Insider Trading Proves 9/11 Foreknowledge
/From [HERE] On September 12th 2001, chaos reigned supreme. Yet, as governments the world over struggled to make sense of the previous day’s catastrophe, and before a motive was established, any perpetrators identified, or other basic facts ascertained, the US Securities and Exchange Commission launched an investigation into potential insider trading by unknown figures with apparently precise foreknowledge of 9/11. The evidence seemed overwhelming. Mainstream journalists openly mocked the implausibility of numerous deeply abnormal stock market trades immediately prior to the attacks being pure coincidence.
For one, several companies prominently impacted by the event were abruptly ‘shorted’ at inexplicable levels over the preceding weeks. In other words, investors bet certain stocks would perform poorly in the near future, and sought to profit accordingly. For example, just five days before 9/11 over 2,000 shorts were placed against United Airlines - 90 times more in a single day than over the entirety of August. The company’s share price collapsed following the attacks, turning $180,000 in shorts into $2.4 million.
Meanwhile, substantial investments were serendipitously made in private security, intelligence and defence firms that benefited enormously from the 9/11 attacks and ensuing ‘War on Terror’. On September 10th, purchase of shares in major US defence contractor Raytheon surged sixfold. Just one week later, as the Pentagon began bulk purchasing Raytheon’s flagship Patriot and Tomahawk missiles in preparation for invading Afghanistan, the firm’s shares rocketed 37%. Other major defence stocks, including Boeing and Lockheed, also experienced abnormal trading pre-9/11. [MORE]
“Coincidence Theorist” Chris Hayes “Prodcasts” that COVID Wasn't a Plandemic and 9-11 Wasn’t an Inside Job. Anyone Who Disagrees with His Masters’ Narratives and Science is a Conspiracy Theorist
/According to FUNKTIONARY:
prodcasting – propaganda cast as a spell to prod mind-slaves into behavior, thoughts and actions that benefit the spell-caster ($pinfidel) and his master. Prodcasting targets the unthinking herd into conformity, apathy, complacency and uniformity to the dictates of the overtakers otherwise known as the Pathocracy—the intergenerational psychopathic overruling class and adept practitioners of Richcraft. (See: Propaganda, $pinfidel, Coin-Operated, MEDIA & Richcraft)
coincidence theories – the naïve belief that problems (and solutions to them) happen spontaneously, that nothing is ever foreseen, plotted, planned or conspired through collusion by the wealthy and powerful. (See: Pathocracy, Fronts, Predictive Programming, Conspiracy Theories, Laws, Technetronic Age, WARS & Council on Foreign Relations)
$pinfidels – those well-paid profligates in the print and visual Hypnomedia who twist issues, facts, events, statements, contexts, and predicaments of outspoken people from all walks of life into ready-made labels that demonize and/or marginalize anyone who questions the actions, policies, jurisdiction, positions, legitimacy, accuracy, enforcement, or authority of the Twin-Towering $tatus Quo—Corporate State and Corporate Religion. $pinfidels are those who believe in the doctrine of Original Spin. “Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul.” ~Mark Twain
Nine Eleven (9-11) – the pre-planned inside-job false-flag attack on the Romulus and Remus World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon Murders, being a continuation of the CIA—Criminals Inside America—wetworks operations that was also carried out on innocent lives at Pearl Harbor, and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. In order for you to believe the official legend, i.e., the Corporate State by-lie, you would have to also become a believer in Physics Revisionism (PR). In the 20th century, steel melted at 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 degrees Fahrenheit), but in the 21st century are we to believe that the fire from the explosion of the jet fuel tank (assuming some type of airplane actually hit the towers, and not the hologram that we witnessed) burned for 104 minutes (in the North tower) getting constantly hotter until the steel floor supports reached a weakened fault temperature, or are we to believe that it burned hot and steady throughout until over 200,000 tons of steel were heated to the point of collapsing—all on (whatever was left of) one plane of jet fuel? The towers did not “collapse” or succumb to gravity-driven “cave-in,” nor did they fall or “give-way” to self-related and self-proportional forces, on the contrary, they were systematically and progressively disintegrated (“dustification or pulverization) from the top down using powerful directed energy technology or directed energy weapons for sure. 200,000 tons of steel, 325,000 cubic meters of concrete, 43,600 windows, 19,000 kilometers of cables, 318 kilometers of heating ducts from two very large buildings don’t just vanish into thin air or grind themselves into nothing. Some in the intelligence community who are aware of it, refer to it as the Death Ray. The same explosive scheme that is removing the support structure is also simultaneously and utterly destroying the building itself. This can be verified from the projectile-like scattering pulverized disintegrating debris seen ejected from the buildings, taken horizontally, up to 1200 feet, when the WTC towers are only 207 feet wide. Logic and common sense have to be put in abeyance in both incidents in order to believe the official story-line (legend) also touted by the counter-intelligence operation called the “9/11 Truth Movement” run by government operatives. Knowledge of the laws of physics can demonstrate the presence of other than “what appeared to be obvious” complicity by additional or external agents fundamental to both operations-cum-attacks. [MORE]
Mortality Researcher Informs Canadian Lawmakers that COVID Injections Directly Caused Deaths and Turbo Cancers in Children and Adults. Data Shows 4,000 Excess Infant Deaths in the US from 2022 to 2024
/From [HERE] Excess mortality researcher Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., on Tuesday told Canadian lawmakers that national mortality statistics show “screaming safety signals” following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines — including increases in deaths among infants and children and increases in turbo cancers.
Testifying at Canada’s Allison Inquiry, Rancourt also argued that COVID-19-era government interventions — including lockdowns, isolating the elderly, closing businesses and withdrawing government support programs — also drove excess mortality during the pandemic.
Rancourt based his arguments on his analysis of official mortality data from Statistics Canada and in the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He described how COVID-19 vaccines directly harmed individuals, and how specific pandemic policies caused broader societal harm.
His presentation came on the opening day of the Allison Inquiry, a four-day hearing chaired by Canadian Member of Parliament Dean Allison. The inquiry collected testimony from 50 Canadians injured by COVID-19 vaccines, along with testimony from physicians, scientists and other witnesses.
4,000 excess infant deaths in the U.S. alone
Infant mortality had been declining in the U.S. before the pandemic. That trend reversed during the pandemic, according to Rancourt’s data — but not until 2022, nine months after COVID-19 vaccination was recommended for pregnant women.
Rancourt estimated the change represented approximately 4,000 excess infant deaths in the U.S. from 2022 to 2024.
He presented a similar case for Canada, although the raw numbers were much lower due to the smaller population. After Canada issued its vaccine guidance for pregnant women on May 28, 2021, he said mortality rose among infants, with a marked increase nine months after the recommendations.
He estimated there were 200 excess infant deaths in Canada during that time, with 10 excess pregnancy-related deaths.
Data show 2,000+ excess deaths among 1- to 4-year-olds in U.S.
Rancourt identified more than 2,000 excess deaths among children ages 1-4 in the U.S. between 2021 and 2024.
He attributed an initial increase in 2021 partly to the abrupt withdrawal of federal financial assistance in some states.
But Rancourt said the largest increase coincided with the June 17, 2022, authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for young children. Excess deaths peaked precisely with the vaccine rollout.
Canadian mortality data showed a similar age-specific pattern. Rancourt shared mortality trends for Canadian children ages 1-4, 5-9 and 10-14, showing each group experienced a pronounced increase during the year COVID-19 vaccines became available for that particular age group.
The spikes in excess mortality were “very sudden,” he said. The increases did not occur during the first two years of the pandemic, he emphasized.
“As soon as you vaccinated these age groups and not before, not when there was COVID, not in the first two years of the pandemic. But when you started vaccinating them, that is the signature that you see in the mortality [data],” Rancourt said. “It’s absolutely stunning.”
He estimated 410 excess deaths among Canadian children ages 1-14. [MORE]
Deadly mRNA "Vaccines" were Beta Tested on Black People before being Used for Global Depopulation and Genthanasia
/Elites beta-test various things on Black people before being integrated into the population, such as the destruction of so-called “constitutional rights,” behavioral medications, the use of invasive technology, food manipulation, weather modification and instilling a falsified consciousness through various devices. Neuropeons and neuropeans enjoy watching Black people being dominated and are too delusional and arrogant to ever think that authority won’t eventually treat them in the same manner for the real world product. The system of power supremacy seeks the domination of all mankind - the granfalloon of racism white supremacy is simply one of its tools.
According to FUNKTIONARY:
vaccination – mandatory infection—typically administered by agents of Corporate State in their public schools of indoctrination camps. How can unvaccinated children endanger other children who are immunized?
Russell Simmons Dead Wrong about Bill Gates “Saving Black People” b/c Gates Suffers from Weiteko Disease, the Caucasian’s pathological fascination with the exploitation and genocide of his fellow man
/
ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:
Weiteko Disease – the Caucasian’s patapathetic and pathological fascination with the exploitation and control of nature and exploitation and genocide of his fellow man . 2) Death-force. (See: Caucasian, Western Civilization & Yurugu)
Despite what anyone may say about Bill Gates, Russell Simmons wants Black people to respect him because of how many lives he believes the Microsoft co-founder has saved.
During a recent livestream, Simmons revealed his thoughts on Gates, considering the criticism he’s received in previous months due to allegations in the Jeffrey Epstein files about STI treatment pills.
“He’s put hundreds of billions of dollars into ideas and actual medicine that’s saved Black lives,” Simmons said, going as far to claim Gates has saved more Black lives than anyone in world history — referencing The Gates Foundation committing tens of billions of dollars toward malaria eradication, vaccines, and poverty-reduction programs across Africa.
“His intentions have been nothing but good,” Simmons continued — before then bringing up the situation described in the Epstein files: that Gates allegedly had sex with a woman and wanted medication to treat an STI, as well as sought medicine to give his then-wife, Melinda French Gates, without her knowing. [MORE]
‘The Green Revolution Failed Africa’ but it Made Bill Gates Richer and Increased Starvation
/Twenty years ago, the Gates and Rockefeller foundations launched the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), promising agricultural transformation from improved seeds, synthetic fertilizers, mechanization and commercial markets.
These interventions, they said, would double crop yields and farmer incomes, and cut food insecurity in half in one of the world’s hungriest regions. To achieve these goals, they urged African governments to subsidize inputs, reform policies and court private investments.
Bill Gates became one of the idea’s leading promoters. He argued that the technologies behind the original Green Revolution — particularly “magic seeds” and the “magical innovation” of fertilizer — could lift millions of people out of poverty.
He described the approach as “creative capitalism” — using business incentives, corporate investment and government support to create new markets that raise farmer incomes and thereby reduce hunger.
Africa could avoid many of the problems of the earlier Green Revolution in Asia by pursuing what Gates called a “greener revolution,” one “guided by small-holder farmers, adapted to local circumstances and sustainable for the economy and the environment.”
Many African groups disagreed from the start, arguing that agroecological approaches would reduce hunger more by rebuilding soils, cutting farmers’ dependence on expensive inputs, diversifying crops and making farms more resilient to climate and economic shocks.
What does AGRA’s record show?
Now, nearly 20 years of data are in, and AGRA’s results fall far short of its promises. They raise fundamental questions about AGRA, the Gates Foundation and their influence on African governments and institutions.
The AGRA effort drew more than $1.5 billion in donations (two-thirds from the Gates Foundation), as African governments spent an estimated $1 billion a year in subsidies for fertilizer and other inputs in AGRA’s target countries.
“The Green Revolution has failed Africa,” the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa said in a new report. “Twenty years is long enough to judge the Green Revolution model by its results. The evidence does not justify another decade of the same priorities at greater scale.”
The report is based on an August working paper by Timothy A. Wise, senior research fellow at Tufts Global Development and Environment Institute, that reviews 18 years of United Nations and World Bank data from 2006 through 2024.
The analysis finds that across the 13 countries that were the focus of the AGRA effort, fertilizer use more than doubled and cultivated land expanded by 46% — yet yields for major staple foods increased by only 25%, far less than AGRA’s promised doubling.
Staple-crop yield growth was 1.2%, slightly slower than in the 12 years prior to AGRA, which saw 1.3% yield growth. It slowed even further in the most recent six years, to roughly 0.4% a year.
Most troubling, the number of chronically undernourished people increased by an average of 58% across AGRA countries. [MORE]
Reiner Fuellmich Remains Locked Up in German Prison. Attorney Kidnapped by Authorities After Claiming COVID Shots are a Form of Genocide and Threatening to Sue Governments for Crimes Against Humanity
/
From [HERE] In April 2025, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months in jail. This is in addition to the 18 months he had already spent incarcerated since October 2023 when he was kidnapped from Mexico by the German state.
In the following, Seba Terrilini summarises the torture Dr. Fuellmich was subjected to by the German state, for at least six months, while in prison before and during his trial.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich was subjected to a long list of punitive measures that fall under the definition of white torture.
He was placed in solitary confinement from June 2024 to December 2024, in complete violation of the rules established by the United Nations on detention and isolation.
During these six months, he was not allowed any contact with his fellow inmates. The stated reason for this measure was that Fuellmich, in conversing with his fellow inmates, was giving them legal tips, something his incarcerators could not tolerate.
He was forced to eat alone, to spend his daily one-hour outdoors in complete solitude and was not allowed to use the gym.
Even his use of the telephone was restricted, and he was only allowed to make calls when the other inmates had returned to their cells.
Sometimes he had to choose between taking a shower or having his one-hour outdoor activity.
On top of that, he was often denied medical care.
From 10 June 2024, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich was escorted by armed security officers in armoured vehicles from the prison to the court and back.
In addition to handcuffs attached to a belt, he was also put in ankle shackles and asked to wear a bulletproof vest, the latter of which he declined to wear, for which he was forced to sign a liability release.
He was also subjected to a full-body search after each court hearing.
On 2 September 2024, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich received the sad news of his mother’s death. He was aware that it was only a matter of time, and for this reason had asked the prison authorities to be taken to Bremen so that he could say goodbye to her.
The prison would have granted him this request, but only on the condition that he would have to visit her in handcuffs and shackles, accompanied by armed penitentiary guards. Unwilling to subject his mother to additional suffering during their final moments together, Reiner did not accept those terms. Even at the cost of never seeing his mother again, he was not willing to subject her to the further anguish of seeing her son in chains.
He was not even allowed to attend her funeral.
During a long break in the hearings between September and October 2024, Reiner’s detention conditions worsened when a young man with serious mental health issues was moved into the cell next to his.
According to Fuellmich, there were numerous empty cells that could have been assigned to this young man. Probably suffering from schizophrenia, this inmate screamed, cried and talked to himself both day and night. He turned the volume of the radio up loud and often threw objects at the wall dividing the two cells. From that moment on, it became impossible for Reiner to sleep at night and concentrate on his defence during the day.
In conjunction with this very long break, communication between Fuellmich and his lawyers was deliberately made difficult by the prison management.
Remember, Fuellmich never had access to the internet, did not have a computer, and did not have access to his files; all of which did not facilitate his situation in any way and the preparation of his defence was thus intentionally hindered.
The inhumane treatment, which Fuellmich was subjected to – and in part still is – and the manner in which the trial against him has been conducted, casts enormous shadows over the German judicial system and respect for fundamental rights.
We have, without a shadow of a doubt, witnessed the biggest judicial scandal in Germany, a blatant miscarriage of justice, where the intelligence service has constructed and used a “case” against Reiner Fuellmich to silence one of the most important voices of the resistance.
For an overview of Reiner’s case, please read: ‘The Full Story Of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich’.
Judge Napolitano: The Normalcy of Unprovoked, Unlawful American Wars
/
From [HERE] The war in Iran is unlawful and unconstitutional, but in post-World War II America, it is normal. Here is the backstory.
When President Donald Trump decided to begin bombing Iran last June, he did not state a coherent or lawful reason for doing so. His director of national intelligence and his own CIA had publicly told him that Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon and had ceased building one in 2005.
His secretary of state told him that Iran and Israel had threatened each other, but he could not articulate how Iran imminently threatened the United States. Yet, since Israel planned to attack Iran, he wanted the US to help Israel do so. This was not a lawful request as the US has no treaty with Israel and, under treaties to which the US is a party, the legal bases for all offensive wars can only be treaty compliance or prevention of an imminent attack.
When Trump addressed the nation, his helter-skelter rationale argued for replacing Iran’s government, destroying its civilian-use enriched uranium, destroying its ability to build a bomb it wasn’t building, and neutralizing its offensive and defensive weaponry. None of these goals was lawful; nor was attacking a Tehran girls school. There was no mention of an imminent attack on the US or the economic effect of war on the vital international oil super-highway, the Strait of Hormuz.
No one in Trump’s inner circle registered disagreement, except his vice president and his director of counterterrorism. They told him there was no legal or constitutional basis for his war.
They were correct, but Trump had history on his side.
For much of American history, presidents have steadily accumulated the power to wage war while Congress has gradually surrendered the constitutional authority that the Framers explicitly entrusted to it. This transformation has weakened constitutional checks and balances, expanded executive power beyond its constitutional limits, claimed millions of lives, cost trillions of dollars, and repeatedly drawn the United States into conflicts that had little or nothing to do with defending America. [MORE]
German Court Orders Biotech to Turn Over Injury Data: Plaintiffs say Their COVID Shots Caused heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, heart failure, autoimmune disease, atherosclerosis and more
/
On Tuesday, the lead lawyer for a court case brought by covid vaccine victims against BioNTech published a decision by a German court that reinforced the pharmaceutical company had to produce data concerning vaccine harms.
BioNTech was appealing an earlier court decision which ruled it must produce the injury data. The company lost its appeal.
From [HERE] BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH must comply with the final partial judgment of the Aurich Regional Court and provide the plaintiff with the disclosure ordered therein.
The Aurich Regional Court has ordered BioNTech to provide the plaintiff with disclosure regarding the effects and side effects of batches FE6975 and 1D020A known to the defendant from 21 December 2020, up to the last oral hearing, as well as further findings on the assessment of the tolerability of harmful effects of Comirnaty, insofar as they relate to the complaints presented by the plaintiff (including autoimmune disease, circulatory disorders, vascular occlusions, cardiac arrhythmias, hyperinflammation syndrome, menstrual disorders, nervous system dysfunctions, tinnitus, POTS, PEM, ME/CFS). [MORE]
Fear is the Mind Killer and "The Foundation of Every Government’s Power”
/All animals experience fear—human beings, perhaps, most of all. Any animal incapable of fear would have been hard pressed to survive, regardless of its size, speed, or other attributes. Fear alerts us to dangers that threaten our well-being and sometimes our very lives. Sensing fear, we respond by running away, by hiding, or by preparing to ward off the danger. To disregard fear is to place ourselves in possibly mortal jeopardy. Telling people not to be afraid is giving them advice that they cannot take. Even the man who acts heroically on the battlefield, if he is honest, admits that he is scared. “He would be a sort of madman or insensible person,” Aristotle wrote, “if he feared nothing, neither earthquakes nor the waves” (1938, 249). Our evolved physiological makeup disposes us to fear all sorts of actual and potential threats, however, even those that exist only in our imagination.
And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night,and shalt have none assurance of thy life. (Deuteronomy 28:66)
The people who have the effrontery to rule us, who call themselves our government, understand this basic fact of human nature. They exploit it, and they cultivate it. Whether they compose a warfare state or a welfare state, they depend on it to secure popular submission, compliance with official dictates, and, on some occasions, affirmative cooperation with the state’s enterprises and adventures. Without popular fear, no government could endure for more than twenty-four hours.
David Hume argues that all government rests on public opinion, and many oth- ers have endorsed his argument (e.g., Mises [1927] 1985, 41, 45, 50–51, 180; Roth- bard [1965] 2000, 61–62), but public opinion, I maintain, is not the bedrock of government. Public opinion itself rests on something deeper and more primordial: fear. Hume recognizes that the opinions that support government receive their force from “other principles,” among which he includes fear, but he considers these other principles to be “the secondary, not the original principles of government” ([1777] 1987, 34). He argues: “No man would have any reason to fear the fury of a tyrant, if he [the tyrant] had no authority over any but from fear” (34, emphasis in original). We may grant Hume’s statement yet still maintain that the government’s authority over the great mass of its subjects rests fundamentally on fear.
Murray Rothbard considers fear briefly in his analysis of the anatomy of the state, classifying its instillment as “another successful device” by which the rulers secure from their subjects acceptance of or at least acquiescence in their domination—“[t]he present rulers, it was maintained, supply to the citizens an essential service for which they should be most grateful: protection against sporadic criminals and marauders” ([1965] 2000, 65)—but Rothbard does not view fear as the fundamental basis on which the rulers rest their domination, as I do here. Of course, as many scholars have recognized, ideology is critical in the long-term maintenance of governmental power. Yet every ideology that endows government with legitimacy requires and is infused by some kind(s) of fear. Unlike Rothbard, who views the instillment of fear as only one “device” among several by which the government retains its grip on the masses, I maintain that public fear is a necessary (though perhaps not a sufficient) condition for the viability of government as we know it.3
Jack Douglas comes closer to my own view when he observes that myths (a term he uses in roughly the same way that I use the term ideologies) “are predominantly the voice of our emotions, the images of our passionate hopes and fears, or our pas- sionate longings and hatreds” (1989, 220, emphasis added, see also 313 on “the very powerful fear of death that reinforces all of the others [the other natural passions]”). In his extended argument about the longstanding, overarching “myth of the welfare state,” however, Douglas places more emphasis on the element of hopes (millennial- ism) than on the element of fears. Yet even the ideological hopes, I maintain, often center on people’s hopes for governmental deliverance from various sorts of fears. As David Altheide remarks, “People do want to be ‘saved’ and ‘freed,’ but they want to be saved and freed from fear, and this is what makes the [mass media’s] messages of fear so compelling and important for public policy and the fabric of our social life” (2002, 15–16).
The fear need not be of the government itself and indeed may be of the dan- ger from which the government purports to protect the people. Of course, some of the threats that induce subjects to submit to government in the hope of gaining its protection and thereby calming their fears may be real ones. I am not maintaining that people who look to government for their salvation act entirely under the sway of illusory threats, although I do insist that nowadays, if not always, many public fears arise in large part, if not entirely, from stimulation by the government itself. If the people’s fears may be (1) of the government itself, (2) of real threats from which the people look to the government for protection, and (3) of spurious threats from which the people look to the government for protection, we must admit that the relative importance of each type of fear varies with time and place. In every case, however, the government seeks to turn public fear to its own advantage.4 “Directing fear in a soci- ety is tantamount to controlling that society. Every age has its fears, every ruler has his/her enemies, every sovereign places blame, and every citizen learns about these as propaganda” (Altheide 2002, 17, see also 56, 91, 126–33, 196, and passim). [MORE]
Gary Barnett: Corporatized, Privately Controlled, Uniparty Political System: America Is not a ‘Nation,’ It Is a Private Monopoly Cabal
/From Gary D. Barnett “Representative government is artifice, a political myth, designed to conceal from the masses the dominance of a self-selected, self-perpetuating, and self-serving traditional ruling class.”~ Giuseppe Prezzolini
It is time to put to bed any idea whatsoever that what is called ‘America’ is some sort of free and democratic country. It is not any such thing, and is completely run and controlled by the ‘private’ Federal Reserve Bank, domestic and global international banking and finance organizations, and ruling oligarchs who entirely control all politicians who can only act as pawns of the real power that wields absolute dominance over this failing empire. In other words, right and left are one and the same and can only act in concert to satisfy the real ruling class. There is no representation of the people, and outside interests, mostly unseen, are pulling all the strings of power in finance, technology, and the military industrial complex. This is the way of government and governance, all government.
This leads to some hard truths that have never been accepted by this indentured serf ‘citizenry.’ The core of this problem is multi-faceted, but lies mainly in the fact that every generation has been indoctrinated from birth to believe in reverence for ‘country’ through abominable nationalistic worship of State. Public (government) schools play a huge part in this extremely intense propagandizing of false ‘patriotism.’ It is all a ruse set up intentionally by those who literally run this so-called ‘nation-state.’ If real history, not what is taught in schools, or propagandized by the political class and media, were known, the people would likely never have succumbed to their own slavery without so much as even minor resistance. In fact, it has been almost the opposite attitude, which is exuberant support of nationalistic power.
The acceptance by the masses for worthless government decrees, such as declarations, blood-soaked flags, so-called ‘founding’ documents, and constitutions, is testament to a mentality based upon reliance on rulers and masters to allow partial freedoms in order to have the ability to close all windows to any individual sovereignty. Any belief in government doctrine claiming to define ‘rights’ is simply an admission that the State is the decider of those rights, not inherent natural law. The beginning and end of freedom rests in any belief that governments have any right to rule. They do not have any legitimate right to rule over any other, period. One must remember that politicians, those bought and paid for whores of the claimed oligarchs, are simply people like everybody else, nothing special, who automatically become obedient to the real power in order to retain their status, illegal wealth-building capabilities, and positions in government. They are literally the worst of mankind. [MORE]
Anthony Fauci’s Private Diary and Emails Show He Knew Lockdowns Failed. Government Closures Destroyed Businesses, Jobs and Closed Schools for No Valid Reason
/
One of Fauci’s most heinous legacies was the strong push for lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates. Those three policies were and remain significant contributors to many of the negative outcomes resulting from our response to the Covid pandemic.
School closures set back an entire generation of children.
Lockdowns led to governments printing money to allow people to stay home, setting off a spiral of runaway inflation that is still not under control.
And masks permanently damaged millions of people, from schoolchildren forced to wear them, to hospital workers who are now indefinitely required to mask in healthcare settings unnecessarily, or for those who continue to mask out of irrational fear and effective propaganda.
Many of these policies can be traced directly back to Anthony Fauci. And now we have proof of just how inept and incompetent his recommendations were, and how dishonest he was, as it became clear he’d failed.
Here’s one example. In an email to Deborah Birx, another key architect of our failed response, Fauci unwittingly admitted that he was aware lockdowns and closures did not impact the spread of Covid.
“I have been obsessing about the increases in cases that do not seem to be related to openings or closings or massive crowds,” he wrote. “I believe that ultimately we will see increases related to all of the above; however, right now we may be looking for the lost keys under the light of the lamppost. There is something inherent here that we are missing and that is insidiously keeping the outbreak alive in the USA, and that is more concerning than anticipated spikes associated with identifiable events.”
Surely, this email was written in 2021 or 2022, right? After closures and lockdowns became less common?
Nope. June 18, 2020. That’s just a few months after the initial shutdowns. He knew in June 2020 that closures did not lead to decrease in cases, and for quite literally years afterward, he demanded closures and shutdowns continue.
He criticized Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for reopening his state, months later. In September, for example, he said Florida was “asking for trouble” by opening. Three months after he was fully aware, and admitted privately, that closures had no impact on the spread of the virus. Indefensible.
What about masks? Here’s another email from April 15, 2020, less than two weeks after the CDC abandoned science and recommended public masking out of panic. [MORE]
More Risk Than Benefit: A Review of Pfizer's Clinical Trials Show the Corporation Knew COVID Injections Did Not Prevent Infection or Transmission and Did Not Even Reduce Overall COVID-19-like Symptoms
/
From [HERE] The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial did not establish that the vaccine’s clinically consequential benefits outweighed its potential harms. Nor did the trial establish that vaccination reduced the overall burden of COVID-19-like symptoms, let alone that it reduced person-to-person transmission. More than five years later, revisiting the evidence is essential if we are to avoid repeating the same mistakes when the next public-health emergency arrives.
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent decision to terminate the COVID-19 emergency use authorization (EUA) declarations invites reconsideration of the evidence that launched this extraordinary regulatory chapter.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) first EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine rested on its determination that the known and potential benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine outweighed its known and potential risks. Yet the pivotal trial report did not bring those benefits and risks together within a common quantitative framework.
Better late than never: more than five years later, I did — and what I found was startling.
At first glance, the famous 95% efficacy against protocol-defined, laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 — based on eight versus 162 cases in a trial that randomized 43,548 participants — seems highly promising.
But when this finding is considered alongside the broader set of participant-relevant outcomes (dispersed across the trial publication, its Supplementary Appendix, and the contemporaneous FDA review materials), the overall clinical picture looks markedly different.
Depending on the counting period used, the vaccine group had 2-8 fewer cases of severe COVID-19, whereas the safety data showed numerical excesses of 4-101 participants across clinically consequential adverse-event categories. These categories are not directly comparable, and some may overlap.
Even so, the evidence did not establish that the vaccine’s clinically consequential benefits outweighed its potential harms. Nor did the trial establish that vaccination reduced the overall burden of COVID-19-like symptoms, let alone that it reduced person-to-person transmission.
Crucially, this conclusion does not rest on hindsight: the relevant evidence was already before the FDA when it issued the EUA.
The full basis for this conclusion is presented in my comprehensive reassessment of the evidence, currently available as a preprint. That reassessment is necessarily detailed because the relevant data are complex, scattered across multiple documents and subject to important methodological and interpretive qualifications.
The present column is not intended to replace that analysis, but to distill several of its central findings and implications for a broader readership.
1. What did the 95% efficacy figure actually measure?
The gap between the headline figure and the overall clinical picture begins with the narrow endpoint and brief follow-up behind the 95% efficacy estimate. That figure applied only to protocol-defined, laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 over an average of approximately 44 days.
The trial did not assess asymptomatic infection or person-to-person transmission, and the publicly available record allows SARS-CoV-2 testing to be reconstructed for no more than 8.6% of participants.
It therefore could not establish whether vaccination reduced the overall risk of acquiring or transmitting the virus, or how long its protection against symptomatic disease would last.
This gap later attracted considerable public attention. During a hearing in the European Parliament, a Pfizer executive acknowledged that the vaccine had not been tested for its effect on transmission before entering the market, explaining that the company had needed to “move at the speed of science.”
Yet the facts discussed in that exchange had already been documented before the rollout. The trial’s narrow endpoint and brief follow-up were clear from the published record, and the FDA explicitly acknowledged the absence of direct evidence on asymptomatic infection and transmission when it issued the EUA.
These facts had far-reaching implications. At the time, vaccine mandates and passport systems were presented as tools to reduce transmission in public spaces and protect others — especially older and vulnerable people.
Yet those claims could not be grounded in the trial’s central finding, which concerned only short-term protection against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19.
The trial therefore provided no direct basis for using vaccination status as a marker of reduced transmission risk, let alone for treating that status as valid for six months, as some passport systems did.
We should not have been so surprised, then, when it became clear after the EUA that vaccinated people continued to become infected in large numbers and that major waves of transmission persisted even after most adults had been vaccinated. This waning protection against infection was soon documented empirically as well.
For example, a nationwide study from Qatar reported that effectiveness against any documented SARS-CoV-2 infection was negligible during the first two weeks, peaked at 77.5% during the first month after the second dose, and then declined progressively.
Unfortunately, the consequences of this evidentiary gap were concrete: vaccine-passport policies restricted individual rights and placed considerable pressure on people to undergo a novel medical intervention, even though the evidence available at authorization had not established that vaccination reduced transmission or protected others.
2. Did vaccination reduce the overall burden of symptoms?
Not only did the trial fail to establish that vaccination prevented infection or transmission; it did not even establish that vaccinated participants experienced fewer COVID-19-like symptoms overall.
That may sound surprising. Let me explain. [MORE]
