Dr. Malone: “These synthetic pseudouridine-containing RNAs last for 60 days or longer… continuing to make spike. The levels of spike that the [shots] are making is higher [than a COVID infection].”
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi: ‘Now we know, We’re looking at an agent that has no benefit whatsoever but it has capacity to kill you in may ways. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi's Testimony at the COVID Eugenocide Model Grand Jury, day 4
From [CHD] Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Sunday told CBS “Face the Nation” a fourth dose of its COVID-19vaccine will be necessary to maintain manageable levels of hospitalizations and mild infections.
The company plans to submit data on a fourth dose to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is working on a vaccine that protects against all COVID variants for at least a year.
In an interview on “Squawk Box,” Bourla said:
“I think we’re going to submit to FDA a significant package of data about the need for a fourth dose, and they need to make their own conclusions, of course, and then CDC also. […] to see that clearly there is a need in an environment of Omicron to boost the immune response.”
Bourla said a fourth dose is “necessary for right now” because protection after three doses of Pfizer’s vaccine is “not that good against infections” and “doesn’t last very long” when faced with a variant like Omicron.
Bourla said Pfizer is making a vaccine that covers Omicron and all other variants and is optimistic about the preliminary data he’s seen so far.
“There are so much trials that are going right now, and a lot of them we’ll start reading by the end of the month,” he added.
Bourla told CBS he foresees Americans needing to prepare themselves every fall for a COVID booster just like they do with the flu vaccine. [MORE]
According to FUNKTIONARY
mass media – “Massa’ Media. Massa’s media plus (+) Mass Hypnosis = Mindless Masses. 2) The “Mess” Media. 3) wholesale retale— retelling the whole tale (propaganda) exactly as you’re told, consistently and relentlessly. How can you possibly relate when you are framed by the very debate wherein you are an unwilling spectator? Let’s be perfectly clear on this. There’s no counteroption or outlet to vent when you’re under the controlled thoughtform of mass-think manufactured consent. “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.” ~A.J. Liebling. (See: Media, T.V., Mass, Alienation, Spectacle Society, NEWS, ABCTV, Propaganda, Legislation & The New God Economy)
[MORE]
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 4, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
9,009 adverse events, including 213 rated as serious and 5 reported deaths.
The most recent death involves a 7-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2152560) from Washington who died 13 days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when he went into shock and suffered cardiac arrest. He was unable to be resuscitated and died in the emergency department. [MORE]
From [CHD] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,168,894 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 4, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
The data included a total of 25,158 reports of deaths — an increase of 331 over the previous week — and 203,888 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 3,557 compared with the previous week.
Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 783,282 adverse events, including 11,505 deaths and 75,286 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 4, 2022.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 11,505 U.S. deaths reported as of March 4, 17% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 22% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 60% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 554 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of March 4, including 327 million doses of Pfizer, 209 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 4, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
9,009 adverse events, including 213 rated as serious and 5 reported deaths.
The most recent death involves a 7-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2152560) from Washington who died 13 days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when he went into shock and suffered cardiac arrest. He was unable to be resuscitated and died in the emergency department.
17 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
32 reports of blood clotting disorders.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 4, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
30,193 adverse events, including 1,734 rated as serious and 40 reported deaths.
The most recent death involves a 14-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2148498) who experienced a cerebral aneurysm leading to death one day after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
69 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
650 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 631 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
161 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 4, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
The average age of death was 72.7.
As of March 4, 5,233 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 1,664 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
Of the 3,596 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 51% were attributed to Pfizer vaccinations, 40% to Moderna and 8% to J&J.
859 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, with 41% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 30% to Moderna and 28% to J&J.
2,358 reports of anaphylaxis where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
1,632 reports of myocardial infarction.
13,428 reports of blood clotting disorders in the U.S. Of those, 5,992 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 4,784 reports to Moderna and 2,607 reports to J&J.
4,065 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with 2,499 cases attributed to Pfizer, 1,381 cases to Moderna and 174 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
From [HERE] Data from the United Kingdom show that Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths among the unvaccinated have plummeted, while COVID-19 deaths from the country’s vaccinated population continue to surge.
This claim is confirmed by a report from the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA), a government agency less than a year old that was formed to be the British government’s health improvement and health protection agency.
As part of its duties, the UKHSA regularly published COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Reports. These reports contain data on COVID-19-related cases, hospitalizations and deaths. The reports also group the information based on the vaccination status of the patient or the deceased.
One of the agency’s latest reports, published March 3, proves that the fully vaccinated and those who have received booster doses of the vaccine make up the vast majority of COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom.
“[The report] does absolutely no favors for Pfizer and the claimed efficacy of its COVID-19 injection,” wrote the Daily Expose in an article covering the latest UKHSA report.
It should also be noted that the U.K. is dealing with a surge in COVID-19 cases. On March 6, the government confirmed 71,259 new COVID-19 cases, the highest number of new cases in over a month and up by 56 percent from last week.
The government also recorded 1,406 new COVID-related admissions into hospitals on that day, up by a third from last week and it is the seventh day in a row where COVID-19 hospitalizations have risen week-on-week.
Seventy-nine percent of the British population has received at least one dose of the vaccine. Seventy-three percent are fully vaccinated and 57 percent are fully vaccinated and boosted.
Children likely getting infected by fully vaccinated parents
The UKHSA’s March 3 report covers cases, hospitalizations and deaths by vaccination status in England between Jan. 31 and Feb. 27.
It shows that, of the nearly 1.1 million COVID-19 cases reported in England during this period, 846,616 – or 77 percent of all cases – were vaccinated and only 244,313 were unvaccinated.
Of the vaccinated cases, 67,669 were partially vaccinated, 162,998 were fully vaccinated and a whopping 615,949 were fully vaccinated and boosted.
The data also shows that more than half of the unvaccinated COVID-19 cases – 169,482 – are under 18 years old. This means children are most likely getting infected with COVID-19 through their fully or triple-vaccinated parents, other loved ones or possibly even their teachers. (Related: Fully vaccinated individuals are SHEDDING GRAPHENE and infecting the unvaccinated, causing serious health complications.)
UKHSA’s report shows that between Jan. 31 and Feb. 27, there were a total of 7,931 confirmed COVID-related hospitalizations in England. Of those, only 1,832 were unvaccinated and the remaining 6,099 were vaccinated. Among the unvaccinated hospitalizations, 812 were among children.
Of the vaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 cases, 363 were partially vaccinated, 1,178 were fully vaccinated and 4,558 were fully vaccinated and boosted.
A similar situation can be seen when looking at COVID-19 deaths during this time. There were a total of 3,939 confirmed COVID-19 deaths in England. Unvaccinated individuals only account for 397 of these deaths. This means that the vaccinated individuals account for 90 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in England.
Among the 3,542 vaccinated COVID-19 deaths, 113 were partially vaccinated, 725 were fully vaccinated and a whopping 2,704 were fully vaccinated and boosted at the time of their death.
Instead of looking at this data and using it to push for an end to vaccinations in England, the government is preparing to administer the fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccines later this month. The first groups eligible for this second booster include people over 75, care home residents and people with weakened immune systems.
From [HERE] Data recently released by the New Zealand government showed fully vaccinated individuals developing acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or AIDS, showing major degradation of the immune system.
Just like other governments before, the New Zealand Ministry of Health only provides a cumulative total of Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) cases from August 16, 2021, showing misleading numbers considering that the nation is currently experiencing its biggest outbreak to date.
However, this is not the only problem when it comes to New Zealand’s reporting. On August 16, 2021, the date the Health Ministry has chosen to provide a cumulative total, only 18.4 percent of the population was considered fully vaccinated.
Infections have been increasing, with 20,632 new infections reported on average every day. This is around 99 percent of the peak average reported on March 7.
New Zealand has administered at least 10,757,940 doses of the vaccines so far. Assuming every person needs two doses, that number is enough for 109.4 percent of the country’s population. However, only 78 percent are considered fully vaccinated.
The data presented by the government showed that the real-world two-dose COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness between January 6 to February 11, proved to be in the negative at -94.4 percent. However, between February 12 to 24, the numbers declined further, with effectiveness estimated to have fallen to -281.35 percent. This means the fully vaccinated are 3.8 times more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than the unvaccinated or single-dose population.
Much of the data that is being released also showed that the shots are slowly giving the population AIDS, which is a complete degradation of the immune system. When this happens, even the slightest cold could be detrimental to their health, as their immune systems will be too weak to fight off the virus. (Related: Dr. Zev Zelenko: Anyone with immune deficiency can die from a cold.)
The U.K. government also recently released more documentation that showed strong evidence of the COVID-19 vaccine causing AIDS. According to compiled data, vaccine immunity is not supposed to wane. The human immune system, however, can get damaged or degraded.
Vaccine effectiveness, as it turns out, is not the measure of a vaccine per se, but a measure of its effectiveness in terms of the recipient’s immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.
The first time the body encounters a germ, it can take several days to make and use all the germ-fighting tools needed to get over the infection. After, the immune system remembers what it learned about how to protect the body against the disease.
Vaccines, on the other hand, help develop immunity by imitating an infection. Once the imitation goes away, the body is left with a supply of “memory” t-cells and antibodies that will remember how to fight the disease in the future. So when authorities say that vaccine effectiveness weakens over time, they really mean that the immune system is the one that is weakening.
In taking the case rates found in previous reports, tracking the real-world vaccine effectiveness and immune system performance is easy based on previously published data.
Based on the information given, the 40 to 49-year-old age range had the worst immune system performance, which was recorded at -60 percent by January 2. It declined further to -67.7 percent by January 30.
With the information given, it can be gauged that COVID-19 death rates per 100,000, by vaccination status in England, calculated from the number of deaths found and the size of the double-vaccinated population, it seems that the double vaccinated population has the highest death rate per 100,000 in every age group except for the 18 to 29 and 40 to 49-year-olds. However, it is expected that the rate could switch up in the coming weeks.
From [KIRSCH] and [HERE] a former advocate of the vaccine, trusted by millions of people, has now realized he’s been deceived and he’s not happy about it at all.
Dr. John Campbell published a video entitled “The Pfizer documents” where he steps through just one of the 150 released Pfizer documents in detail: the ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST (AESI) document (aka the “5.3.6 document”).
One of the most disturbing findings was that the number of doses shipped was redacted from the safety document. The (b) (4) designation in the video snip below is a FOIA redaction code that means “Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”). Wow. The number of doses shipped is a secret?! Dr. Campbell was justifiable upset by this redaction, as he should be.
But even if we knew the number shipped, we still wouldn’t know the number of doses actually administered which we’d need to calculate the safety profile of the drug.
Dr. Campbell correctly points out that there is no way to assess safety if you don’t know what the denominator is.
He wonders out loud, why on earth would they redact that? It can’t be proprietary.
Indeed, I believe that the only reason you’d redact such a number is if you are trying to hide something.
The underreporting factor
More troubling is that nobody has talked about the underreporting factor, including Dr. Campbell. This is the factor that you multiply the reports by in order to get the number of events that actually occurred. Voluntary reporting systems often have an underreporting factor of 10 to 100 or even more depending on the severity of the symptom.
There was no attempt whatsoever to calculate the underreporting factor (URF) by Pfizer in the report. Are you surprised?
I guarantee you, all of these event reports are unreported. But Pfizer is silent on this and of course the CDC is never going to calculate this number because they don’t want anyone to know it either. If you ask them for it, they stonewall you and never provide it. So nobody can do a proper risk benefit analysis, including the CDC. This is not a problem for them since they are not required to produce such a document. Have you ever seen it? What URF did they use? Answer: they assume that VAERS and everything else is fully reported and never bother to calculate the URF. They know this is wrong. This is intentional. Their job is to push the vaccine and ignore all the safety signals.
Because our health authorities, mainstream academia, mainstream press, and members of Congress don’t want to know the underreporting factor (since if people knew that, they’d realize the vaccines are unsafe and it would create vaccine hesitancy), it’s up to the so-called “misinformation spreaders” such as myself to calculate this number.
I’ll do that three different ways, just to show you how large the number is. The smallest URF is 89 (for serious events). The largest URF is over 163 (for less serious events).
To make this article shorter, I’ve moved the three URF derivations to my Pfizer article.
Overall safety data
Dr. Campbell never even considered the underreporting factor at all in his analysis. He assumed everything was fully reported and even with that he was appalled. The absolute numbers are way too high for a safe vaccine.
He concludes “This has just destroyed trust in authority” (watch @21:55).
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been saying that for almost a year now, since I first blew the whistle on the vaccine safety story on May 25, 2021.
Now, can you imagine how he’s going to feel when he realizes it is nearly 100X worse than he thought??
The FDA wanted to hide all of these documents from us for over 75 years
Dr. Campbell never mentioned the fact that the FDA, who knew all of this, believed it should be kept hidden from the public for over 75 years.
Doesn’t that erode trust in the authorities as well, Dr. Campbell?
From [HERE] The Centers for Disease Control published a controversial post on Twitter, admitting that Americans who took a Covid-19 nasal swab PCR test may have had their DNA harvested.
“Remember that #COVID19 nose swab test you took?” the post reads. “What happened to the swab? If it was processed with a PCR test, there’s a 10% chance that it ended up in a lab for genomic sequencing analysis. Learn more about the process and its importance.”
Linked in the CDC Twitter post is a video by tech website Wired explaining how nose swabs detect new strains of SARS-CoV-2.
The video report says the alleged “10%” of samples collected are sent in for genomic sequencing testing, claiming the scientists only look at the genetic makeup of the viruses and not the DNA of the humans connected to each sample.
The sequencing is done with cooperation between local, state and federal agencies as well as academic and clinical labs.
While they claim there’s a “10% chance” of samples being tested, the number is surely much higher.
Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) asked on Twitter, “Did the CDC get permission from people to take their DNA?”
Talking with Newsweek, a professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard named Albert Ascherio downplayed the “conspiracy” that anyone’s DNA is being collected by the government or any labs before going on to admit it is actually possible.
“There is no need to test human DNA, but of course, it will be on the swab so it could be tested, which is probably what people may worry about if they are in [a] conspiracy mood,” Ascherio said.
There is a precedent to suspect a government would seek to build a database of human DNA.
The U.S. government has been collecting DNA samples of nearly every child born in the nation’s hospitals for decades now.
According to the left-leaning ACLU, “The DNA of virtually every newborn in the United States is collected and tested soon after birth… It used to be that after the screening was completed the blood spots were destroyed. Not anymore. Today it is increasingly common for states to hold onto these samples for years, even permanently.”
In December of 2019, the Pentagon warned all military personnel not to take mail-in DNA tests.
Forbes questioned at the time, “Could this genetic information lead to genetic surveillance, tracking, and grave privacy concerns for military personnel and others who use these kits?”
From [HERE] “I take care of a lot of kids with birth defects, cleft lips, cleft palates, extra fingers, extra toes,” Dr. Devan Griner from Lehi is a pediatric craniofacial plastic surgeon. During his six years working in Utah and around the world, he estimates he’s helped hundreds of patients.
“These are kind of like my own children. I take care of kids from the time they are born, sometimes before they’re born, all the way until they’re 25 years old and go off. I watch them grow up, they are part of my family,” Griner said.
The current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services covid-19 vaccine Federal mandate has Griner scared he may not be able to continue that work because he has not received any doses of the shot. So, he’s filed a lawsuit in federal court to overturn that mandate.
“I’ve watched over the last year, year and a half as things have progressed, where they’re going, I really want to put a stop now so I’m never in the position where I have to tell my patients and their families they need to go somewhere else or find somebody else,” Griner said.
The historic federal suit filed in the US District Court for the District of Utah is funded by Dr. David Martin, a renowned IP underwriter and analyst. It names as defendants, President Biden, US Govt, HHS, CMS and others. The lawsuit claims the vaccine mandate is unconstitutional and violates Dr. Griner’s fundamental rights and equal protection under the law.
COVID SHOTS ARE NOT A VACCINE AND THE RIGHT TO REFUSE MEDICAL TREATMENT
The complaint states: "the CMS Mandate must be struck down because:
i. The overwhelming evidence shows that the Injections do not prevent transmission, infection, or reinfection in those who receive them.
The CDC Director has admitted that the Injections do not prevent infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that has been identified by various public health agencies as causing the disease known as COVID-19. “[W]hat [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”1
The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.2
The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law.
In fact, the CDC has actually changed its definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination” so that the Injections would fit within the new definition. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control defined a “Vaccine” as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”3
The CDC also previously defined “Vaccination” as: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”4
Both prior definitions fit the common understanding of those terms. To be vaccinated meant that the recipient should have lasting, robust immunity to the disease targeted by the vaccine.
But on September 1, 2021, the CDC quietly rewrote these definitions. It changed the definition of a “Vaccine” to: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”5 It changed the definition of “Vaccination” to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to protection from a specific disease.”6
Thus, the CDC has eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” Upon information and belief, the CDC did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19.
This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which Dr. Griner has the fundamental human right to refuse.
MANDATES VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The complaint explains,
“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).32
As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.
No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.
The Injections may have been somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV- 2 strain, but that strain has come and gone, and the Injections—designed to fight yesterday’s threat—are simply ineffective against the current variant.
Since the Injections are ineffective against the Delta and Omicron viral variants, and the original variant has been supplanted, there can be no compelling interest to mandate their use at this time.”
But even if there were a compelling interest in mandating the Injections, the CMS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.
The blanket mandate ignores individual factors increasing or decreasing the risks that the plaintiff—indeed, all healthcare workers—pose to themselves or to others.
Defendants entirely disregard whether employees have already obtained natural immunity despite the fact that natural immunity does actually provide immunity whereas the Injections do not.
Treating all employees the same, regardless of their individual medical status, risk factors, and natural immunity status is not narrowly tailored.
Moreover, the CMS Mandate fails entirely to consider other existing treatment options beyond the Injections as part of a more narrowly tailored approach. 97. Given these facts, as more fully set forth above, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Alternatively, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law as to Plaintiff, who already has natural immunity.”
Mandates Violate the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine.
The complaint states;
The CMS Mandate also violates the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine, under which the government may not condition employment “on a basis that infringes [an employee’s] constitutionally protected interests.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593,597 (1972); see also Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595, 606 (2013) (“[T]he unconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids burdening the Constitution’s enumerated rights by coercively withholding benefits from those who exercise them.”).
Unconstitutional conditions case law often references the existence of varying degrees of coercion. According to that body of law, Defendants cannot impair Plaintiff’s right to refuse medical care through forms of coercion and through this explicit mandate. See, e.g., Koontz, 570 U.S. 595 (2013). 100. (“[U]nconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids burdening the Constitution’s enumerated rights by coercively withholding benefits from those who exercise them”); Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa Cty., 415 U.S. 250 (1974) (“[An] overarching principle, known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine ... vindicates the Constitution’s enumerated rights by preventing the government from coercing the people into giving them up.”)
The decision whether to take a medical treatment or not is a fundamental human right which Plaintiff enjoys. Plaintiff cannot be forced to choose between his right to refuse medical treatment by the government coercively withholding his right to pursue his career as a surgeon, and his passion to heal children with congenital defects such as cleft palates.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the CMS Mandate.
Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code §§ 2201-02 and other applicable law, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the CMS Mandate is unlawful and any further relief which may be appropriate.
Violation of Equal Protection
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits classifications that affect some groups of citizens differently than others. (Engquist v. Or. Dept. of Agric. (2008) 553 U.S. 591, 601.) Thetouchstone of this analysis is whether a state creates disparity between classes of individuals whose situations are arguably indistinguishable. (Ross v. Moffitt (1974) 417 U.S. 600, 609.)
The CMS Mandate creates two classes of healthcare workers; injected and uninjected. The members of one class, the uninjected, get terminated. The uninjected cannot advance their careers. They cannot provide for their families, pay their mortgages, or make a car payment. The other class, the vaccinated, get to keep their job in their chosen profession, advance their careers, provide for their families, pay their mortgages, and make their car payments.
Yet the situations of these employees are indistinguishable because injected healthcare workers can become infected with SARS-CoV-2, become re-infected with SARS-CoV- 2, and can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to fellow healthcare workers, patients, and visitors. The Injections make no difference in these respects. Their only function is to make symptoms less severe.
Discriminating against the uninjected controverts the goals of the Equal Protection Clause – i.e., to abolish barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.
Pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the CMS Mandate.” [MORE]
Dr. Griner told the media, “Morally I can’t go against what I’m feeling. If that means the hospitals take away my privileges, then that’s what’s going to happen. It breaks my heart which is why I want to get on the forefront of this and stop that from ultimately happening,” Griner said.
From [HERE] Well-known truth-teller Dr. David Martin told “Thrive Time Show” host Clay Clark that the mRNA Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines are gene therapy designed to harm people.
“We now have data that has been clearly published in the last several days showing that mRNA does get into the genome, does modify the genome and is not something that’s just this innocent little shot that creates a spike protein and you kind of get you fever and get you COVID symptoms and you get over them,” Martin said during the March 2 episode of the “Thrive Time Show” on Brighteon.TV.
“This is a genetic engineering and genetic modification, as stated by the companies. And it is, in fact, gene therapy, designed to harm humanity and perpetually make humanity a slave to the ongoing gene editing fantasies of psychopaths.” (Related: Bayer executive says covid mRNA shots are “gene therapy” falsely marketed as “vaccines.”)
Martin also gave an explanation about CRISPR after Clark brought up the technology that uses mRNA in gene editing.
“CRISPR has been around for almost a decade. It is a technology where we use nucleic acid engineering sequences to go in and essentially clip out what are called palindromic repeats,” Martin stated.
“Most people don’t understand that this whole thing, this whole mess that we’re in right now actually started in the 1950s, when we took what was chromosomes, which is the natural occurring form of nucleic acids in the human body, and pulled them apart and turn them into what we call DNA, that model does not exist. In reality, it doesn’t exist in any living system.
“What do exist are chromosomes, the entangled version of nucleic acids. But what we did was we took them apart, we took them into these long strings. And then what we found is that there are sequences inside of those we call genes. In those genes, what we found was sub-sequences which actually are the ability to insert or delete information into the genome.”
The speaker and author also compared CRISPR technology to patchwork quilts. He said that a patchwork quilt has a series of patterns and what CRISPR does is it takes one of the patches of the quilt out and replaces it with a different patch.
“But here’s the problem. Chromosomes actually have multi-dimensional information. When we decide to clip out a piece and clip in another piece. We’re not just changing the color of the quilt pattern. We’re changing the quilt. That’s a problem,” Martin said.
Clark showed a video clip of Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, who is a historian and bestselling author, speaking at the World Economic Forum. The host asked Martin about his opinion on the top adviser of WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab.
Martin said Harari has a very warped view of human experience just like theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and businessman-entrepreneur Elon Musk.
He elaborated: “His worldview is like the worldview of those who are the prophets of AI, the prophets of simulated reality. Those prophets all are calling for the erasure of diversity, so that we can actually have a command and control system that quite literally controls what would be called a human population through nothing more than simple upgrades, modifications, Trojan horses, viruses, literally and figurative.
“Their worldview is one that says that there will be an architect and the architect will come in and establish the code and the code will be what the expression of humanity is, in their likeness and image.
“The bottom line is to have a worldview that says, ‘We, those individuals who have creative thought, who have freedom of expression who have liberty, we are going to be exterminated, so that we become a slave race bent on the consumption and control of a few people who think they’re the programmers.’
“The fact of the matter is, Yuval Harari is wrong. Stephen Hawking was wrong. Elon Musk was wrong. AI is not to fear, because it, in fact, has no power over those individuals who have decided to preserve the integrity of their bodies, their minds and their spirits.”
From [HERE] The latest data published by the UK Health Security Agency confirms fully vaccinated individuals in England are up to 3.2 times more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated individuals based on Covid-19 death-rates per 100,000 population.
Story at-a-glance:
A study published Feb. 21, 2022, in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016.
The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells.
According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research.
According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.
In a Feb. 24, 2022, interview, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel proposed the COVID-19 pandemic may have been the result of a lab leak.
From [CHD] The facts surrounding SARS-CoV-2’s origin just keep getting stranger and more disturbing as time goes on.
From the start, most of the evidence seemed to point to the virus being a lab creation that somehow escaped the confines of the laboratory. We really don’t have much of anything to suggest otherwise.
Now, a study published Feb. 21 in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented by Moderna — in 2016.
Some believe this is a smoking gun, proving gain of function research is at the heart of this mystery. Of course, more research is needed to verify the findings, but if proven correct, it could be rather incriminating.
What did Moderna patent?
The genetic sequence patented by Moderna — and now found to be part of the SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein that gives the virus access into human cells — is a 19-nucleotide sequence of a human gene called MSH3, which is a DNA repair gene.
Nucleotides code for specific amino acids. The MSH3 gene works with the part of your immune system responsible for combating cancer by repairing damaged cells. This pathway has been identified as a potential target for new cancer treatments.
As noted in the patent application, the gene sequence has been modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research. The first name listed on the patent is Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who has been Moderna’s chief executive officer since 2011.
What’s so curious here is that the scientists of the Frontiers in Virology paper searched all viral and bacterial databases looking for matches to the furin cleavage site patented by Moderna, and SARS-CoV-2 is the only pathogen that has this sequence. It’s an absolute match — 100% identical.
What are the chances of a naturally-occurring virus having a rarely encountered furin cleavage site that is genetically identical to an engineered and patented one? As noted by the authors:
“The absence of CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG from any eukaryotic or viral genome in the BLAST database makes recombination in an intermediate host an unlikely explanation for its presence in SARS-CoV-2.”
In other words, the sequence being a natural zoonosis is extremely unlikely. According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.
They also noted that “Recombination in an intermediate host is an unlikely explanation.” What’s more, it’s known that inserting a furin cleavage site on the spike protein of a virus will make it more infectious.
Moderna CEO suggests lab leak responsible for COVID-19
One hypothesis raised in the paper is that the matching code might have been introduced into the SARS-CoV-2 genome through infected human cells that express the MSH3 gene. The question, then, is how and when did that happen?
Interestingly, in a Feb. 24 interview, Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo questioned Bancel about the finding. He responded saying their scientists are looking into the claim, adding:
“That it came from a lab is possible. Humans make mistakes. It’s possible that the Wuhan lab in China was working on virus enhancement or gene modification and then there was an accident where somebody was infected in the lab, which affected family and friends. It is possible. On the claim you just mentioned, scientists will look to know if it’s real or not.”
Why This Code?
Now, if SARS-CoV-2 was man-made, why would they use this particular code? As noted in the Frontiers of Virology paper, the MSH3 sequence in question has been shown to cause mismatch repair in DNA, and faulty repair of genetic damage can lead to a number of diseases, including cancer. But overexpression of MSH3 also plays a role in virology:
“Overexpression of MSH3 is known to interfere with mismatch repair … which holds virologic importance. Induction of DNA mismatch repair deficiency results in permissiveness of influenza A virus (IAV) infection of human respiratory cells and increased pathogenicity. Mismatch repair deficiency may extend shedding of SARS-CoV-2 …
“A human-codon-optimized mRNA encoding a protein 100% homologous to human MSH3 could, during the course of viral research, inadvertently or intentionally induce mismatch repair deficiency in a human cell line, which would increase susceptibility to SARS-like viral infection.”
It’s interesting to note that Moderna did not have a single successful mRNA product brought to market before the COVID-19 pandemic allowed them to bypass normal regulatory requirements.
Now, all of a sudden, we’re to believe they managed to throw together a safe and effective mRNA injection against SARS-CoV-2, a virus that just so happens to contain one of its own patented components. What are the odds?
Did Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading promoter of mRNA technology as a replacement for traditional vaccines, have anything to do with Moderna’s sudden “success”? It certainly looks that way.
After all, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), both funded and co-developed Moderna’s COVID-19 jab.
As explained by the NIH, the injection “combines Moderna’s mRNA delivery platform with the stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike immunogen (S-2P) developed by NIAID scientists.”
In mid-November 2021, Moderna granted co-ownership of its COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” patent to the NIH to resolve a dispute involving the naming of the inventors.
Can the COVID jab trigger cancer?
Incidentally, since the release of the mRNA COVID jab, some doctors have raised concerns about the possibility of the injections to trigger cancer, largely due to its detrimental impact on your immune function.
For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein.
So far, the link to cancer post-jab seems to be related to the downregulation of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), which is involved in both infections and cancer. In an October 2021 article, Dr. Nicole Delépine, a French pediatric oncologist, discussed reports of exploding cancer cases post-jab:
“Several months ago, we expressed at least “theoretical reservations” about vaccinating cancer patients or former patients who had been cured, because of the underlying mechanism of the gene injection on immunity.
“Several geneticists had also expressed their concerns about the possible interference between active or dormant cancer cells and the activity of gene therapy on lymphocytes in particular. Months have passed, and the vaccine madness has amplified …
“[C]learly there seems to be three situations:
The appearance of a cancer rapidly after the injection (two weeks to a few months) and very progressive, in a person who was previously free of known carcinological pathologies.
The resumption of cancer in a patient who has been in complete remission for several months or years.
The rapid, even explosive, evolution of a cancer that is not yet controlled.
“Beyond the testimonies that are pouring in from relatives and friends and on social networks, a Swiss newspaper has finally addressed the subject in a broader way. Here are some excerpts from their article and their references:
“‘Can COVID vaccines cause cancer? In some cases, the answer seems to be yes … [It] has been shown that in up to 50% of vaccinees, COVID vaccines can induce temporary immunosuppression or immune dysregulation (lymphocytopenia) that can last for about a week or possibly longer.
“Furthermore, COVID mRNA vaccines have shown to ‘reprogram’… adaptive and innate immune responses and, in particular, to downregulate the so-called TLR4 pathway, which is known to play an important role in the immune response to infections and cancer cells.
“Thus, if there is already a tumor somewhere — known or unknown — or if there is a predisposition to a certain type of cancer, such a state of vaccine-induced immune suppression or immune dysregulation could potentially trigger sudden tumor growth and cancer within weeks of vaccination …’”
Dr. Ryan Cole, in August 2021, also reported seeing a significant increase in certain types of cancer, especially endometrial and uterine cancers, since the start of the mass injection campaign. Cole runs a large pathology laboratory in Idaho.
Other key components of SARS-CoV-2 have also been patented
Time will tell where this all leads, but clearly, SARS-CoV-2 does not appear to be the result of natural evolution. The evidence for it being man-made is simply overwhelming. So far, few in mainstream media have been willing to touch this story, for obvious reasons.
Finding a key gene sequence of the virus in a patent of one of the primary vaccine makers is inconvenient to say the least — and this is in addition to all the other patents relating to the virus.
As previously detailed by David Martin, Ph.D., SARS-CoV-2 appears to have been engineered in the 1990s, perfected in 1999 and patented in 2002. Evidence also shows that plans for mandatory vaccinations were hatched in 2015. That year, during an Academies of Science meeting, Dr. Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance stated:
“… until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCM’s [medical countermeasures] such as pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine.
“A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of [the] process.”
According to Martin, “That’s admission of a felony, and the felony is domestic terrorism.”
In a November 2021 Red Pill Expo speech, Martin reviewed the timeline of the COVID-19 jab, which began in 1990 with the first coronavirus vaccine patent for canines (dogs) filed by Pfizer.
That vaccine was an S-1 spike protein vaccine — just like the current Pfizer COVID shot, and according to Martin, that S-1 spike protein is a bioweapon, not a pathogen.
Nine years later, in 1999, Fauci, as director of the NIAID, tasked the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill with the creation of “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.
The patent for that replication-defective coronavirus that attacks human lung cells, filed April 19, 2002, (Patent No. 7279327), details the gene sequencing of the resulting virus, and how the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain and the S-1 spike protein were engineered and could be synthetically modified in the lab using readily available gene sequencing technologies.
Basically, computer code is turned into a manmade pathogen, or an intermediate pathogen. This technology was initially funded in order to harness the coronavirus as a vector for an HIV vaccine, but it clearly didn’t end there.
CDC holds patents on SARS coronavirus
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also holds key patents, including an illegally obtained patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent No. 7220852), which Martin says is 99% identical to the sequence now identified as SARS-CoV-2.
That CDC patent also had several derivative patents associated with it, including U.S. patent 46592703P and U.S. patent 7776521, which cover the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus and the means for detecting it using RT PCR testing.
With these two patents, the CDC has complete scientific control, as it owns the provenance of both the virus and its detection.
According to Martin, there’s also evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving the CDC and Sequoia Pharmaceuticals. April 28, 2003 — three days after the CDC filed its patent for the SARS coronavirus — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent on an antiviral agent for the treatment and control of infectious coronavirus (Patent No. 7151163).
So, the CDC filed a patent on SARS coronavirus, and three days later there’s a treatment? This strongly suggests there was a working relationship behind the scenes. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2002, develops antiviral therapeutics with a special focus on drug-resistant viruses. Its lead investors include the Wellcome Trust.
But there’s yet another problem with Sequoia’s 2003 filing for an antiviral agent. It was actually issued and published before the CDC patent on SARS coronavirus had been granted, which didn’t happen until 2007, and the CDC had paid to keep the application private.
So, there is zero possibility for anyone but an insider to have that information. This is clear evidence of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion, Martin notes. You cannot develop a treatment for something that you do not know exists.
Sanofi also owns a series of patents detailing what we’ve been told are novel features of SARS-CoV-2, namely the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain. The first of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 9193780, was issued Nov. 24, 2015.
Between 2008 and 2017, a series of patents were also filed by a long list of players, including Crucell, Rubeus Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong and the Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.
According to Martin, there are 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, that describe the very elements that are said to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. It’s unclear whether Moderna’s 2016 patent filing is part of that list.
BOOKS BW IS CHECKING OUT
BrownWatch is a non-profit website that provides news and information for the purpose of liberation, education, self-reliance and greater self-knowledge. BrownWatch is intended to function as a tool to overcome info-gaps, verigaps and false programming toward the goal of “Endependence” within the meaning of FUNKTIONARY. It seeks to destroy the master/servant relationship maintaining the system of racism white supremacy and to unplug belief in systems of authority and all other granfalloons ensnaring humankind.
Any reproduction of copyrighted materials is done solely for the “productive uses” and “fair uses” of news reporting, sharing research, criticism, commentary, education and to provide an alternative contextual lens of such material within the meaning of the Copyright Act. 17 USCS § 107 (2019).
Powered by Squarespace.
Copyright © 2025, The BrownWatch. All rights reserved.
