that can happen is for players to react to nonsense — if they’re wrong, the price is paid in life’ …

Dr. Joseph Mercola, who tops The Disinformation Dozen, tweeted his applause to more than 325,000 followers this week for Golden State Warriors superstar Draymond Green’s rant against vaccine mandates as ‘very courageous’ and for an appearance on Fox News by the Orlando Magic forward Jonathan Isaac — who told RS that he didn’t know why vaccinated people wear masks indoors — as ‘a refreshing voice of reason.’14

Facebook Has Refuted the CCDH Report

What Sullivan didn’t include was the fact that Facebook has publicly refuted the CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report, stating that:15

“… these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.

The report16 upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users.

They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.

Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as ‘anti-vax’ or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps.”

Despite that, Sullivan continues to promote that CCDH report as “fact” and Imran as some sort of authority on who has the greatest influence on social media.

Are Naturally Immune ‘Antivax’?

Sullivan emailed me a few questions in preparation for that smear piece. Among those questions was whether I have “counseled any NBA players seeking information about the vaccine,” and “If so, how so?” Apparently, he believes I advise professional athletes, which I don’t.

He also wanted to know how I consider these sports influencers to be part of “my movement” or “my team,” and whether I believe Irving’s defiance of the New York City vaccine mandate would rally my supporters. Here’s my reply:

“Many of these athletes have had COVID themselves and the public health officials are reluctant to admit they are right. Natural immunity is better than any vaccine, which proves these mandates are not about immunity — they are about forced vaccination and control.

You’ve said the NBA is ‘relying on science’ in a previous article yet they are ignorant and lying about natural immunity — just as the federal government is doing. The mandates are not about immunity, they are about control and obedience. www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/15/natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate/

Individuals can think for themselves and should be allowed to do so, independent of pharmaceutical influence, employer mandates or political authoritarians. I believe that each person must fully educate themselves before engaging in any medical risk taking.

People are smarter than they are being given credit for, and everybody has their own unique circumstances to base their decisions on including biological vulnerabilities that can make vaccine risks greater for some people than others. twitter.com/ericspracklen/status/1445901692143390720?s=21

I applaud anyone who stands up against medical mandates which can negatively affect their lives. It takes courage to take on the attacks of the media and pharmaceutical interests and accept the consequences being forced upon them without their consent.

Many stadiums are packed with 80,000 people now, without any vaccine mandates and have embraced life beyond the ridiculous propaganda currently controlling in the media.”

It’s Not About Health, It’s About Control

As noted by Spencer Fernando,17 the idea that the COVID jab would be mandated and forced on people was rejected as loony conspiracy theory at the beginning of the pandemic. Ditto for vaccine passports. Yet here we are.

The pace toward tyranny is slower in the United States compared to some other countries, thanks to our Constitution, but President Biden’s attempt to dictate unconstitutional COVID injection mandates to private employers across the nation is evidence that the Constitution is routinely being overstepped even here. Some countries, like Canada and Australia, aren’t even pretending to hide the fact that it’s about social control anymore. As noted by Fernando:18

"Have you noticed how events in Canada have really moved in only one direction? Compliance at all costs. The trend has been clear: More and more control, more and more threats of punishment, and more and more demands for compliance."

As of November 30, 2021, unvaccinated Canadians will be barred from planes and trains” to ensure a minority of people cannot sabotage Canada’s economic recovery” by spreading the virus and getting people sick. But there’s a giant hole in this rationale.

A person with natural immunity is safer than anyone who has gotten the jab, because its more robust and provides wider protection against variants. The COVID shot does not prevent infection or spread of the virus.

If the goal were to prevent spread of the virus, then the only things that would make sense would be to prove you’re not infected or that you are immune. Proof of vaccination will have zero impact on the spread of the virus. You’ll just end up with a vaccinated population that spreads new mutations among themselves.

The Power of Natural Immunity

In a September 15, 2021, Washington Post article, Dr. Marty Makary, professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, stated:19

“It’s okay to have an incorrect scientific hypothesis. But when new data proves it wrong, you have to adapt. Unfortunately, many elected leaders and public health officials have held on far too long to the hypothesis that natural immunity offers unreliable protection against covid-19 — a contention that is being rapidly debunked by science.

More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated.

This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected.

The study authors concluded that ‘individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.’ And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.

So, the emerging science suggests that natural immunity is as good as or better than vaccine-induced immunity. That’s why it’s so frustrating that the Biden administration has repeatedly argued that immunity conferred by vaccines is preferable to immunity caused by natural infection, as NIH director Francis Collins told Fox News host told Bret Baier a few weeks ago.

That rigid adherence to an outdated theory is also reflected in President Biden’s recent announcement that large companies must require their employees to get vaccinated or submit to regular testing, regardless of whether they previously had the virus.”

If You Don’t Take a Stand, Who Will?

Clearly, we’re not dealing with either logic, science or health. The effort to vaccinate the whole world, whether they need it or not, is about control and greed.

“Some have said that people have ‘gone crazy’ during this crisis,” Fernando writes.20 “However, I think the reality is that people have been revealed.

A large number of people (and nearly all politicians) have demonstrated that in a crisis they panic, lose any sense of proportion, are unable to think creatively, and double-down on the same failed approach over and over again.

Worse than that, they have shown that they would prefer to demonize and direct fear towards others, rather than seek to take responsibility for their own lives and their own health. Rather than seek control over themselves, they seek control over others.”

Many are now so locked into irrational fear, it’s virtually impossible to get them to look at data or facts. Meanwhile, the political class has grown obsessed with controlling everyone, and don’t want to see or hear anything that might undermine that aim.

As a result, those willing to defend freedom and individual rights appear to be a shrinking group. But no matter how small that group gets, we can never quit. As noted by Fernando:21

"… it's remnants that hold on to values in difficult moments, and provide the foundation from which those values are renewed and rebuilt. That's why we must continue to stand up against measures like the national vaccine passport, and stand up for our fellow citizens who are being demonized by our pathetic and failed leaders."

The question is how? How do we stand against the ever more draconian rules being thrown at us? For starters, we all need to stop making money for the authoritarians. That means not donating to political campaigns that support authoritarian leaders or buying products or using services provided by companies that in turn support the elimination of our rights.

Secondly, we need to get organized. If you work at a company that is threatening to implement mandatory vaccination, you could coordinate a “sickout,” where everyone calls out sick on the same days, or some other form of strike. You can also consider taking legal action.

In early September 2021, USCourts.gov posted a list of attorneys willing to take on vaccine injury cases and/or cases involving vaccine mandates. Since then, that webpage has been removed, but the list can still be found on Daily USA24.22 Legal counsel may also advise you on how to protect your communications.

Recommended Articles

13 reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 Vaccine

13 reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 Vaccine

At a press conference on Monday September 13th, the four Chief Medical Officer’s (CMO’s) of the United Kingdom advised the UK Government to offer the Pfizer vaccine to children aged between 12 and 15.

Around 3 million under-16s are due to be offered the jabs after Chris Whitty endorsed the move, claiming it may “help prevent outbreaks in classrooms and further disruptions to education this winter”.

Doses will be largely administered through the existing school vaccination programme and parental consent will be sought. But children will be able to overrule their parents’ decision in the case of a conflict if they are deemed mature and competent enough, which has rightly caused fury.

For a child to be competent enough to make the decision to have the vaccine they should be made aware of all the facts before they reach their decision, and the same can be said for parents who wish to consent to their child having the jab. So we’ve compiled 13 factual reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 vaccine…

Reason No. 1
86% of Children suffered an Adverse Reaction to the Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine in the Clinical Trial

The information is publicly available and contained within a US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) fact sheet which can be viewed here (see page 25, table 5 on-wards).

That fact sheet contains two tables that detail the alarming rate of side effects and damage experienced by 12 – 15- year-old children who were given at least one dose of the Pfizer mRNA injection.

The tables shows that 1,127 children were given one dose of the mRNA jab, but only 1,097 children received the second dose. This fact in itself raises questions as to why 30 children did not receive a second dose of the Pfizer jab.

Of the 1,127 children who received a first dose of the jab 86% experienced an adverse reaction. Of the 1,097 children who received a second dose of the jab 78.9% experienced an adverse reaction.

Reason No. 2
1 in 9 Children suffered a Severe Adverse Reaction leaving them unable to perform daily activities in the Pfizer Clinical Trial

For children 12 to 15 years of age, the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine clinical trial found the overall incidence of severe adverse events which left them unable to perform daily activities, during the two-month observation period to be 10.7%, or 1 in 9, in the vaccinated group and 1.9% in the unvaccinated group.

Consequently, children who received the vaccine had nearly six times the risk of a severe adverse event occurring in the two-month observation period compared to children who did not receive the vaccine. In addition, the incidence of Covid-19 in the unvaccinated group was 1.6%, therefore, there were almost seven times more severe adverse events observed in the vaccinated group than there were Covid-19 cases in the unvaccinated group.

This information is all freely available to see in official Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents and official Centre for Disease Control (CDC) documents.

Reason No. 3
Just 9 deaths associated with Covid-19 have occurred in Children since March 2020

Official NHS data which can be viewed here (see Table 3 – COVID-19 deaths by age group and pre-existing condition of the downloadable excel document) shows that since March 2020 just 9 people under the age of 19 have died with Covid-19 who had no known pre-existing conditions in England’s hospitals, up to the 26th August 2021. The data also shows that just 39 people under the age of 19 have died with Covid-19 in the same time frame who did have other serious underlying conditions.

There are approximately 15.6 million people aged 19 and under in the United Kingdom which means just 1 in every 410,526 children and teenagers have allegedly died with Covid-19 in 18 months who had other serious pre-existing conditions. Whilst just 1 in every 1.7 million children have allegedly died with Covid-19 in 18 months, who had no know pre-existing conditions.

A scientific study titled ‘Deaths in Children and Young People in England following SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first pandemic year: a national study using linked mandatory child death reporting data’ (which can be found here), conducted by Clare Smith of NHS England and Improvement and several Universities also concluded that children are at negligible risk of death, hospitalisation, or serious illness due to the alleged Covid-19 virus.

The study collated data from the National Child Mortality Database; a mandatory system that records all deaths in Children under 18 years of age in England. What the researchers found is that just 25 children under the age of 18 died of Covid-19 between March 2020 and February 2021, with 15 of the 25 having a pre-existing life-limiting condition, and 19 of the 25 having a chronic condition.

The study also found that 16 of the 25 children who sadly died had two or more comorbidities with 8 children suffering pre-existing neurological and respiratory problems, 3 children suffering pre-existing neurological and cardiology problems, and 3 children suffering respiratory and cardiology problems.

Reason No. 4
The risk of Children developing serious illness due to Covid-19 is extremely low

A study (found here) led by Professor Russell Viner of UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, published on the medRxiv server, found that 251 young people aged under 18 in England were admitted to intensive care with Covid-19 during the first year of the pandemic (until the end of February 2021).  

The results of the study found that there were 5,830 admissions associated with Covid-19 among children up to 17 years of age during the pandemic year, this represents just 1.3% of secondary care admissions among children.

The lead author of the study said: “These new studies show that the risks of severe illness or death from SARS-CoV-2 are extremely low in children and young people”.

Reason No. 5
The Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine is experimental and still in Clinical Trials

The Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 injection is in fact only temporarily authorised (see official MHRA document here) for emergency use only. In October the government made changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow the MHRA to grant temporary authorisation of a Covid-19 vaccine without needing to wait for the EMA.

A temporary use authorisation is valid for one year only and requires the pharmaceutical companies to complete specific obligations, such as ongoing or new studies. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, standard marketing authorisation can be granted. This means that the manufacturer of the vaccine cannot be held liable for any injury or death that occurs due to their vaccine, unless it was due to a quality control issue.

The reason the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 injection has only been granted temporary authorisation is because it is still in clinical trials that are not set to conclude until May 2nd 2023. You can see the official Clinical Trial Study Tracker for the Pfizer jab on the US National Library of Medicine site here.

This is the first time mRNA injections have ever been authorised for use in humans (see here), and the long term side effects are not known, meaning the millions of people around the world who have had the Pfizer Covid-19 injection are essentially taking part in an experiment.

Reason No. 6
Three Scientific Studies conducted by the UK Government, Oxford University, & CDC, which were published in August have found the Covid-19 Vaccines do not work

New research in multiple settings shows that the alleged Delta Covid-19 variant, the now dominant variant in the UK, produces very high viral loads which are just as high in the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population. Therefore, vaccinating individuals does not stop or even slow the spread of the alleged dominant Delta Covid-19 variant.

CDC Study

The CDC study (found here) focused on 469 cases among Massachusetts residents who attended indoor and outdoor public gatherings over a two week period. The results found that 346 of the cases were among vaccinated residents with 74% of them presenting with alleged Covid-19 symptoms, and 1.2% being hospitalised. However, the remaining 123 cases were among the unvaccinated population with just 1 person being hospitalised (0.8%).

Oxford University Study

The Oxford University study (found hereexamined 900 hospital staff members in Vietnam who had been vaccinated with the Oxford / AstraZeneca viral vector injection between March and April 2021. The entire hospital staff tested negative for the Covid-19 virus in mid May 2021 however, the first case among the vaccinated staff members was discovered on June 11th.

All 900 hospital staff were then retested for the Covid-19 virus and 52 additional cases were identified immediately, forcing the hospital into lockdown. Over the next two weeks, 16 additional cases were identified.

The study found that 76% of the Covid-19 positive staff developed respiratory symptoms, with 3 staff members developing pneumonia and one staff member requiring three days of oxygen therapy. Peak viral loads among the fully vaccinated infected group were found to be 251 times higher than peak viral loads found among the staff in March – April 2020 when they were not vaccinated.

UK Department of Health & Social Care Study

The UK Department of Health & Social Care study (found here) is an analysis of ongoing population wide SARS-CoV-2 monitoring in the UK and includes measures of viral load among the population.

The study found that viral loads among the vaccinated and unvaccinated population are virtually the same, and much higher than had been recorded prior to the Covid-19 injection roll-out. The study also found that the majority of cases among the vaccinated population were presenting with symptoms when they became positive.

The authors of the study conclude that the Pfizer and Oxford / AstraZeneca injection have lost efficacy against what they claim to be the Delta Covid-19 variant.

Reason No. 7
Public Health England Data shows the majority of Covid-19 Deaths are among the Vaccinated and suggests that the Vaccines worsen disease

A report titled ‘SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England’ (found here – see Table 5 Page 21), is the 22nd technical briefing on alleged variants of concern in the United Kingdom published by Public Health England.

From February 1st 2021 up to August 29th 2021 nearly twice as many unvaccinated people account for confirmed cases of Covid-19 than those who are fully vaccinated.

However when you include the number to have received one dose of a Covid-19 injection the number of cases among the vaccinated group (222,693) actually surpasses the number that have been recorded among the unvaccinated population.

The total number of deaths to have occurred since February 2021 involving the Delta Covid-19 variant that have been linked to vaccination status total 1,698. Of these just 30% have been among the unvaccinated population, despite the fact most second vaccinations were administered between April and June.

Whereas the fully vaccinated account for 64.25% of Covid-19 deaths since February 2021, and when including the partly vaccinated in those numbers they account for 70%.

The data published by Public Health England actually suggests that the risk of death increases significantly in those who have been fully vaccinated.

536 deaths have occurred among 219,716 confirmed cases in the unvaccinated population since February. This is a case fatality rate of 0.2%. Whereas 1,091 deaths have occurred among 113,823 cases among the fully vaccinated population. This is a case fatality rate of 1%.

This means the Covid-19 injections seem to be increasing the risk of death due to Covid-19 by 400% rather than reducing the risk of death by 95% as claimed by the vaccine manufacturers, Public Health bodies, and the Government.

Reason No. 8
There have been at least 1.18 million Adverse Reactions to the Covid-19 Vaccines in the UK alone

The thirty-second report highlighting adverse reactions to the Pfizer / BioNTech, Oxford / AstraZeneca, and Moderna Covid-19 injections that have been reported to the UK Medicine Regulator’s (MHRA) Yellow Card scheme reveals that there have been 1,186,844 adverse reactions reported since the 9th December 2020 up to the 1st September 2021.

The reports for each available vaccine can be found here under the analysis print section and include adverse reactions such as blindness, seizure, stroke, paralysis, cardiac arrest and many other serious ailments.

The Pfizer mRNA injections has left at least 107 people fully paralysed and a number of other people partly paralysed up to the 1st September 2021. However, the MHRA state that an estimated 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported to the Yellow Card scheme, meaning the true figure of adverse reactions is immensely higher.

Reason No. 9
There have been more deaths in 8 months due to the Covid-19 Vaccines than there have been due to all other available Vaccines since the year 2001

The UK Medicine Regulator responded to a Freedom of Information (found here) request demanding to know how many deaths have occurred in the past 20 years due to all vaccines, and their response revealed that there have been four times as many deaths in just eight months due to the Covid-19 injections.

The request was made via email to the Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on the 6th August 2021, and in answer to the question asked on the number of deaths due to all other vaccines in the past twenty years, the MHRA revealed that they had received a total of 404 reported adverse reactions to all available vaccines (excluding the Covid-19 injections) associated with a fatal outcome between the 1st January 2001 and the 25th August 2021 – a time frame of 20 years and 8 months.

However, according to the MHRA Yellow Card Report (see here – under each analysis print section) there have been 1,632 deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines from December 9th 2020 up to September 1st 2021. This includes 16 deaths due to the Moderna jab, 24 deaths where the brand of vaccine was unspecified, 1,064 deaths due to the AstraZeneca vaccine, and 524 deaths due to the Pfizer mRNA injection.

Reason No. 10
The risk of Myocarditis (Heart Inflammation) in Children due to the Pfizer Vaccine

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, whilst Pericarditis is inflammation of the protective sacs surrounding the heart. Both are serious conditions due to the fact the heart muscle cannot regenerate, and both conditions have officially been added to the safety labels of the Pfizer jab and Moderna jab by the MHRA (see here).

Myocarditis and pericarditis happen very rarely in the general (unvaccinated) population, and it is estimated that in the UK there are about 6 new cases of myocarditis per 100,000 patients per year and about 10 new cases of pericarditis per 100,000 patients per year.

The MHRA has undertaken a thorough review of both UK and international reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination against Covid-19 due to a recent increase in reporting of these events in particular with the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, with a consistent pattern of cases occurring more frequently in young males.

Scientific Study published on the JAMA network, has also found that the incidence of myocarditis among vaccinated individuals is at least double what Health Authorities are claiming.

The new JAMA study (found here) showed a similar pattern to a CDC study (found here), although at higher incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination, suggesting vaccine adverse event under-reporting.

The researchers calculated the average monthly number of cases of myocarditis or pericarditis during the pre-vaccine period of January 2019 through January 2021 was 16.9 compared with 27.3 during the vaccine period of February through May 2021.
The mean numbers of pericarditis cases during the same periods were 49.1 and 78.8.

Dr. George Diaz who conducted the study told Medscape that “Our study resulted in higher numbers of cases probably because we searched the EMR, and [also because] VAERS requires doctors to report suspected cases voluntarily,” Diaz told Medscape. Also, in the governments’ statistics, pericarditis and myocarditis were “lumped together”.

Reason No. 11
Children have died and are dying due to the Covid-19 Vaccines

The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which can be searched here by inputting the specific VAERS ID shows that several children have died in the US after having the Covid-19 vaccine, with many suffering cardiac arrest.

A 16 year-old female received the Pfizer vaccine on the 19th March 2021. Nine days later the same female went into cardiac arrest at home. By the 30th March 2021 she had sadly died. Found under VAERS ID 1225942.

A 15 year-old female suffered cardiac arrest and ended up in intensive care four days after having the Moderna mRNA jab. She also sadly died. Found under VAERS ID 1187918.

Another 15 year-old female received her second dose of the Pfizer jab on the 6th June 2021. Sadly one day later she died suddenly without reason. Found under VAERS ID 1383620.

A 15 year-old male die due to an unexplained reason twenty-three days after having the Pfizer jab. Found under VAERS ID 1382906.

The above are sadly just a few examples of the deaths to have occurred among children due to the Covid-19 vaccines in the USA.

Reason No. 12
Who profits from your Child getting the Covid-19 Vaccine?

It may surprise you to know that GP’s were already being incentivised to inject the adult population with the Covid-19 vaccine with a payment of £12.58 for every dose administered.

So it may surprise you further to know that GP’s are being offered an additional payment of £10 on top of the £12.58 already offered for every injection administered to a child in the United Kingdom. All of this is documented in an official NHS document found here.

According to the last count made in 2020 there are approximately 3,154,459 children between the ages of 12 and 15 in the United Kingdom. Therefore GP’s across the UK could stand to make a combined £142.45 million if every child is injected with a Covid-19 vaccine.

A Freedom of Information request (found here) which the MHRA responded to in May 2021 revealed that the current level of grant funding received from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation amounts to $3 million and covers “a number of projects”. The MHRA being the UK Medicine Regulator to have granted emergency use authorisation for the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA vaccine to be given to children.

Coincidentally, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation bought shares in Pfizer back in 2002 (see here), and back in September 2020 Bill Gates ensured the value of his shares went up by announcing to the mainstream media in a CNBC interview that he viewed the Pfizer jab as the leader in the Covid-19 vaccine race.

“The only vaccine that, if everything went perfectly, might seek the emergency use license by the end of October, would be Pfizer.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also coincidentally bought $55 million worth of shares in BioNTech (see here) in September 2019, just before the alleged Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Can we really trust the MHRA to remain impartial when its primary funder is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who also own shares in Pfizer and BioNTech?

Reason No. 13
The Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation have refused to recommend the Pfizer Vaccine be offered to Children

On the 3rd September 2021 the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) announced (see here) they were not recommending the Pfizer Covid-19 injection be offered to all children over the age of 12.

The assessment by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is that the health benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms. However, the margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal vaccination of healthy 12 to 15 year olds at this time.

The JCVI cited the following –

“For the vast majority of children, SARS-CoV-2 infection is asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and will resolve without treatment. Of the very few children aged 12 to 15 years who require hospitalisation, the majority have underlying health conditions.”

Since 1st April 2009 the Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009 place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health in England to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the recommendations of JCVI are implemented (See here – page 6).

Yet in an unprecedented move, the Secretary for Health and the Government decided to bypass the JCVI and seek the advice of the four Chief Medical Officers (CMO’s) of the United Kingdom.

In their letter to the Government (found here), the UK CMO’s state they looked at wider public health benefits and risks of universal vaccination in this age group to determine if this shifts the risk-benefit either way. They claim in their letter that “the most important in this age group was impact on education”.

This raises some serious questions –

  1. Did Covid-19 close the schools? The answer is of course no. Schools were closed because of Government policy.
  2. Should a person take a medical treatment so that they are able to partake in society or education? The answer is couse no. A person should only ever take a medical treatment for a medical reason, in the case of the Covid-19 vaccine that reason should be to prevent infection; which it does not do, or prevent illness; which it will not do as children are at such low risk of suffering serious illness due to Covid-19.

The decision by Chris Whitty and his fellow Chief Medical Officers to advise the Government that the Covid-19 vaccines should be offered to children is not a decision based on science, it is instead a decision based on politics.

But we have just presented 13 factual reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 vaccine, and each and every one is based on the science.

Now the choice is yours, or perhaps that of your child, we hope you make the correct one.

To view the original article, please visit >> https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/14/13-reasons-why-you-should-not-allow-your-child-to-get-the-covid-19-vaccine/

The Rationale for the Continued Vaccine Roll-Out is Not Evident

The Rationale for the Continued Vaccine Roll-Out is Not Evident

Friday, 30th July 2021

We appear to have serious problems with the Covid-19 vaccination programme. The evidence underpinning the claimed efficacy and safety of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine is highly questionable. Statistical analysis raises numerous issues, and until these are addressed, the alleged benefits cannot be shown to outweigh the risks. 

With wider concerns expressed by some of the world’s leading immunologists, virologists and epidemiologists, justification for the continued vaccination programme appears to be lacking. Possible unacceptable risk is evident in every nation which has vaccinated a significant proportion of its population.

The vaccines appear to increase the mortality risk from Covid-19, something the authorities and the regulatory agencies have so far shown little or no interest in investigating.

Some of what we are about to discuss is necessarily speculative. It is based upon a full statistical analysis—but, absent a comprehensive investigation, we cannot be certain why this analysis appears to show an increased Covid-19 mortality risk following vaccination.

Equally, refusal to investigate this correlation is untenable. No claim of either vaccine safety or efficacy is justified without properly accounting for this statistical analysis.

Concerning Data Emerges in Israel

Recently, the UK Column interviewed, among others, Dr Hervé Seligmann (Part 1 here). Dr Seligmann has a B.Sc. in Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He earned an M.Sc. in 1991 and gained his Ph.D in 2003. He has had over 100 scientific papers published. He works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseilles, France. His statistical research partner is the engineer Haim Yativ.

Dr Seligmann and Mr Yativ have posted an informative English-language resource page where you can see recent updates to their research. Their analysis of Israeli data appears to show a significant increased risk of Covid-19 mortality (for the vaccinated) during the period between receipt of the first and second vaccine doses, and for a brief period following the second dose. Their research has focused upon the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine (tozinameran).

Their research impacts the risk/benefit analysis for the Pfizer BioNTech mRNA vaccine. It brings the claims made about its efficacy and safety into considerable doubt. Their analysis should be assessed in light of the absence of completed clinical trials for the BNT162b2 vaccine, which are still in the recruitment phase.

Nor are there any completed clinical trials for any of the other leading vaccines used in western nations. AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 (or ChAdOx1-S) trial (NCT04516746) is due to be completed in February 2023. Moderna’s mRNA vaccine phase III trial (NCT04470427) should be concluded by October 2022. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen trial (NCT04614948) is expected to near completion in May 2023.

There are no posted results for any of these trials. The vaccines have all been approved for population use under emergency authorisation for this reason. They are unlicensed medications and do not have marketing authorisation. The approval decision was made based solely on data provided to the regulators by the manufacturers.

In Israel, on 11 February 2021, Ynet published an article in which they made the following claim:

Data from the Ministry of Health obtained by Ynet show the huge gap between the completely vaccinated and the unvaccinated. According to them, the effectiveness of the vaccine is higher than 90% in all age groups, both in preventing coronary heart disease and in preventing serious illness and death.

It is important to note that Ynet’s statement is based upon an analytical comparison made between the “completely vaccinated” and the “unvaccinated”. Further data from the Israeli Ministry of Health was then made available and was reported on 11 March by the German media outlet Correctiv.org. Dr Seligmann and Mr Yativ then reanalysed the original datasets and found clear discrepancies between the data and the reported “benefits” of the vaccines.

Key to this issue was that the claimed “benefits” were only measured from completion of the second dose, and took no account of the risks in the five-week period between and immediately following the first and second dose. Seligmann and Yativ referred to this window as the “period of vaccination”. We will use the abbreviation “PoV” for this period throughout the rest of this article.

Seligmann and Yativ analysed the data from the Israeli Ministry of Health (included in their report—linked above) and the data from Dagan et al., 2021. They continue to monitor the datasets but, as already stated, this analysis was for the period up to 11 March.

They calculated an unvaccinated person’s Covid-19 mortality baseline risk from data covering the 303-day period between 1 March 2020 and 20 December 2020, when the Israeli BNT162b2 vaccine rollout began. They analysed the percentage of cases and deaths for the two age groups in the Israeli data (those below and those above 60 years of age) published by the actuaries at the health insurance company Clalit.

Using this data, Seligmann and Yativ calculated the daily percentage chance of Covid-19 mortality for the respective, unvaccinated cohorts. For those under 60, it was 0.00000257% per day. For Israeli citizens over 60, it was 0.00022631% per day. The data released by the Israeli Ministry of Health, for various intervals in the PoV, were then compared to these unvaccinated baselines.

Between 0 and 13 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, the Covid-19 daily mortality risk for the over 60’s was 0.003303%. This was more than 14.5 times higher than for the unvaccinated. More than thirteen days following the first dose of vaccination, this risk increased to 0.005484% per day; a risk more than 24.2 times greater than among the unvaccinated. This increased further, for the first six days after the second dose, to 0.006076% — representing a 26.85-fold increased risk of Covid-19 mortality for the vaccinated.

In the second week following the second dose, the risk for the over-60s remained at 18.4 times higher for the vaccinated. This gradually reduced to 6.7 times worse than the unvaccinated at fourteen days following the second dose, and the excess risk continued to decrease over the the next few weeks. The data showed that there is a a PoV of approximately five weeks during which there is a significantly increased risk of dying from Covid-19 for the vaccinated over-60s.

A similar increased risk of Covid-19 mortality was seen in the data for the under-60s. In the first two weeks following the first dose, the risk was increased 23.86 times. This increased further to a 42.4-times elevated risk in the second week after the first dose. In the first week following the second dose, the data indicated a 94-fold increase in the daily Covid mortality risk for the vaccinated. For the period studied, there was no noted increased risk to the under-60s beyond the first week following the second dose.

The Missing "Benefit" of BNT162b2 Vaccination

Seligmann and Yativ’s statistical analysis clearly showed a significantly higher risk of Covid-19 mortality for the vaccinated during the PoV. They then noted that once the vaccine had taken full effect, the Covid-19 mortality risk for the vaccinated reduced below the risk for the unvaccinated. They found an apparent benefit from the vaccine once the PoV had ended.

Taking into account that the general population risk of Covid-19 mortality is so low, they were able to calculate how many days of full vaccine protection would be required to compensate for the significant increased daily mortality risk during the PoV.

For the over-60s, after the first dose, the BNT162b2 vaccine would have to provide nearly two years of full protection (690.62 days) to achieve any net benefit. Seligmann and Yativ stated:

Pooling both age classes, on average, in order to not lose more lives than gain lives due to vaccination, the protective effects of the vaccine, without costs associated with 3d [a third dose] and more shots, would have to be absolute and with no other vaccine-related but COVID19-unrelated deaths for a period of at least 658 days.

The researchers also noted a number of important caveats. For example, the age distribution and relative risk classes for the unvaccinated wasn’t clear in the Israeli data. This could be a compounding factor for their analysis, and they have requested clarification. They have yet to receive a response.

Their initial analysis did not take account of non Covid-19 mortality patterns. They also disregarded the fact that vaccine protection is not absolute. They went on to extrapolate their research to look at broader mortality patterns. This indicated even further reason for concern, especially among children, suggesting that the vaccinated pose a risk to the unvaccinated.

Seligmann and Yativ noted that the Israeli Ministry of Health and the co-authors of the Dagan, et al. paper had commercial conflicts of interest with Pfizer. However, sticking to the data presented in the Dagan, et al. paper, they noted an overall threefold increase on Covid-19 infection rates for the vaccinated during the five-week PoV.

We might add our own caveat at this point: a positive RT-PCR test is not evidence of a “case” of Covid-19. However, Seligmann’s calculations are based upon the government’s definition of a case.

In summation, Seligmann and Yativ have identified an elevated risk of both infection and subsequent Covid-19 mortality, during the PoV with BNT162b2. This is so marked that to justify it, the absolute protection conferred by the vaccine (an absolute protection which is known not to exist) would have to be prolonged (for many years—without any need of boosters or further vaccination). If this is not the case, then any net benefit from the vaccine is extremely unlikely.

Media reports from Israel would seem to admit that a net benefit does not exist. The New York Times recently reported:

Researchers estimated that the Pfizer shot was just 39 percent effective against preventing infection in the country in late June and early July, compared with 95 percent from January to early April.

The Daily Telegraph reports that BNT162b2 recipients are already being required to take a booster. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla announced that Pfizer’s claimed efficacy drops to 84% within six months. Bourla stated that supposed “efficacy” against severe disease declines by 6% every two months. He alleges that this necessitates the booster.

If Seligmann and Yativ’s statistical analysis is correct, this strongly indicates that there is no possible Covid-19 health benefit for the BNT162b2 vaccine. Consequently, a “booster”—of something which appears to cause harm—would be irrational.

Corroboration from Others

Seligmann and Yativ’s findings have seemingly been corroborated by the research of Dr Steve Ohana and Dr Alexandra Henrion-Caude. They found a large spike in mortality among the 20-49 age group in Israel. They then compared this to other nations with a high vaccine coverage (taking the jurisdiction of England & Wales) and noted the same phenomenon. They concluded:

Surges in mortality among young people are very rare events, and are usually associated with wars […] The mortality peak among 20 to 49-year-olds in February-March 2021 is therefore unprecedented and indeed concerning […] Our additional observation supporting this possible link between vaccination and youth mortality is the fact that common patterns of excess mortality were also observed in England and Wales […] [T]he established link between the Pfizer vaccine and myocarditis/autoimmune diseases in young adults further lend a physiological support. Such accumulation of concern should, in our view, urgently prompt a pause in the vaccination campaign, until the reasons of the youth excess mortality observed in mass vaccination countries are clarified.

In addition, Peter Schirmacher, director of the Pathological Institute in Heidelberg, Germany, who advocates Covid-19 vaccination, has highlighted the need for immediate post-mortem examinations of the vaccinated. Schirmarcher carried out more than forty autopsies on people who died shortly after vaccination in Germany. He found that up to 40% of them died from cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune disease that could be attributable to the vaccines

There is even a suggested mechanism explaining how this increased mortality could be occurring. An autopsy of a recently vaccinated 86-year-old decedent found that the S-protein (spike protein), whose production is induced by the BNT162b2 vaccine, was found in almost every organ of the man’s body. This is contrary to the claims of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers, who maintain that the S-protein is only produced by and remains at the vaccine site.  

Doctors for Covid Ethics are among the many renowned scientists and physicians who have raised concerns about the S-protein produced by the body’s cells following an mRNA Covid jab. They state:

The first injection will induce the expression of spike protein, and the formation of specific antibodies to it. Re-vaccination will lead to a second round of spike protein production, including in endothelial cells. The antibodies, now already present, will bind to these spikes and will direct attack of the complement system to these cells. Neutrophil granulocytes, too, will be activated by antibodies bound to the endothelial cells. Vascular damage and leakage will ensue.

Not only is there statistical evidence suggesting cause for concern; there is physiological evidence that could account for the data. It is not known whether the apparent increased mortality is derived from this suggested mechanism—and that is the point. Without a proper investigation, no-one knows.

Reason for Concern in the UK

Currently in the UK, the MHRA Yellow Card scheme data suggests that more than 1,500 people may have died as a result of vaccination. In addition, the MHRA has stated that Yellow Card reports only represent 10% of total vaccine related mortality, suggesting a plausible 15,000 vaccine related deaths so far in the UK.

The MHRA now states that this under-reporting estimate should not be used for Covid-19 vaccines, because (they allege) awareness of their Yellow Card scheme for vaccine adverse drug reactions has somehow improved. They have offered no evidence to substantiate this claim.

We might ask what the point of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme is. On the one hand, the agency states that its purpose is to act as an “early warning system” for possible vaccine harm. Yet the MHRA also states:

The suspected ADRs described in this report are not interpreted as being proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

This would be acceptable if the MHRA had investigated those possible adverse reactions to establish whether they were ADRs. Again, there is no evidence that they have. All we can say is that the MHRA does not interpret them as vaccine ADRs. Therefore, the chance of their Yellow Card scheme actually providing an “early warning” would appear to be nil.

If we apply Seligmann and Yativ’s analysis to the UK vaccine rollout data, a very worrying picture emerges. The Israeli researchers considered the BNT162b2 vaccine in Israel. This brand was also the first vaccine administered to the most vulnerable in the UK. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to apply their findings to the UK data.

The first dose of the BNT162b2 was given to Margaret Keenan on 8 December 2020. The vaccine rollout began in earnest between a week and two weeks later. As in Israel, it was in full swing by 20 December 2020.

Brian Pinker was the first person in the UK to receive an AstraZeneca vaccine, on 4 January 2021, nearly a month later. The rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine also took a couple of weeks to get fully up to speed.

The vaccines were distributed in keeping with the UK Government’s priority schedule. This meant that the first to receive the vaccine were the most vulnerable in British care homes, hospitals and other care settings.

On 10 January 2021, the then Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, confirmed figures reporting that 2.3 million people had been vaccinated for Covid-19 in the UK. While specific data on the vaccine distribution has not been released, it is clear that the vast majority of these people must have received BNT162b2.

On 22 November 2020, the seven-day average for daily Covid-19 mortality in the UK stood at 466.4. By 8 December—the day of Keenan’s vaccination—the average had dropped to 428.9. This represented a decline of 8% in the daily mortality average in just over two weeks.

By 19 January 2021, the seven-day daily Covid-19 mortality average had increased by nearly 300% to 1285.7. Using Seligmann and Yativ’s PoV—assuming a full BNT162b2 vaccine programme from 15 December onward, and using the UK Government’s own statistics—it appears that a significant proportion of 29,755 reported Covid-19 deaths may have been attributable to the increased mortality risk presented by the vaccine.

We cannot say, without a thorough investigation, what that proportion is. However, the distribution of that mortality does appear to correlate strongly with the distribution suggested by Seligmann and Yativ’s analysis.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Yellow Card data indicating a possible 1,500 vaccine-related deaths appears to underestimate vaccine harm considerably. The known phenomenon of under-reporting—combined with the remarkable correlation between the Israeli analysis, the vaccine rollout of BNT162b2 and the official UK Government statistics—suggests that the Pfizer vaccine is dangerous.

As the data currently stands, it seems that many thousands of alleged Covid-19 deaths may have occurred due to the additional risks posed by the BNT162b2 vaccine alone. Given the lack of clinical trials, it is not possible for anyone to state categorically that any of the major Covid-19 vaccines is either effective or safe; certainly not Pfizer BNT162b2. 

Government claims of lives saved do not stand up to scrutiny. When we also consider the growing evidence of risks associated with other vaccines, the rationale for the continued vaccine rollout is not evident.

To view the original article, please visit >> https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-rationale-for-the-continued-vaccine-roll-out-is-not-evident

Dr Peter McCullough reveals the Covid-19 Vaccines are Bioweapons and a CDC whistle-blower

Dr Peter McCullough reveals the Covid-19 Vaccines are Bioweapons and a CDC whistle-blower has confirmed 50,000 Americans have died due to the jabs

BY  ON 

The most highly cited physician on the early treatment of COVID-19 has come out with an explosive new interview that blows the lid off the medical establishment’s complicity in the unnecessary deaths of thousands.

Dr. Peter McCullough said these deaths have been facilitated by a false narrative bent on pushing an all-new, unproven vaccine for a disease that was highly treatable.

He said the alleged Covid-19 virus is a bioweapon and the vaccines represent “phase two” of that bioweapon.

“As this, in a sense, bioterrorism phase one was rolled out, it was really all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation,” McCullough said in a June 11 webinar with German attorney Reiner Fuellmich and several other doctors.

He noted:

“Both the respiratory virus and the vaccine delivered to the human body the spike protein, the gain of function target of this bioterrorism research.”

“Now I can’t come out and say all this on national TV today or at any time,” he continued. “But, what we had learned over time is that we could no longer communicate with government agencies. We actually couldn’t even communicate with our propagandised colleagues in major medical centres, all of which appear to be under a spell, almost as if they are hypnotized right now.”

He did not hold back in his criticism of his colleagues in the medical community.

“And doctors, good doctors, are doing unthinkable things, like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathological spike protein into pregnant women. I think when the doctors wake up from their trance they’re going to be shocked to think what they’ve done to people.”

McCullough is professor of medicine and vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University and also teaches at Texas A&M University. He is an epidemiologist, cardiologist and internist and has testified before the Texas State Senate related to COVID-19 treatments. He holds the distinction of being the most widely cited physician in the treatment of COVID-19 with more than 600 citations in the National Library of Medicine.

In the interview McCullough said:

“The first wave of the bioterrorism is a respiratory virus that spread across the world, and affected relatively few people—about one percent of many populations—but generated great fear.”

He said the virus targeted primarily people over 50 with multiple medical conditions. It poses almost no risk to children.

He said 85 percent of the more than 600,000 U.S. deaths could have been prevented with a multi-drug treatment given in the early to mid-point of the disease.

Instead, people were told to stay home and not return to the hospital unless their symptoms got worse, such as severe breathing problems. By then it was too late for many. They were placed on ventilators and died.

The vast majority of doctors jumped in lockstep to follow these erroneous “guidelines” handed down by the World Health Organisation and the U.S. Centre for Disease Control. Those guidelines neglected to place any focus on the treatment of sick patients and, from the beginning, as early as April 2020, started emphasizing the need for a vaccine as the only real hope of beating back the virus.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS] logged 5,993 reports of deaths of people injected with the COVID vaccine between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 11, 2021. That’s more than all the deaths reported to VAERS from all other vaccines combined over the last 22 years.

But these numbers, as shocking as they are, don’t scratch the surface of the actual number of dead Americans, said McCullough.

“We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC. We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.

McCullough added that “every single thing that was done in public health in response to the pandemic made it worse.”

He said the suppression of early COVID treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and especially Ivermectin, “was tightly linked to the development of a vaccine.”

Without the suppression of the already-available treatments, the government would not have been able to legally grant Emergency Use Authorisation to the three vaccines rushed to market in the USA by Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson.

In the case of Moderna, the U.S. government is co-patent holder through the National Institutes of Health, a clear conflict of interest, and confidential documents reveal Moderna sent a coronavirus mRNA vaccine candidate was sent to a US University in December 2019, weeks before Covid-19 was allegedly known to even exist.

“I published basically the only two papers that teach doctors how to treat COVID-19 at home to prevent hospitalisation and death…If treated early, it results in an 85 percent reduction in hospitalisations and death,” McCullough said.

So not only were the vaccines rolled out unnecessarily by suppressing already available, effective treatments, but the FDA and CDC are now covering up tragic numbers of deaths caused by their experimental mRNA injections.

McCullough said he has organized groups around the world that emphasise early treatment.

“Governments have actually tried to block early treatment of Covid patients, so we created a home patient guide,” he said.

“We broke through to the people, and the people who got sick with COVID called in to get medications from mail-order distribution pharmacies. So without the government even knowing what went on, we crushed the epidemic here in the United States towards the end of December and January.

“We basically took care of the pandemic with about 500 doctors and telemedicine services. And to this day we treat about 25 percent of the US COVID-19 population that actually are at high risk, over age 50 with medical problems or present with severe symptoms. And we basically handled the pandemic, and at the same time we’ve tried to keep ourselves above the political fray.”

McCullough said his focus has recently turned to the unnecessary and dangerous injections.

“We are working to change the public view of the vaccine. The public initially accepted the vaccine and we had to kind of slowly turn the ship. Now, in the U.S. the rates of vaccination have been dropping since April 8. Most of the vaccination centres are empty.

“We have a lot going on in the United States. We are engaging more and more attorneys.

Source

COVID-19 Origins Revealed

COVID-19 Origins Revealed


By Mike Adams

June 8, 2021

The cover-up has imploded. Covid-19 was engineered in a lab, and the desperate attempts to hide its true origins are rapidly collapsing.

Over the weekend, even the Wall Street Journal is now catching up to what Natural News reported a year ago, admitting that covid-19 came from a lab. The article is entitled, “The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak” and carries the subhead, “The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.”

Authored by Steven Quay and Richard Muller, the article discusses the genetic fingerprint of the “double CGG” combination that appears in the virus:

Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory. Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2.

Despite this, the virologists involved in the gain-of-function research on coronavirus sought to hide the existence of this double CGG fingerprint:

When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin?

But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues published their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans.

So it’s not just that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab; the scientists involved in that effort also tried to cover their tracks and deceive the world as millions died.

“The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory,” write Quay and Muller. Yes, we knew that a year ago. Now, the mainstream media is finally beginning to admit to the reality that those of us in the independent media have known all along.

Names you need to know: Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance), Anthony Fauci, Ralph Baric

Some good sources of information about the communist Chinese bioweapons program that was funded by Daszak, Fauci and even the Pentagon:

RedState.com: EXCLUSIVE: High-Ranking Chinese Defector Has ‘Direct Knowledge’ of Several Chinese Special Weapons Programs

Wall Street Journal: The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak

UK Daily Mail: The Pentagon secretly funneled $39 to Peter Daszak, his charity funded the Wuhan lab

The National Pulse: Fauci’s Boss Admits Funding Wuhan Lab: ‘We Had No Control Over What They Were Doing.’

LifeSiteNews: China Virus “Smoking Gun” Found

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

From the UK Daily Mail:

The Pentagon gave $39 MILLION to Dr. Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance – the charity that funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab accused of being the source of the outbreak, federal data reveals… Federal data seen by DailyMail.com reveals The Pentagon gave $39 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which funded a lab in Wuhan, China, between 2013 and 2020. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is accused of being the source of Covid-19.

From LifeSiteNews:

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has just uncovered a Chinese book that proves that Chinese military scientists have been working towards the development of a “new era of genetic weapons.” These weapons, the Chinese scientists promised, could be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed.”

In the 2015 volume, called The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons, the Chinese military scientists begin by suggesting that World War III would be fought with biological weapons.

And not just any bioweapons.

Coronaviruses, a number of which cause respiratory illnesses in people, were mentioned as a class of viruses that could be readily weaponized. Indeed, the Chinese scientists were even more explicit, pointing out in their paper that the coronavirus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, was an ideal candidate for a bioweapon.

From The Bulletin:

It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”

Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. In their laboratories they routinely created viruses more dangerous than those that exist in nature. They argued that they could do so safely, and that by getting ahead of nature they could predict and prevent natural “spillovers…”

Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by China’s leading expert on bat viruses, Shi Zheng-li or “Bat Lady,” mounted frequent expeditions to the bat-infested caves of Yunnan in southern China and collected around a hundred different bat coronaviruses.

Shi then teamed up with Ralph S. Baric, an eminent coronavirus researcher at the University of North Carolina. Their work focused on enhancing the ability of bat viruses to attack humans so as to “examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs [coronaviruses].” In pursuit of this aim, in November 2015 they created a novel virus by taking the backbone of the SARS1 virus and replacing its spike protein with one from a bat virus (known as SHC014-CoV). This manufactured virus was able to infect the cells of the human airway, at least when tested against a lab culture of such cells.

Baric had developed, and taught Shi, a general method for engineering bat coronaviruses to attack other species. The specific targets were human cells grown in cultures and humanized mice.

Peter Daszak celebrates (brags) about engineering the SARS coronavirus to attack human cells

Also from TheBulletin.org:

Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes (“reverse genetics” and “infectious clone technology”), creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures (“in vitro”) and humanized mice (“in vivo”).

On December 9, 2019, before the outbreak of the pandemic became generally known, Daszak gave an interview in which he talked in glowing terms of how researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been reprogramming the spike protein and generating chimeric coronaviruses capable of infecting humanized mice.

“And we have now found, you know, after 6 or 7 years of doing this, over 100 new SARS-related coronaviruses, very close to SARS,” Daszak says around minute 28 of the interview. “Some of them get into human cells in the lab, some of them can cause SARS disease in humanized mice models and are untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine. So, these are a clear and present danger….

“Daszak: Well I think…coronaviruses?—?you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happen with coronavirus, in zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work a lot with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab.

In disjointed style, Daszak is referring to the fact that once you have generated a novel coronavirus that can attack human cells, you can take the spike protein and make it the basis for a vaccine.

Full details in today’s length Situation Update podcast

Today’s podcast provides the full details, covering the origins of covid, the cover-up attempt and the collapse of the cover-up. Now we know that the spike protein used in covid vaccines is actually a communist Chinese military bioweapon.

We also therefore know that covid-19 vaccines are biological weapons designed to exterminate humanity, since they contain the weaponized spike protein that was specifically engineered to attack human ACE2 receptors, which exist all over the body (not just the lungs).

Remember, Fauci and Daszak helped fund the development of genetically engineered “humanized mice” — mice with human lung tissue — in order to maximize the ability of the virus to infect human beings. This is all now admitted.

Hear the full podcast on Brighteon.com:

 

COVID Vaccine Spike Protein Travels From Injection Site, Can Cause Organ Damage

‘We Made a Big Mistake’ — COVID Vaccine Spike Protein Travels From Injection Site, Can Cause Organ Damage

Research obtained by a group of scientists shows the COVID vaccine spike protein can travel from the injection site and accumulate in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.

By Megan Redshaw

COVID vaccine researchers had previously assumed mRNA COVID vaccines would behave like traditional vaccines. The vaccine’s spike protein — responsible for infection and its most severe symptoms — would remain mostly in the injection site at the shoulder muscle or local lymph nodes.

But new research obtained by a group of scientists contradicts that theory, a Canadian cancer vaccine researcher said last week.

“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” said Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”

 

Bridle, who was awarded a $230,000 grant by the Canadian government last year for research on COVID vaccine development, said he and a group of international scientists filed a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency to get access to Pfizer’s “biodistribution study.”

Biodistribution studies are used to determine where an injected compound travels in the body, and which tissues or organs it accumulates in.

“It’s the first time ever scientists have been privy to seeing where these messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination,” Bridle said in an interview with Alex Pierson where he first disclosed the data. “Is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is: absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting.”

The Sars-CoV-2 has a spike protein on its surface. That spike protein is what allows it to infect our bodies, Bridle explained. “That is why we have been using the spike protein in our vaccines,” Bridle said. “The vaccines we’re using get the cells in our bodies to manufacture that protein. If we can mount an immune response against that protein, in theory we could prevent this virus from infecting the body. That is the theory behind the vaccine.”

“However, when studying the severe COVID-19, […] heart problems, lots of problems with the cardiovascular system, bleeding and clotting, are all associated with COVID-19,”  he added. “In doing that research, what has been discovered by the scientific community, the spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.”

When the purified spike protein is injected into the blood of research animals, they experience damage to the cardiovascular system and the protein can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain, Bridle explained.

The biodistribution study obtained by Bridle shows the COVID spike protein gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination and then accumulates in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.

“We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein, Bridle said. “It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation.”

A large number of studies have shown the most severe effects of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, such as blood clotting and bleeding, are due to the effects of the spike protein of the virus itself.

A recent study in Clinical and Infectious Diseases led by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School measured longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 recipients of the Moderna vaccine 1 and 29 days after the first dose and 1-28 days after the second dose.

Out of these individuals, 11 had detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein in blood plasma as early as one day after the first vaccine dose, including three who had detectable levels of spike protein. A “subunit” protein called S1, part of the spike protein, was also detected.

Spike protein was detected an average of 15 days after the first injection, and one patient had spike protein detectable on day 29 — one day after a second vaccine dose — which disappeared two days later.

The results showed S1 antigen production after the initial vaccination can be detected by day one and is present beyond the injection site and the associated regional lymph nodes.

Assuming an average adult blood volume of approximately 5 liters, this corresponds to peak levels of approximately 0.3 micrograms of circulating free antigen for a vaccine designed only to express membrane-anchored antigen.

In a study published in Nature Neuroscience, lab animals injected with purified spike protein into their bloodstream developed cardiovascular problems. The spike protein also crossed the blood-brain barrier and caused damage to the brain.

It was a grave mistake to believe the spike protein would not escape into the blood circulation, according to Bridle. “Now, we have clear-cut evidence that the vaccines that make the cells in our deltoid muscles manufacture this protein — that the vaccine itself, plus the protein — gets into blood circulation,” he said.

Bridle said the scientific community has discovered the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.

Once in circulation, the spike protein can attach to specific ACE2 receptors that are on blood platelets and the cells that line blood vessels, Bridle said. “When that happens it can do one of two things. It can either cause platelets to clump, and that can lead to clotting — that’s exactly why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with these vaccines. It can also lead to bleeding,” he added.

Both clotting and bleeding are associated with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Bridle also said the spike protein in circulation would explain recently reported heart problems in vaccinated teens.

Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is now clear vaccine content is being delivered to the spleen and the glands, including the ovaries and the adrenal glands, and is being shed into the medium and then eventually reaches the bloodstream causing systemic damage.

“ACE2 receptors are common in the heart and brain,” she added. “And this is how the spike protein causes cardiovascular and cognitive problems.”

Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways not assessed in safety trials.

In a public submission, Whelan sought to alert the FDA to the potential for vaccines designed to create immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to instead cause injuries.

Whelan was concerned the mRNA vaccine technology utilized by Pfizer and Moderna had “the potential to cause microvascular injury (inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi) to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”

Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency

Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency

BREAKING NEWS: Doctors and Scientists Write to European Medicines Agency Warning of COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers

10th March 2021

A group of scientists and doctors has today issued an open letter calling on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to answer urgent safety questions regarding COVID-19 vaccines, or withdraw the vaccines’ authorisation.

The letter describes serious potential consequences of COVID-19 vaccine technology, warning of possible autoimmune reactions, blood clotting abnormalities, stroke and internal bleeding, “including in the brain, spinal cord and heart”. The authors request evidence that each medical danger outlined “was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.”

“Should all such evidence not be available”, the authors write, “we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA.”

The letter is addressed to Emer Cooke, Executive Director of the EMA, and was sent on Monday 1 March 2021. The letter was copied to the President of the Council of Europe and the President of the European Commission.

It states: “We are supportive in principle of the use of new medical interventions.” However, “there are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute ‘human experimentation’, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.”

Link to letter: https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595

Video statement by Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology and Former Chair, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene: https://lbry.tv/@Doctors4CovidEthics:d/Prof.-Sucharit-Bhakdi-statement-on-EMA-open-letter.ENG:0

For comment contact Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD: sucharit.bhakdi@gmx.de, or Associate Professor Michael Palmer MD:mpalmer@uwaterloo.ca

In a public statement the group said…

“No sooner did we deliver our letter than the Norwegian Medicines Agency warned that COVID-19 vaccines may be too risky for use in the frail elderly, the very group these vaccines are designed to protect. We would add that, by virtue of the mechanisms of action of the vaccines, to stimulate the production of spike protein, which has adverse pathophysiological properties, there may also be vulnerable people who are not old and already ill. New data shows that vaccine side effects are three times as common in those who have previously been infected with coronavirus, for example. None of the vaccines have undergone clinical testing for more than a few months, which is simply too short for establishing safety and efficacy.

“Therefore, as a starting point, we believe it is important to enumerate and evaluate all deaths which have occurred within 28 days of vaccination, and to compare the clinical pictures with those who have not been vaccinated.

“More broadly, with respect to the development of COVID-19 vaccines, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has stated in their Resolution 2361, on 27th January 2021, that member states must ensure all COVID-19 vaccines are supported by high quality trials that are sound and conducted in an ethical manner. EMA officials, and other regulatory bodies in EU countries, are bound by these criteria. They should be made aware that they may be violating Resolution 2361 by applying medical products still in phase 3 studies.

“Under Resolution 2361, member states must also inform citizens that vaccination is NOT mandatory and ensure that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to become vaccinated. States are further required to ensure that no one is discriminated against for not receiving the vaccine.”

The letter comes as a petition against UK Government plans for vaccine passports passed 270,000 signatures, more than double that required to compel consideration for debate by MPs. The petition will be debated in the UK Parliament on 15th March 2021.

Doctors and scientists can sign the open letter by sending their name, qualifications, areas of expertise and country of practice to: Doctors4CovidEthics@protonmail.com.

END

The Road to Medical Technocracy

The Road to Medical Technocracy

Published on Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Technocracy is an economic ideology built around totalitarian rule by unelected leaders that got its start in the 1930s, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems
  • The word comes from the word “techn,” which means “skill,” and the god “Kratos,” which is the divine personification of power. A technocrat is someone who exercises power over you on the basis of their knowledge
  • Evidence of technocratic rule has also become evident during the pandemic. The censoring and manipulation of medical information is part and parcel of the social engineering part of this system
  • The medical technocracy has lied to us about several things, starting with the risk of death from COVID-19. Based on deaths per capita, the global average death rate for COVID-19 is 0.009%.
  • Evidence that the technocratic fear propaganda is working can be seen in a recent poll, which found Millennials believe 2% of their generation will die from COVID-19

The Doctors for Disaster Preparedness1 lecture, given August 16, 2020 in Las Vegas, Nevada, features Dr. Lee Merritt, an orthopedic spinal surgeon with a medical practice in Logan, Iowa.2

In her presentation, she discusses how geopolitical power can be swayed in the absence of an identifiable army or declared war. She talks about the cognitive dissonance we’re currently facing, when what we’re told no longer corresponds with known facts or logical thinking.

And she reviews how medical technocrats — the so-called medical experts and political leaders who have turned the world upside-down in response to COVID-19 — have been 100% wrong about everything they’ve been telling us.

They’ve been wrong about the initial risk assessment, testing, preventive measures, mask wearing and social distancing. They’ve conflated “cases” or positive tests with the actual illness. They’re also guilty of errors of omission — not telling us what medical doctors and scientists know to be helpful.

“I can give you the benefit of the doubt when you’re wrong about one or two things, but when you’re wrong 100% of the time, consistently, that is not by accident,” Merritt says. “They should have come up with something that was in our best interest if they really cared about us.”

The Rise of Technocracy

Merritt credits her understanding of technocracy to reading Patrick Wood’s book, “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.” Wood is also the editor in chief of Technocracy News & Trends. I recently interviewed Wood. His interview is featured in “The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy.”

As explained by Wood and Merritt, technocracy is an economic ideology built around totalitarian rule by unelected leaders. It got its start in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems. At the time, it looked like capitalism and free enterprise were going to die, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch.

They called this system “technocracy.” The word comes from the word “techn,” which means “skill,” and the god “Kratos,” which is the divine personification of power. As explained by Merritt, a technocrat is someone who exercises power over you on the basis of their knowledge.

Based on deaths per capita, the death rate for COVID-19 is 0.009%.

As an economic system, technocracy is resource-based. Rather than basing the economic system on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, the technocratic system is instead based on energy resources. In a nutshell, under this system, companies would be told what resources they’re allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.

Former President Obama’s implementation of economic fines for those unwilling or unable to purchase health insurance could be viewed as an example of this system, in which you do not have the freedom to choose whether you want to buy a service or not. Your only choices are to purchase that which is mandated, or pay a fine.

The technocratic system also involves, indeed requires, social engineering, which relies on massive data collection and the use of artificial intelligence. Technocrats have silently and relentlessly pushed this agenda forward ever since those early days in the ‘30s, and signs of its implementation are becoming increasingly visible.

Evidence of technocratic rule has also become evident during the pandemic. The censoring and manipulation of medical information are part and parcel of the social engineering part of this system.

The Lies We’ve Been Told About COVID-19 Death Risk

In her lecture, Merritt reviews several lies we’ve been told by the technocratic elite, starting with the actual risk of death. Based on deaths per capita, the death rate for COVID-19 is 0.009% (709,000 people have died from or with COVID-19 around the world, and the global population is 7.8 billion).

The area with the highest death rate, New York, has a death per capita rate of 0.17%, yet Dr. Anthony Fauci publicly lauded New York for its excellent COVID response. This is just one example that has caused cognitive dissonance, as praising the area with the highest death rate (even if low overall) as having one of the best responses simply isn’t logical.

Ironically, five of the six countries with the lowest death rates (ranging between 0.00003% and 0.006%) did very little in terms of pandemic response; they didn’t shut down or order people to stay home.

Yet, we’re told these measures are absolutely necessary, and must continue, perhaps indefinitely. This too creates massive cognitive dissonance, as it goes against all logic. If an action doesn’t result in an observable benefit, it simply doesn’t make sense to continue, let alone claim that was and is necessary.

Purposeful Conflation of ‘Positive Tests’ With ‘Cases’

Furthermore, instead of comforting everyone and opening the world back up when the death toll started falling, the narrative suddenly shifted focus to “cases,” meaning people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 — regardless of whether they had symptoms. More cognitive dissonance, as the primary measure of disease threat is its lethality.

As noted by Merritt, since ancient times, a “case,” medically speaking, has referred to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness.

Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been completely and arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of viral RNA. “That is not epidemiology. That’s fraud,” Merritt says.

What’s more, most of the tests used have no benchmarks, meaning we don’t know what the rates of false positives and false negatives are. And, many areas are tacking on extra “cases” when someone tests positive and relays that they’ve been around other people. Again, “that’s fraud,” Merritt says.

Evidence that the technocratic propaganda is working can be seen in a recent poll by Harvard, Oxford and Universita Boconi, which found Millennials believe 2% of their generation will die from COVID-19. “That’s 10,000 times more than the reality,” Merritt says. “It’s just completely out of proportion to reality.”

The Lies We’ve Been Told About Mask Wearing

Lie No. 2 is about the benefits of mask wearing. “It’s not scientifically sound, so why are we doing it?” Merritt asks. It’s “just a symbol of submission.” As noted in her slide show, “The strongest argument for mask wearing is it sounds good. The strongest argument against mask wearing is it doesn’t work at all.”

Alongside that quote is a photo of a man’s face covered in dust particles after sawing sheetrock wearing a Class II medical earloop facemask, with the caption, “Each particle of sheetrock dust is 10 microns. Coronavirus is 0.125 microns. Any questions?”

The coronavirus is nearly 100 times smaller than sheetrock dust. In other words, surgical masks cannot and do not block the coronavirus (or any other virus for that matter). Surgical mask boxes are even printed with the warning that the mask “will not provide any protection against COVID-19 or other viruses,” and “does not reduce the risk of contracting any disease or infection.”

Ditto for medical N95 respirator masks, as they only block particles larger than 0.3 microns. N95 masks are used in hospital settings to protect against tuberculosis, as the TB virus is 3 microns. You must, however, wear the correct size, it must be properly fitted to your face, and you must follow certain procedures when putting it on and removing it to prevent cross contamination.

OSHA respirators, used by construction workers and other industries, also screen down to 0.3 microns, but they are equipped with a one-way valve. So, it only screens the air coming in, not the air going out. So, you’re in no way protecting others when wearing such a mask.

The Quality of Data Is What Matters

Merritt also discusses a publication in PNAS, “Identifying Airborne Transmission as the Dominant Route for the Spread of COVID-19,”3 in which the authors purport to support mask wearing by looking at New York City as a model. According to Merritt, she has serious concerns about this study, as it doesn’t control for the No. 1 factor that reduces infectivity, namely humidity.

The higher the humidity, the lower the infectivity rate. The paper also has “all these bizarre references,” Merritt says, “that have absolutely nothing to do with the precursors of anything you would look at to do this kind of research.”

What’s more, at least one of the authors listed, Yuan Wang, has no medical background whatsoever. He’s in the division of planetary and geological sciences at Cal Tech.

The graph showing that infectivity in New York City was reduced when mask wearing was mandated also matches the natural downslope seen in Sweden (which had no lockdown or mask mandate) as the infection ran its course. In no way does it prove that mask wearing actually prevents infection. “This is a very sophisticated made-up fraud, I think,” Merritt says.

She also reviews other publications in the medical literature showing masks do not protect against viral infections — including a May 2020 review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention itself, which I wrote about in “WHO Admits: No Direct Evidence Masks Prevent Viral Infection.” In that review, the CDC concluded that masks did not protect against influenza in non-health care settings.

Merritt also cites studies showing there’s no difference between surgical masks and medical N95 masks. For a better understanding of the science, she recommends reading Denis Rancourt’s paper,4 “Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Policy.” I’ve also interviewed Rancourt, who has a Ph.D. in physics, about his findings, which you can find in “Masks Likely Do Not Inhibit Viral Spread.”

Mask Mandates for Peons and the Social Distancing Lie

The suspicion that masks are little more than suppression muzzles also gains strength by the fact that lawmakers are exempting themselves and certain categories of workers from their mask mandates.

Two examples given in Merritt’s lecture is the D.C. mask mandate, which exempts lawmakers and government employees. In Wisconsin, the Governor has exempted all politicians from the mask order. If masks truly worked, wouldn’t these workers be prime candidates for wearing masks everywhere to prevent them from getting ill and dying?

The third lie Merritt reviews is the 6-foot social distancing rule. Thirty-four minutes into the lecture, you’ll find a fascinating video from a study5 published March 26, 2020, in JAMA Insights, demonstrating the particle emissions occurring when sneezing. In this study, they showed emissions can reach 23 to 27 feet (7 to 8 meters) — a far cry from the 6-foot distance we’re told will keep everyone safe.

The Biggest Lie: Lysosomotropic Agents Don’t Work

Lie No. 4, which Merritt believes is the biggest one of all, is that lysosomotropic agents (drugs that acidify the lysosome) such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine don’t work. Fauci has repeatedly stated that these drugs either don’t work, that there’s insufficient evidence, or that the evidence is only anecdotal.

Yet the National Institutes of Health itself published research6 in 2005 showing chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread, actually having both prophylactic and therapeutic benefits. As the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is a part of the NIH, since 1984, Fauci should be well aware of these findings.

As for what the motive might be for suppressing the use of hydroxychloroquine, despite all the evidence showing it works quite well when used early in the course of treatment, Merritt points to a 2006 study7 in the Virology Journal, titled “In Vitro Inhibition of Human Influenza A Virus Replication by Chloroquine.”

That study delivered “overwhelming proof that chloroquine inhibited influenza A,” Merritt says. Now, if an inexpensive generic drug can prevent influenza infection, then what would we need seasonal influenza vaccines for?

Another paper,8 “Effects of Chloroquine on Viral Infections: An Old Drug Against Today’s Diseases?” published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2003, discussed the potential of chloroquine against a range of viral diseases.

So, not only might we have an inexpensive remedy that can fight the flu, it might be useful against many other diseases as well. In short, were these drugs to be recognized for their antiviral benefits, they could disrupt the drug industry to a significant degree. Is that why they’re suppressed and vilified?

Follow the Money

Merritt also reviews Dr. Vladimir Zelenko’s clinical experience with hydroxychloroquine, which you can read more about in “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created.” Of course, the media vilified Zelenko rather than applauding his remarkable successes against COVID-19.

Even more egregiously, Merritt notes, was the fact that a Baltimore federal prosecutor actually started an investigation into Zelenko based on his statement that hydroxychloroquine is FDA approved. “It is FDA approved,” Merritt says. “You don’t go back once things are FDA approved to get reapproval for a new indication.”

Doctors have always had the ability to prescribe drugs off-label for other conditions once they’ve been approved by the FDA, which is precisely what doctors have been doing with hydroxychloroquine. But now all of a sudden, that common (and perfectly legal) practice is portrayed as controversial, unethical and/or illegal.

There’s also the clinical experience of French microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, founder and director of the research hospital Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection,9 who reported10,11 that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin — administered immediately upon diagnosis — led to recovery and “virological cure” in 91.7% of patients.

Merritt also reviews the fraudulent science that has been used to suppress hydroxychloroquine use, referring to these studies as “a new level of fake papers.” In one instance the authors pulled the data set out of thin air. They made it up.

Yet these fraudulent papers were published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, two of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. It’s worth asking how that could happen. As noted by Merritt, what we’re told and what’s borne out by facts simply don’t add up:

Hydroxychloroquine costs $10 to $20 for a course of treatment, is already FDA approved, has minimal side effects and has been shown to cut the death rate by 50% when given early in the treatment of COVID-19.12

Yet Fauci is pushing the use of remdesivir,13 an intravenous drug for late-stage severe COVID-19 infection that costs $3,600, has been shown to cause severe side effects in 60% of patients, and doesn’t reduce the death rate. It merely reduces the recovery rate by an average of 31%, or four days.

Merritt believes the reason we’re not embracing hydroxychloroquine is because it could demolish the $69 billion vaccine industry. That alone is enough of a motive to warrant a cover-up, she notes.

The drug could also eliminate one of the most powerful leverages for geopolitical power that the technocrats have, namely biological terrorism. If we know how to treat and protect ourselves against designer viruses, their ability to keep us in line by keeping us in fear vanishes.

Lies by Omission and Ultimate Motives

Last but not least, Merritt reviews lies of omission — facts that would have saved lives had they been promoted. This includes data showing that higher vitamin D levels reduce both the severity of COVID-19 infection and the mortality. So, who benefits from the suppression of data and information that can save lives and the promotion of medical lies?

According to two investigators, John Moynahan and Larry Doyle, Bill Gates negotiated a $100 billion contact tracing contract with Democratic Congressman Bobby L. Rush — who also introduced HR 6666, the COVID-19 TRACE Act — six months before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, during an August 2019 meeting in Rwanda, East Africa.14

The U.S. government has also purchased 100 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine still under development by Pfizer and BioNTech. As noted by Merritt, we keep seeing how drug companies fund working groups on diseases, and then when the disease breaks out, those same drug companies make billions in profit.

But aside from profit, Merritt is convinced there’s another reason behind the illogical pandemic responses we’re seeing. She points out how in a few short months, we’ve been dramatically shifted from a state of freedom to a state of totalitarianism. And the way that was done was through the technocratic mechanisms of social engineering, which of course involves psychological manipulation.

Psychological Manipulation Tools

Merritt reviews psychiatry professor Albert Biderman’s work on psychological manipulation and his “chart of coercion,” all of which can be clearly related to the COVID-19 response:

Isolation techniques — Quarantines, social distancing, isolation from loved ones and solitary confinement

Monopolization of perception — Monopolizing the 24/7 news cycle, censoring dissenting views and creating barren environments by closing bars, gyms and restaurants

Degradation techniques — Berating, shaming people (or even physically attacking) those who refuse to wear masks or social distance, or generally choose freedom over fear

Induced debility — Being forced to stay at home and not be able to exercise or socialize

Threats — Threatening with the removal of your children, prolonged quarantine, closing of your business, fines for noncompliance with mask and social distancing rules, forced vaccination and so on

Demonstrating omnipotence/omniscience — Shutting down the whole world, claiming scientific and medical authority

Enforcing trivial demands — Examples include family members being forced to stand 6 feet apart at the bank even though they arrived together in the same car, having to wear a mask when you walk into a restaurant, even though you can remove it as soon as you sit down, or having to wear a mask when walking alone on the beach

Occasional indulgence — Reopening some stores and restaurants but only at a certain capacity, for example. Part of the coercion plan is that indulgences are always taken away again, though, and they’re already saying we may have to shut down the world again this fall

Merritt packs a lot of information into her hour-long presentation, so I hope you take the time to view it. Aside from what I’ve already summarized above, she also reviews:

The influence of the World Health Organization and its largest funder, Bill Gates, and his many connections to the drug and vaccine industries, digital economy and digital tracking technologies

The curious similarities between the Gates-funded Event 201 and current world events

The consistent failures to create coronavirus vaccines in the past, as all trials revealed the vaccines caused paradoxical immune enhancement, which made the disease more lethal. You can learn more about this in “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Explains Well-Known Hazards of Coronvirus Vaccines” Fauci’s conflicts of interest

 

To read original Article, please visit

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/09/05/medical-technocracy.aspx

Sources

1 Doctors for Disaster Preparedness 
2 Burgess Health Center, Lee Merritt, MD 
3 PNAS June 30, 2020; 117 (26) 14857-14863
4 River Cities’ Reader June 11, 2020 
5 JAMA Insights March 26, 2020; 323(18):1837-1838
6 Virology Journal 2005; 2: 69
7 Virology Journal May 29, 2006; 3:39
8 The Lancet Infectious Diseases November 2003; 3(11): 722-727 
9 Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection 
10 Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease May-June 2020; 35: 101738 
11 New York Times May 12, 2020 
12 Physician’s Weekly July 2, 2020 
13 CIDRAP April 29, 2020 
14 True Pundit June 11, 2020