Dr Blaylock: COVID Plandemic is 1 of the most manipulated events in history, characterized by a stream of official lies from government, medical associations/boards, media and international agencies

/

From [HERE] and [HERE] “The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[3,6,57] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.

For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators.[23,38]

The media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc), medical societies, state medical boards and the owners of social media have appointed themselves to be the sole source of information concerning this so-called “pandemic”. Websites have been removed, highly credentialed and experienced clinical doctors and scientific experts in the field of infectious diseases have been demonized, careers have been destroyed and all dissenting information has been labeled “misinformation” and “dangerous lies”, even when sourced from top experts in the fields of virology, infectious diseases, pulmonary critical care, and epidemiology. These blackouts of truth occur even when this information is backed by extensive scientific citations from some of the most qualified medical specialists in the world.[23] Incredibly, even individuals, such as Dr. Michael Yeadon, a retired ex-Chief Scientist, and vice-president for the science division of Pfizer Pharmaceutical company in the UK, who charged the company with making an extremely dangerous vaccine, is ignored and demonized. Further, he, along with other highly qualified scientists have stated that no one should take this vaccine.

Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most cited experts in his field, who has successfully treated over 2000 COVID patients by using a protocol of early treatment (which the so-called experts completely ignored), has been the victim of a particularly vicious assault by those benefiting financially from the vaccines. He has published his results in peer reviewed journals, reporting an 80% reduction in hospitalizations and a 75% reduction in deaths by using early treatment.[44] Despite this, he is under an unrelenting series of attacks by the information controllers, none of which have treated a single patient.

Neither Anthony Fauci, the CDC, WHO nor any medical governmental establishment has ever offered any early treatment other than Tylenol, hydration and call an ambulance once you have difficulty breathing. This is unprecedented in the entire history of medical care as early treatment of infections is critical to saving lives and preventing severe complications. Not only have these medical organizations and federal lapdogs not even suggested early treatment, they attacked anyone who attempted to initiate such treatment with all the weapons at their disposal—loss of license, removal of hospital privileges, shaming, destruction of reputations and even arrest.[2]

A good example of this outrage against freedom of speech and providing informed consent information is the recent suspension by the medical board in Maine of Dr. Meryl Nass’ medical license and the ordering of her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for prescribing Ivermectin and sharing her expertise in this field.[9,65] I know Dr, Nass personally and can vouch for her integrity, brilliance and dedication to truth. Her scientific credentials are impeccable. This behavior by a medical licensing board is reminiscent of the methodology of the Soviet KGB during the period when dissidents were incarcerated in psychiatric gulags to silence their dissent.”

Read the rest of the article.

How to Remote Control Humans via Injection – Dr Charles Morgan Speaking to Cadets at West Point

/

From [HERE] Dr. Charles Morgan speaks to cadets and faculty at West Point about a range of topics, including psychology, neurobiology, and the science of humans at war. Dr. Morgan’s neurobiological and forensic research has established him as an international expert in post-traumatic stress disorder, eyewitness memory, and human performance under conditions of high stress.

CDC Bought Cell Phone Data to Track Americans During Lockdowns in the Free Range Prison

/

Story at a glance:

  • A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed documentation that the organization had freely received, and later purchased, location data with the stated intent of monitoring activity in curfew zones or visits to pharmacies.

  • A review of the documents also disclosed a list of 21 cases where the data could possibly be used, not all of which involved tracking COVID-related efforts. The data were gathered by SafeGraph after the company’s code was installed in a variety of apps commonly downloaded to smartphones.

  • The data are reportedly anonymized, yet SafeGraph decided to no longer share data location about clinics that offer abortion services, which begs the question “Why?” if the data are anonymous?

  • Google banned SafeGraph code in the Play Store in July 2021, just six months before four attorneys general filed a lawsuit after a three-year investigation showing Google has been secretly tracking people since 2014.

From [CHD] If you’ve ever felt like Google knows what you’re going to do before you know what you’re going to do, it’s because they are tracking you.

If you’re using any of Google’s apps or products on your Android phone, iPhone or computer, you are likely being tracked.

Internal documents from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show your cell phone data was used to track your movements during lockdowns and vaccine campaigns.

CNET reports that some apps created by Google can store your location data and just opening the maps app or using a Google search will log your location and time.

Google analyzes the data to predict your behavior and sells the information to advertisers.

But advertisers are not the only ones interested in knowing where you are and what you’re doing.

As the pandemic unfolded in Australia, officials decided not to take the word of their citizens. Instead, citizens are forced to download an intrusive app that uses facial recognition and geolocation to ensure they stay quarantined in their homes.

In October 2021, The Guardian reported that human rights groups were concerned that the data being collected in Australia could be used for “secondary purposes” and stored for longer than necessary.

The Human Rights Law Center and Digital Rights Watch have expressed concern about the technology being used without privacy protections for their citizens.

The groups also expressed concerns that the information will be stored indefinitely rather than destroyed when there’s no reason for it to be retained.

China has taken the use of its citizens’ data one step further as they have developed measures to keep citizens in line with the party rhetoric.

Officially, the government is using facial recognition, shaming and brutality to enforce quarantines in the hope of achieving zero COVID cases, infections or deaths in the country.

In other words, China appears to be operating under the misguided belief that COVID is not endemic and can be controlled.

Yet, this is a highly unlikely story for a country with advanced technology and science laboratories. More likely, China and Australia are using these draconian methods to force submission and obedience on their citizens.

Internal documents reveal that the CDC may be in the early stages of something similarly tyrannical.

CDC pays for data to track your phone

On May 3, Vice reported that they’d learned through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that the CDC had purchased cell phone data from the data broker SafeGraph.

In early 2020, SafeGraph announced in their online blog that they’d made their “foot traffic data free for nonprofit organizations and government agencies at the local, state and federal level” — but, in addition, they also created “multiple new COVID-19 datasets and dashboards.”

They did this, they said, “to play our part in the fight against the COVID-19 health crisis — and its devastating impact on the global economy.”

One year later, SafeGraph, whose large investors include PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and ex-Saudi intelligence chief Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, began charging for the data and the CDC paid $420,000 to the company.

The CDC said the data were “critical for ongoing response efforts, such as hourly monitoring of activity in curfew zones or detailed counts of visits to participating pharmacies for vaccine monitoring.”

Zach Edwards is a cyber-security researcher who commented to Vice Motherboard in an online chat after reading the documents from the CDC:

“The CDC seems to have purposefully created an open-ended list of use cases, which included monitoring curfews, neighbor-to-neighbor visits, visits to churches, schools and pharmacies, and also a variety of analysis with this data specifically focused on ‘violence.’”

In the documents obtained through the FOIA, the CDC described 21 cases in which they could potentially use the data that they had purchased.

Although the data were purchased to ostensibly track COVID data, not all were related to these efforts and it’s apparent someone was hoping to prove the effectiveness of CDC decisions through:

  • Examination of the volume of mobile phones grouped in proximity each month and compare 2019 to 2020 data to see the impact of these orders. Project how much worse things would have been without the bans.

  • Examination of the effectiveness of the public policy on Navajo Nation.

  • Research points of interest such as visits to pharmacies in a vaccine distribution plan or grocery stores.

  • Research points of interest for physical activity and chronic disease prevention such as visits to parks, gyms, or weight management businesses.

  • Exposure to certain building types, urban areas, and violence.

SafeGraph defended its actions and data release by claiming it is an aggregate of information rather than specific to individuals to prevent issues with user privacy.

In the past, the company shared data on over 18 million cell phones they say were geographically representative.

They gather the data by asking or paying app developers to include the SafeGraph code. The location data is then funneled to SafeGraph, where they resell it or package the data into products.

SafeGraph claims that the data is anonymous, yet Vice Motherboard found otherwise after purchasing location data for $200 that was not supposed to pinpoint specific devices.

Edwards pointed out the data could be identified down to a specific office and theoretically specific users could also be identified.

This is not the first time the CDC has used the mobile cell phone network to gather data on the population. In 2010, they used it to identify population displacement and return after the earthquake in Haiti.

Their data analysis corresponded with a retrospective survey but was not reproduced in other natural disasters because of the limitations in gathering data from telecommunication companies.

SafeGraph seems to have circumvented this issue.

Google blocked SafeGraph

The concern that the location data may breach privacy was supported by SafeGraph’s decision in May to no longer share location data about clinics that offer abortion services.

Despite the long-standing claim that the data were anonymized, the company thought it was “good that we were called out.” and the decision was made “in light of potential federal changes in family planning access.”

How is it that SafeGraph believes the data sold to the CDC was anonymized, yet earlier that month they agreed to stop selling location data near health clinics that offer abortion services?

Is one more anonymous than the other?

The New York Post reported an example of how data have been able to be de-anonymized when a Catholic priest from Wisconsin was forced to resign after a Catholic news site was able to link data from his cell phone to dating apps.

The Post also reported that the internal documents from the CDC cell phone data revealed “extremely accurate insights related to age, gender, race, citizenship status, income and more.”

June 2021, Google banned SafeGraph code from their Play Store. Any developers who had it installed were required to either remove their app or remove the code.

Yet, this is likely not effective since, as Vice reports, SafeGraph has also gotten location data from a spin-off company that also works with app developers.

The intent to track user data was announced early in the pandemic by Bill Gates, who had gone on record saying that life would not go back to normal until we had the ability to vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19.

To that end, he pushed for disease surveillance and a vaccine tracking system that could ultimately involve embedding vaccination records in our bodies.

The Rockefeller Foundation is also working on coordinating efforts of social control by implementing tracking and tracing measures that clearly are meant to become permanent.

On April 21, 2020, the Foundation released a white paper that called for testing and tracing all Americans using a national database that connects to other health records.

While these announcements are not obviously tied to data gathering by Google or other third parties, it’s also naive to think they can accomplish those goals without initially integrating data from the largest data source in the world — Google.

Google has been secretly tracking people

Google’s ban on SafeGraph code seems opposite to company policy and an interesting twist of events in 2021 since four attorneys general alleged in 2022 that the tech giant has secretly been tracking people without their knowledge or permission.

Karl A. Racine, attorney general for the District of Columbia, said in a statement, “The truth is that contrary to Google’s representations it continues to systematically surveil customers and profit from customer data.”

Racine led the complaints based on a three-year investigation that showed Google was recording movements even after users had indicated they didn’t want their movement tracked by changing settings on their device.

“Google falsely led consumers to believe that changing their account and device settings would allow customers to protect their privacy and control what personal data the company could access,” Racine said.

Racine initiated the investigation after a 2018 AP news report revealed Google was tracking people’s movements even when they opted out. His investigation found that these misleading claims regarding user privacy protection had been ongoing since at least 2014.

Yet, a Google spokesperson alleged that the lawsuit was based on “inaccurate claims and outdated assertions about our settings.”

The AP investigation included a real-world example from privacy researcher Gunes Acar, whose location data was tracked to dozens of locations over several days and the data saved to his Google account. Acar had turned off the “location history” on his cell phone.

In the past, Google location data had been used in criminal cases, including a warrant issued by police in Raleigh, North Carolina, to track down devices in the area of a murder.

It is reasonable to assume that Google has access to your location when your data and location are turned on. However, at issue is the company’s continued tracking even when location history is turned off.

“If you’re going to allow users to turn off something called ‘location history,’ then all the places where you maintain location history should be turned off,” Jonathan Mayer, a former chief technologist for the Federal Communications Commission’s enforcement bureau, told the AP. “That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have.”

Aside from hiding location tracking under settings users wouldn’t expect, like “Web & App Activity” — which is turned on by default — Google is accused of collecting and storing location information via Google services, Wi-Fi data and marketing partners, again after the device or account settings had been changed to stop location tracking.

Massachusetts and Google force installs tracking app

CNBC reported that efforts in Congress to monitor Big Tech have been stalled by “both partisan and inter-party squabbles,” while state attorneys general have shown a united front on issues against Facebook and Google.

When asked, Racine attributed the alignment to the relationship the AGs have with their constituents.

“State attorney generals are the people’s lawyers. And when acting as the people’s lawyers, they’re doing their best work. And they do their best work by frankly, engaging and listening to the residents of their jurisdictions.”

This remarkably resembles the way that Congressional men and women were elected to do their jobs.

Another signal that Google’s ban on SafeGraph code was not likely to protect user privacy was its partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Apple to create a smartphone app called MassNotify.

The app tracks and traces people in Massachusetts and advises users of others’ COVID-19 status. The tool claimed to have been developed “with a focus on privacy.”

But Massachusetts residents were surprised when the app suddenly appeared on their Android phones without consent “to alert users who may have been exposed to COVID-19.”

Reportedly, the user must enable the feature for it to function, but the partnership with Google makes this claim suspect.

In China, COVID-19 tracking apps have been used as surveillance tools in collaboration with its social credit system, raising red flags that this force-installed app could be tracking residents’ movements and contacts without their knowledge and consent.

The MassNotify app uses Google’s and Apple’s Bluetooth-based Exposure Notifications Express program which was first released in April 2020. The program can act as a blueprint from which states can implement their own tracking systems.

Other states have required users to download the app, but MassNotify was integrated into the operating system of Android phones directly.

In a May 2020 Forbes article, Simon Chandler pointed out that while contact tracing apps “may be cryptographically secure,” they still “threaten our privacy in broader and more insidious ways,” namely encouraging you to keep your cellphone with you at all times and tracking your whereabouts while you do, further “normalizing” the constant use of technology to dictate your freedoms and behavior.

As has been demonstrated by investigations and Google’s actions, your smartphone can easily be used to track your location and possible actions.

This information can then be used to make predictions about your behavior and the likelihood you’ll make decisions that are for or against the current government dictates.

There are minimal steps left before people in currently “free” countries are living under constant surveillance, control and brutality as people in China and Australia find themselves. It is crucial to support your local and state government officials who support freedom.

Campaign in the Ass: Black Senate Hopeful Kathy Barnette Calls Out Dr. Oz and Dave McCormick for Being World Economic Forum Members [Elite Eugenicists, Racists] at PA Republican Senate Debate

/

According to FUNKTIONARY:

politician – a campaign in the ass; a pocket-prowler. 2) one who suffers from liplash. 3) one who will run for office and then mostly likely run for cover. 4) one who can win more votes through dishonesty or self-aggrandizement than through keeping promises. A politician will stand for anything that will leave him or her sitting pretty. Remember, there is reason for the word ‘politician’ to have the letters ‘CIA’ towards the end—because it stands for “Cash In Advance” right now. Only a Self-Realized man or woman with clarity of vision, who is not dependent on votes of the people, can master and see pass (and through) truth as easy as they can lies—politicians can only say beautiful lies, consoling lies, just to get your support in the form of a vote—because the self-realized wants nothing from you and has nothing “on you” to get from you. In fact, speaking reality-based truth can be dangerous to his life and his career—vermiculating politicians want power, not funerals or meaningful jobs. For the politician, the satisfaction of the power of office takes priority over his or her integrity. They covet making a living or a killing—not making a difference. A politician’s pedigree is his/her filigree or vice versa—strictly adjunct. (See: Bribery, Political Power, Statutes, Police, FLEAS, LAWS, Greater System & Tyrannolaw)

eugenics – the science of African extermination and of the gene that produces a people (ethnicity) with the object being African and melanated peoples of the world. 2) the science of Racism White Supremacy. Eugenics is a bogus pseudoscience founded by English psycho-ologist Francis Galton, used for purposes of white supremacy tactics made popular by Hitler in Nazi Germany but practiced earlier in the U.S.S.A. 3) the maniacal (Yurugu-istic) philosophy of using genetic manipulation to create a better organism, better race or even a so-called master race by a lone totalitarian Dictator or a group of evil men under the veil of a Corporate State, i.e., Social Eugenics. 4) the racist belief held by many Caucasians that Africans and descendants of Africans are biologically moribund—and consequently were deficient in native or inborn intelligence and that the lack of intelligence would likely lead to a decline in the nation’s collective intelligence. 5) the antidote of the Caucasian’s unconscious fear of a Black Planet. 6) the artifice of attempting to make people appear to be other than they are. 7) the propaganda that African people should be done away with—exterminated. The name ‘eugenics” was coined by the white psychologist Francis Galton. The triune objectives of Eugenics is selective ethnic genetic annihilation, population control (or depopulation), and selective breeding by a pathological strain of DNA. Eugenics essentially means, good white genetic stock; the selective breeding of white people and the mass extermination of African people. Mass incarceration, the homosexuality agenda (depopulation) grew out of the Eugenics movment. Read “War of the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race” by Edwin Black. (See: Genocide, Yurugu,  Recombinant DNA, U.S. Sterilization Laws, Freemasony, Theosophy, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, Planned Parenthood, Neuropean, Weiteko Disease, Racism White Supremacy, Similac, P.I.C., Caucasian & Inferiority Complex)

The CDC Knew that a Young Boy Died from Myocarditis [heart inflammation] After Getting a COVID Injection When it Signed Off on the 3rd Shot for Kids 5-11

/

DETAILS ARE FURTHER DOWN THE PAGE.

From [CHD] and [HERE] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,277,980 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 20, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That’s an increase of 9,972 adverse events over the previous week.

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

The data included a total of 28,312 reports of deaths — an increase of 171 over the previous week — and 232,694 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 2,330 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 820,788 adverse events, including 13,045 deaths and 82,974 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 20, 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 13,045 U.S. deaths reported as of May 20, 16% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 583 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of May 20, including344 million doses of Pfizer, 220 million doses of Moderna and 19 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 May 20, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to May 20, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to May 20, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

[MORE] and [MORE]

CDC acknowledges boy died of myocarditis, signs off on COVID for kids 5 to 11 

A young boy between the age of 5 and 11 died after receiving his first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC.

Yet, the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel and its director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, signed off on a third dose for the young age group despite their knowledge of the boy’s death.

Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, a member of the agency’s vaccine safety team, said during a virtual meeting held by the Advisory Committee on Immunization and Practices (ACIP) a young male died 13 days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

The boy experienced a fever 12 days after his first dose. A day later, he experienced abdominal pain and vomiting. He passed away the same day. Evidence showed the boy suffered from heart inflammation known as myocarditis.

“This patient had a rapid clinical course. From the time they started experiencing their abdominal pain day 13 after dose one until the time they were brought into the [emergency department] and subsequently died was on the order of a couple of hours,” Shimabukuro said.

“Histopathological evidence of myocarditis was present on autopsy, and that was resolved to be the cause of death,” he added.

The death was reported to VAERS and verified by the CDC through an interview with the healthcare provider.

Tests conducted on the boy by the CDC’s infectious disease pathology branch “did not find evidence of viral infection at the time of death,” Shimabukuro said.

The ACIP did not ask questions or discuss the death, but instead, determined the benefits of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine outweigh the risks. [MORE]

Complicit in Genocide: In Case You Missed It NY Gov Kathy Hochul Told a Black Church, 'God made the Vaccine and Wants Us Vaccinated.' The Unelected Ruler Ruled that No Religious Objection is Valid

/

From [CHD] New York City paused its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for New York Police Department (NYPD) employees so the department can retain roughly 5,000 police and other employees who have not received the vaccine.

The May 19 announcement came one day after Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon issued an orderallowing depositions to be taken in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of NYPD and municipal employees alleging the city violated their religious and constitutional rights through widespread discrimination.

According to city officials, 91% of the NYPD uniformed cops and other employees are vaccinated, leaving approximately 4,659 NYPD unvaccinated employees despite a deadline to get the jabs by Oct. 29, 2021.

“In a nutshell, no decisions will be made, no further members will be forced to leave until further notice,” an NYPD sergeant told the New York Post. “There hasn’t been any memo, just basically keep everything status quo and if issues arise we will revisit it down the road.”

Last month, an unknown number of officers received final notices rejecting their requests for religious or medical exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for municipal employees.

As of November 2021, NYPD employees had filed 6,170 requests for religious or medical exemptions.

“The city’s legal argument for upholding religious discrimination is falling apart in real time as the litigation progresses,” lead attorney Sujata Gibson told The Defender. [MORE]

According to the class action suit,

"Both mandates were to take effect on September 27, 2021. The day before the state mandate was supposed to take effect, Governor Hochul gave a sermon at a Brooklyn church [a black church], during which she said that God made the vaccine and that she was recruiting apostles to coerce those who did not understand God’s will and what God wants (that we be vaccinated). Governor Hochul then told the press that the Pope supports vaccination and that no religious objections to vaccination are valid, and this is why she removed the religious exemption from the state healthcare mandate. [MORE] and [MORE]

Hochul stated, "All of you, yes, I know you're vaccinated, you're the smart ones. But you know there's people out there who aren't listening to God. ... I need you to be my apostles. I need you to go out and talk about it and say, we owe this to each other. We love each other."

Clearly, the governor said, getting vaccinated was the best way to obey God in this crisis.

Analysis of US Counties Demonstrates that COVID Injections Absolutely Do Not Reduce Hospitalizations

/

From [JOEL SMALLEY] Do the COVID-19 injectables (aka "vaccines") reduce COVID-19 hospitalisations?

Analysis of US counties 24-Feb to 19-May 2022 shows a statistically significant POSITIVE correlation between vaccination and hospitalisation.

Method

Regression of COVID-19 hospitalisation rates between 24-Feb and 19-May 2022 and rates of full and booster vaccination rates on 19-May-22 for the 3,095 US counties that reported the data.

Results

There is a positive relationship between hospitalisation rates and the rate of full vaccination. In other words, the higher the rate of full vaccination, the higher the rate of COVID hospitalisations, assuming ceteris paribus.

There is a positive relationship between hospitalisation rates and the rate of booster vaccination. In other words, the higher the rate of booster vaccination, the higher the rate of COVID hospitalisations, assuming ceteris paribus.

Both variables are statistically significant but the model has very low explanatory power. In other words, there are lots more factors in play but the small impact of COVID vaccination is statistically significant, i.e. not random or due to chance.

Interestingly, the South (Bible Belt) had the least fully vaccinated counties. They are also Republican.

[MORE]

[In Clown World We are the Joke] Plandemic II Launched to Keep Plandemic Funds Flowing to Big Pharma: "MonkeyPox" ('Monkey See Monkey Do') after "Omicron" (For Monkey Minded Morons to Believe)

/

From [HERE] After weeks of indicating that perhaps the Bird Flu hoax was going to be recycled again as a new “pandemic” to instill fear and continue the state of “emergency” the entire country has been under since 2020 that has resulted in $trillions given over to Big Pharma for their products, mainly the COVID-19 “vaccines,” it appears now that plans are in place to actually use the “monkeypox” as the new “pandemic” to further the goals of the Globalists to create new vaccines and control the population.

The World Health Organization just announced that they are “convening an emergency meeting on the alarming spread of monkeypox around the world.” (Source.)

Just how bad is this new “outbreak” which now threatens the world in a similar way to how COVID threatened to wipe out humanity?

Cases of monkeypox in the UK doubled this week – to an “alarming” 20 cases. And it is now spreading to the U.S. at an alarming rate, as one person has reportedly now tested positive for it (determined by the PCR test apparently) in New York City. (Source.)

It appears that worldwide this “alarming spread” of monkeypox is well below 100 cases at this point, which means it would probably not even break into the top 1000 list of current infectious diseases spreading around the globe.

So why the media hype and sudden attention by government health organizations like the WHO and the CDC?

The first clue that this is a new “plandemic” is to see how Big Pharma is setup to profit from it, because disease management is first and foremost a marketing opportunity, and to create to the proper fear factor, one has to advertise a “new” and “deadly” disease to start the funds flowing through emergency use authorizations.

And sure enough, that first criterion for identifying a “plandemic” has been met this week, as Whitney Webb reported:

Two corrupt companies were in rocky financial territory just a few weeks ago. Now, with concerns over a global monkeypox outbreak being hyped by media and global health organizations alike, the worries – and sins – of these two firms are quickly being forgotten.

In recent days, concern over a global outbreak of monkeypox, a mild disease related to smallpox and chickenpox, has been hyped in the media and health ministries around the world, even prompting an emergency meeting at the World Health Organization (WHO). For some, fears have centered around monkeypox being the potential “next pandemic” after Covid-19. For others, the fear is that monkeypox will be used as the latest excuse to further advance draconian biosecurity policies and global power grabs.

Regardless of how the monkeypox situation plays out, two companies are already cashing in. As concern over monkeypox has risen, so too have the shares of Emergent Biosolutions and SIGA Technologies. Both companies essentially have monopolies in the US market, and other markets as well, on smallpox vaccines and treatments. Their main smallpox-focused products are, conveniently, also used to protect against or treat monkeypox as well. As a result, the shares of Emergent Biosolutions climbed 12% on Thursday, while those of SIGA soared 17.1%.

For these companies, the monkeypox fears are a godsend, specifically for SIGA, which produces a smallpox treatment, known by its brand name TPOXX. It is SIGA’s only product. While some outlets have noted that the rise in the valuation of SIGA Technologies has coincided with recent concerns about monkeypox, essentially no attention has been given to the fact that the company is apparently the only piece of a powerful billionaire’s empire that isn’t currently crumbling.

That billionaire, “corporate raider” Ron Perelman, has deep and controversial ties to the Clinton family and the Democratic party as well as troubling ties to Jeffery Epstein. Aside from his controlling stake in SIGA, Perelman has recently made headlines for rapidly liquidating many of his assets in a desperate bid for cash. (Full article.)

The second sign to look for, is if this “new outbreak” has already been predicted beforehand, and even simulated in an effort to predict how to “contain the outbreak,” much as COVID-19 was weeks before the first alleged cases even showed up, with the pandemic simulation called Event 201.

Data Analyst says at least 10,000 Reports of Death or Serious Injury Following COVID Injections were Inexplicably Removed by CDC since the Rollout of the shots, and they were not duplicate reports

/

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was created as an early warning system to identify vaccines that may be triggering a higher than expected number of adverse events

  • Publicly available VAERS data clearly reveal that the COVID shots are the most dangerous “vaccine” ever created, accounting for more injuries and deaths than all previous conventional vaccines combined over the last three decades

  • Data analyst Albert Benavides has been analyzing VAERS data since the release of these novel shots. According to Benavides, at least 10,000 reports of death or serious injury following COVID “vaccination” have vanished since the rollout of the shots — and they were not duplicate reports, which is a common “explanation” for their removal

  • About 2% of all COVID jab-related reports are deaths, and about 5% of death-related reports are being deleted

  • Only the initial VAERS reports are available to the public. Updated reports are only viewable internally. That means we have no way of knowing how many of those who were injured have since died from those injuries. This is a loophole that can make a vaccine appear less deadly than it actually is

From [MERCOLA] The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was created as an early warning system to identify vaccines that may be triggering a higher than expected number of adverse events. One of its primary objectives is to:1

“Provide a national safety monitoring system that extends to the entire general population for response to public health emergencies, such as a large-scale pandemic influenza vaccination program.”

It’s far from perfect, but it’s still incredibly useful and does serve its purpose. Publicly available VAERS data clearly reveal that the COVID shots are the most dangerous “vaccine” ever created, accounting for more injuries and deaths than all previous conventional vaccines combined over the last three decades.

But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which jointly run VAERS, continue to insist the shots are “safe and effective,” and that not a single death has been directly attributed to the shot.

Such claims are outlandish in light of the available data, and perhaps they’re starting to realize the pickle they’re in as well, because in recent months, investigators have discovered that VAERS reports are being deleted in ever growing numbers. As noted by Stew Peters of the Stew Peters Show (above):

“VAERS is supposed to simply collect reports filled out by doctors and other medical professionals from around the country — reports of people suffering injuries and illnesses and even death after taking vaccines.

Nobody is supposed to be editing or curating or fact-checking it. It’s supposed just be the reports of doctors for the entire world to see. But now we have evidence that that’s, in fact, not what’s happening at all.”

Who’s Deleting VAERS Reports?

Peters interviews Albert Benavides, an RCM expert, data analyst and auditor, who’s been analyzing VAERS data since the release of these novel shots.2 3 According to Benavides, at least 10,000 reports of death or serious injury following COVID “vaccination” have vanished since the rollout of the shots — and they were not duplicate reports, which is a common “explanation” for their removal.

Benavides cites the case of a young child in Alaska who reportedly died after the jab. That death report is now gone, and there’s no other remaining report that matches it.

VAERS ID 18150964 is another example. This is the case of a 13-year-old girl in Maryland, who died 16 days after her first jab. This report was entered October 25, 2021, and deleted April 15, 2022. VAERS claims it was deleted because it was a duplicate, but there are no 13-year-old girls in Maryland who died, anywhere else in VAERS.

According to Benavides, over the past 30 years, some 4,000 non-COVID reports have been deleted, and of those only a couple of hundred were deaths. For the COVID jab, VAERS is deleting a far higher proportion of severe injuries and deaths. About 2% of all COVID jab-related reports are deaths, and about 5% of death-related reports are being deleted.

The result of this is that the ratio of deaths to other injuries appears lower than it probably is. Overwhelmingly, it’s reports of severe injuries and death that are being deleted, which gives the distinct appearance that they’re trying to hide the true extent of the harm of these shots. Who could possibly be doing this? Benavides insists the direction to delete valid reports must be coming from the very top of the FDA and/or CDC.

If you want to dive deeper into Benavides’ data, you can find his VAERS Analysis Dashboard here. Another resource you’ll want to bookmark is the VAERS Wayback Machine on MedAlerts — a search system specifically for deleted VAERS reports.

Other Factors That Downplay COVID Jab Risks

Benavides also points out that only the initial VAERS reports are available to the public. Updated reports are only viewable internally. What that means is, we have no way of knowing how many of those who were injured have since died from those injuries. This is a loophole that can make a vaccine appear less risky than it actually is.

“65% of all COVID related reports have the lowest severity classification, meaning they’re not serious. However, when you actually read the reports, you find heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms and other clearly serious injuries. So, many are clearly misclassified.”

What’s more, Benavides is finding that they’re routinely misclassifying the event level of severity; 65% of all COVID-related reports have the lowest severity classification, meaning they’re not serious and didn’t require medical intervention or hospitalization.

However, when you actually read the reports, you find heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms and other clearly serious injuries. So, many are clearly misclassified, or mis-coded. Benavides has also found 65 reports where the patient died after the COVID shot, but because the box for death is not checked, they are not included in the total death tally.

We also have evidence that VAERS is throttling the release of reports. It can take months before a filed report is actually published, as COVID jab victim Brittany Galvin has discovered.

In January 2022, she was eight months into the reporting process to VAERS and was advised by VAERS staff that it would likely be another six to 12 months before her case would be posted.5 In early June 2021, Peters interviewed her about her injuries and experience with the VAERS process (video below).6

VAERS Analysis Reveals Hundreds of Serious Side Effects

An earlier VAERS data analysis by Benavides, reported by Steve Kirsch in November 2021,7 revealed there were by then already hundreds of serious adverse events associated with the COVID shot that were far more elevated than the admitted risk of myocarditis, identified by the Department of Defense (although that fact was for a time dismissed as “conspiracy theory”).

“The evidence in plain sight shows that they are either lying or incompetent. Or both,”Kirsch wrote.8 “In a ... VAERS data analysis performed by our friend Albert Benavides (aka WelcomeTheEagle88), we found hundreds of serious adverse events that were completely missed by the CDC that should have been mentioned in the informed consent document that are given to patients.

And we found over 200 symptoms that occur at a higher relative rate than myocarditis (relative to all previous vaccines over the last 5 years). All together, there were over 4,000 VAERS adverse event codes that were elevated by these vaccines by a factor of 10 or more over baseline that the CDC should have warned people about ...

The FDA and CDC have basically been batting .000 in terms of spotting safety signals that have been sitting in plain sight the entire time ... The CDC has repeatedly said you can’t ascribe causality to data in VAERS. Not true.

The VAERS data analysis (temporal data, the dose dependency, and the elevated reporting rates compared to baseline) provide ample signal to enable us to show causality on all of these events using the five Bradford-Hill criteria applicable to vaccines.”

Of the hundreds of side effects Benavides identified, neurological, cardiovascular and female reproductive problems topped the list. (You can view and download the data from Kirsch’s article.9) Here are some selected highlights from Kirsch’s comprehensive review of Benavides’ findings:10

  • Pulmonary embolism, listed at No. 24, is 954 times higher than normal

  • Increased fibrin D-dimer, No. 53 on the list, is elevated by a factor of over 400 times above baseline. Charles Hoffe has reported that D-dimer was elevated in over 60% of patients measured.11 As noted by Kirsch, “This is very serious as D-dimer is a lagging indicator of blood clots”

  • Increased troponin, listed at No. 130, is 205 times higher than normal. Elevated troponin is a biomarker for heart damage, and in COVID jab victims, they are often elevated to extreme levels, up to 10 times higher than that indicating heart attack, and can remain elevated for months

  • Brain herniation is elevated by a factor of 100 times above baseline

  • Death is 96 times higher than normal

  • Cardiac arrest is 93 times higher than normal

  • Intracranial hemorrhage is 79 times higher than normal

High Rates of Post-Jab Myocarditis Confirmed

Getting back to myocarditis (heart inflammation), which is the only side effect the FDA and CDC have really admitted, a recent JAMA study found that:12

“Both first and second doses of mRNA vaccines were associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. For individuals receiving 2 doses of the same vaccine, risk of myocarditis was highest among young males (aged 16-24 years) after the second dose.”

Among double-jabbed men (age 16-24), there were four to seven excess myopericarditis events per 100,000 vaccinees in the first 28 days after the second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA shot, and anywhere from nine to 28 excess myopericarditis events per 100,000 after the second dose of Moderna.

According to the authors, “The risk of myocarditis in this large cohort study was highest in young men after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose” and “this risk should be balanced against the benefits of protecting against severe COVID-19 disease.”

While fact checkers are hard at work trying to debunk VAERS data as too unreliable to pay any attention to, doctors and specialists around the world — those brave enough to speak — are reporting absurdly high rates of side effects among their COVID jabbed patients.

One of the latest ones is Dr. Robert Jackson, an award-winning rheumatologist in Missouri. Kirsch recently interviewed Jackson (video above),13 who reports that 40% of his COVID jabbed patients have been injured by the shots; 5% remain unresolved, 5% have developed a new clotting disorder and 12 have died. For comparison, he normally sees only one or two deaths a year.

Of his 5,000 patients, about 3,000 got the shot. That means just over 1 in 300 were killed by the shot. Jackson’s clinical experience matches nicely with data from other rheumatologists, published in the BMJ.14 They report a 37% adverse event rate among jabbed patients; 4.4% of patients also had a flare up of their disease after the jab.

In the interview, Jackson also discusses some of the treatments he’s using on these vaccine injured patients. Interestingly, he’s seen significant improvement using a 30-minute infusion of mesenchymal stem cell derived exosomes.

Non-COVID Excess Deaths Are Exploding

Across the world, and in most U.S. states, we are now seeing excess deaths rates skyrocketing, and it’s not due to COVID. For U.S. data, check out USmortality.com,15where the excess mortality for each state is listed.

In California, the excess death rate rose from 13.5% in 2020 (38,799 excess deaths) to 18.7% in 2021 (52,278 excess deaths). And, less than five months into 2022, California’s excess mortality has already breached the 20% mark.

For the U.S. as a whole, there were 3,440,546 deaths of all ages for the year 2020. The expected numbers were 3,028,959, so that was an excess of 13.6% (411,587 above expected). In 2021, there were 3,459,496 deaths of all ages, which was 16.4% above expectations. As of mid-April 2022, the excess death rate was already at 14.1%, with 1,041,538 reported deaths of all ages. Among working age Americans, deaths are up 40%, compared to prepandemic levels.16

If the COVID jabs worked, you’d expect excess mortality to drop, yet that’s not what we’re seeing. We’re also not seeing mass death from COVID. The only clear factor that might account for these discrepancies is mass injection with an experimental gene transfer technology.

Cyprus is also reporting elevated all-cause mortality for 2021 (16.5%, perfectly matching that of the U.S.).17 Third and fourth quarter rates are particularly elevated, which corresponds with the rollout of booster shots. Canada, meanwhile, is seeing a shocking 70% excess death rate for ages 0 to 44, compared to 2014 through 2019,18 and U.K. data show COVID-jabbed children, aged 10 to 14, are dying at 28 times the rate of their unvaccinated peers.19 20

I’ve provided other data examples in other articles, and they’re all showing the same trend. The most tragic part of this is that it’s intentional. None of the agencies charged with protecting public health have lived up to their mandate. Instead, they’ve been serving the Great Reset agenda.

Eventually, though, I believe the truth will simply be too overwhelming and obvious to be ignored by the masses. FDA and CDC can’t delete enough reports to make the jabs look safe. People’s personal experiences also trump that of any data set, and now, vaccine injuries are so commonplace, most people know of someone who had a bad reaction, got COVID anyway or died from it. And they can’t scrub that.

'Tyranny Depends on the Ignorance of the Public.' A Documentary Called "The Plan" Shows the Agenda of the World Health Organization is to have 10 Years of Ongoing Plandemics, from 2020 to 2030

/

According to FUNKTIONARY:

tyrants – there are none; only tyranny exists. How can one man or woman rule a multitude against their will except through mindcontrol and word-conditioning control? “Find out the exact amount of injustice any people accept, and you will find out the exact amount of injustice they receive.” ~Freddy D. “The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.” ~John Jay, Castilian Days II, 1872. (See: Terms, “The Law,” Dictatorship, Corporate State & Fascism)

From [HERE] “The Tyranny is 100% dependent on the ignorance of the public. The solution is therefore to inform the people around you. Once people know what is really happening, they will stop complying and start resisting.”

“The experts [witnesses] identify the powerful entities that are able to install this world dictatorship. They explain how they orchestrate and implement it and what their ultimate agenda is for humanity.”

Find this and more on the Stop World Control website.

FDA is “Rotten to the Core,” says Dr Robert Malone – Agency Knew COVID Injections Cause Viral Replication

/

From [NN] World-renowned vaccinologist and physician Dr. Robert Malone is speaking out about how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew all along that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” spur viral reactivation of diseases like the varicella-zoster virus (shingles), but chose to withhold this information from the public.

Speaking at a panel discussion hosted by Del Bigtree along with fellow Global COVID Summit physicians Dr. Ryan Cole and Dr. Richard Urso, Malone, the original inventor of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination technology, exposed the FDA as a corrupt federal agency that continues to lie about Fauci Flu shots.

“They knew about the viral reactivation,” Malone stated, adding that he was “very actively engaged” with senior personnel at the FDA’s Office of the Commissioner when the jabs were first being rolled out under Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” program.

“We were talking by Zoom on a weekly or twice a week basis,” Malone further explained about his involvement in assessing the jabs right before they were publicly released. (Related: Malone has also previously called out the CDC for engaging in “scientific fraud and criminal activity”.)

“This is the group that first discovered the signal of the cardiotoxicity,” Malone said. “They also knew at that time – one of them actually had the adverse event early on of shingles. They knew that the viral reactivation signal – which the CDC has never acknowledged – was one of the major known adverse events.”

Malone says the FDA used to be more honest, but was it really?

Both the FDA and the CDC knew full well that the shots were dangerous but did not acknowledge it. This is “another one of those things that is inexplicable,” Malone maintains, adding that there used to be strict rules in place that governed “these types of products.”

“You have to characterize where it goes, how long it sticks around, and how much protein it makes, or what the active drug product is,” he added. “None of that stuff was done very well. It wasn’t done rigorously, and there was a series of misrepresentations about what the data were.”

“And the thing is, the FDA let them get away with it. They did not perform their function. They’re supposed to be independent gatekeepers.”

Malone was previously under the impression that the FDA paid very close attention to these types of processes. If any red flags emerged, he suggested, then the FDA would immediately halt the research in the interest of public health – but no longer.

“What happened here is the regulatory bodies gave the pharmaceutical industry a pass,” Malone stated, adding that the drug industry also “misrepresented key facts about their product.”

“On the basis of that, average docs just assumed that this was something that it wasn’t. They assumed that this was a relatively benign product that didn’t stick around in the body. All of that is false.”

Malone says that he and others in the field have been wracking their brains trying to understand how any of this could possibly happen. How and why is America’s regulatory apparatus so broken that deadly products such as these so easily made it onto the market – and at warp speed, no less.

“We as physicians had all come to assume the FDA had a function that actually did the job that we could believe in and trust, and what we find out now is the whole house of cards is rotten to the core,” Malone further explained.

At the May 11 event, which was attended by 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from around the world, a four declaration was presented demanding that the current state of medical emergency be lifted immediately.

Statistical Analysis of Over 1,500 Death Reports Shows that NOBODY under 60 Should Take the COVID vaccine

/

From [KIRSCH] Figure 1 below is an analysis of survey data I collected. The analysis shows that the vaccines are harmful to those under 60. The red dots higher than the error bar means more vaccinated people observed dead than expected based on the population of vaccinated to all people. In other words, if we vaccinated 60% of people (middle of the grey bar) and 70% (red dot) of the deaths are vaccinated, we have a serious problem.

The precautionary principle of medicine suggests if you are under 60 and thinking of taking a vaccine, you shouldn’t. These preliminary results are both statistically significant. 

However, there could be errors in the analysis and/or survey bias errors that will change the result, so this is preliminary. I hope to make these not preliminary in a few days.

I created a mortality survey which asked people to report the date, age, and vaccine status of the people who died who they had the tightest relationship with. You could report as many deaths as you wanted for people you PERSONALLY knew, but if you didn’t report them all, start with the person closest to you. All deaths should be reported no matter what the cause of the death. If they died after December 1, 2020, report it.

The first 1,700+ results are in and Joel Smalley had time to do the analysis. It is stunning. The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it’s clear that vaccination makes it more likely you’ll die, not less likely. It’s statistically significant. The result that the younger you are, the less sense it makes, is consistent with what pretty much everyone has been saying.

The only thing that surprised me in the analysis is that data showed that if you are 60 and older, getting vaccinated reduces your chance of dying. 

I’m astonished by the data showing a benefit for >60 because it is inconsistent with the VAERS data (which is off the charts showing nearly 500,000 deaths), embalmer data, and this article about 6 elderly deaths in Palo Alto out of 9 people vaccinated, and medicare data, and UK ONS data. I’m confident of the embalmer data and Palo Alto deaths: there is absolutely no way if the vaccine was protective that those events could occur. This means there must be an error in the analysis or confounding of the data. There cannot be two truths.

My advice is to avoid the COVID vaccines for ALL ages. If you get sick, get early treatment. This is because we have strong DIRECT evidence (embalmer, nursing home data is clearly strongly negative) that the vaccines are deadly to the elderly and until someone explains how the direct evidence is wrong, the precautionary rule of medicine says we should respect that possibility and thus early treatment is the preferred alternative. 

In other words, if you have conflicting evidence, better to avoid that option until the conflict is resolved especially when the more direct evidence suggests that the intervention is deadly.

I’m not trying to cherry pick here. I’m saying that quality direct evidence rules over calculated numbers. If the best evidence I have is calculated numbers, I go with that. 

For example, if the calculations show that the vaccine is safe for those over 60 and I find that 9 out of 10 people over 60 who get the shot die within 24 hours from blood clots, which evidence do you believe?

I cannot reconcile the discrepancy at this time. 

Joel may have made a mistake. So take all these results (including under 60) with a grain of salt for now. We are getting close to finding the truth. There could be a bias that shifts everything in one direction. We’ll see.

We want to have many eyes on this data before we will announce a definitive result. 

I’m making all the data to date available for people to validate or invalidate the result. I’ll periodically update the spreadsheet as we collect more data.

We’ll be collecting a lot more data to refine the result and employ 3 different third party survey firms as well. This eliminates the risk of people trying to game the survey (not that anyone would do that). So if the independent polling firm results don’t match our results, we’ll look for what happened. Using five or more sources of independent data (mine, Joe’s, 3 polling firms, etc.) will give everyone more confidence that the results are valid.

Note that the definition of vaccinated here is “got the vaccine” not “two weeks after they got the vaccine.” We are NOT using public data that is encumbered this way. Such definitions are misleading since if the vaccine kills everyone within two weeks of the shot, the vaccines look amazingly safe and not being vaccinated looks risky. [MORE]

Major Study Finds that mRNA COVID Injections are Significantly Associated with Deadly Blood Clots

/

From [HERE] Blood-clotting condition cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), which can cause serious neurological damage, is significantly associated with mRNA Covid vaccination, a major study in leading medical journal Vaccines has found.

The research team analysed 1,154,023 adverse event reports from more than 130 countries logged with VigiBase, the World Health Organisation’s global deduplicated database, and found a “potential safety signal for CVT occurrence after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination”.

The authors note many reports were in younger people and the conditions were serious: “CVTs were commonly reported in patients aged 18-44 and 45-64 years, more frequently in women, and mainly in Europe and America… More than 90% of the patients were in serious condition, and 33% did not recover or died.”

The researchers take into account under-reporting to produce estimates of increased risk above a baseline: around 3.5 times greater risk for mRNA vaccines and seven times greater risk for AstraZeneca. This means the CVT risk from mRNA vaccines, while high, is around half that of AstraZeneca.

They also found that CVT following mRNA vaccination is only around a third as deadly as that following AstraZeneca vaccination. This means mRNA vaccines lead to deadly CVT around a sixth as often as AstraZeneca, which may explain why the condition is particularly associated with the AstraZeneca jab.

The researchers cite earlier studies to suggest the mechanism relates to the spike protein binding to the wall of blood vessels, particularly in the brain, and activating clotting mechanisms.

There are few reports on CVT after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination. These studies suggested that CVT occurrences related to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines may be due to endothelial dysfunction caused by spike glycoprotein interactions with endothelial cells resulting in immunothrombosis. If the spike glycoprotein of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, several inflammatory and thrombogenic molecules, such as leukocyte chemotactic factors, cell adhesion molecules (vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 and intercellular adhesion molecule 1), and procoagulant cytokines, can be activated. This mechanism may cause endothelial dysfunction, particularly in brain endothelial cells, which could contribute to a significant disruption of brain endothelial barrier integrity, ultimately promoting thrombus formation. Moreover, a previous study suggested that the spike glycoprotein may induce platelet aggregation and activation and eventually result in thrombus formation. Although the period of time in which the spike glycoprotein persists has not been clearly established, several studies have suggested that it may last for weeks. Thus, spike glycoprotein-related platelet activation triggered by mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines could explain the trend of CVT occurrences after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccinations. Furthermore, in line with these previous case reports, our results showed that CVT occurred mainly within a few weeks of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccinations.

Here is the study abstract, summarising the findings.

Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), a rare thrombotic event that can cause serious neurologic deficits, has been reported after some ChAdOx1 [AstraZeneca] nCoV-19 vaccinations against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there are few reports of associations between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and CVT. We retrospectively analysed CVT occurrence, time of onset after vaccination, outcomes (recovered/not recovered), and death after COVID-19 vaccination from adverse drug reactions (ADR) reports in VigiBase. A disproportionality analysis was performed regarding COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) and the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We identified 756 (0.07%) CVT cases (620 (0.05%) after BNT162b2 and 136 (0.01%) after mRNA-1273) of 1,154,023 mRNA vaccine-related ADRs. Significant positive safety signals were noted for COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (95% lower end of information component = 1.56; reporting odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.27). The median days to CVT onset differed significantly between the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines (12 (interquartile range, 3-22) and 11 (interquartile range, 7-16), respectively; p = 0.02). Fewer CVT patients died after receiving mRNA vaccines than after receiving the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22–0.45; p < 0.001). We noted a potential safety signal for CVT occurrence after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Therefore, awareness about the risk of CVT, even after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, is necessary.

The association of blood-clotting adverse reactions with adenovirus vector vaccines like AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson have led to them being restricted or withdrawn in many countries, most recently by the U.S. FDA. The fact that this adverse reaction is also associated with mRNA vaccines, albeit in a somewhat less deadly form, suggests that the differential treatment of the two vaccine types on this basis is unlikely to be tenable.

CDC Says There are No Documents to Back Its Claim that COVID Injections Don't Cause Variants of the Virus that Causes COVID-19

/

The Epoch Times reported: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says it does not have documents backing its claim that COVID-19 vaccines do not cause variants of the virus that causes COVID-19.

The CDC’s website calls it a myth that the vaccines cause variants. “FACT: COVID-19 vaccinesdo not create or cause variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. Instead, COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent new variants from emerging,” the website states.

The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), a nonprofit, asked the CDC in Freedom of Information Act requests for documentation supporting the claim.

The CDC has now responded to both requests, saying a search “found no records responsive” to them.

Of Course Bill Gates Tested Positive for COVID. COVID Injections Don't Immunize or Stop Spread. They're Treatments (Not Vaccines) that feed the Virus and Facilitate its Development into More Variants

/

Psychopath Bill Gates tests positive for COVID-19, claims he's experiencing mild symptoms. Frequent Announcements by Influencers about their MEANINGLESS positive COVID tests Remind the Public of the Plandemic. the goal here is to create covid SHOT dependency IN ORDER TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AND TO GAIN GREATER CONTROL OF PEOPLE IN THE FREE RANGE PRISON.

The following is the Executive Summary for Litigation of PLANDEMIC Crimes from Prosecute Now, an organization founded by Dr. David Martin to fund law suits for crimes against humanity.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

It is the consensus of the medical community that the currently available Covid-19 vaccine injections (“Covid-19 injections") do not prevent the spread of Covid-19. Relevant federal agencies have repeatedly acknowledged this consensus.

Therefore, there is no scientific or legal justification for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration COSHA") to segregate injected and un-injected people.

Indeed, since the Covid-19 injections do not confer immunity upon the recipients, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, they do not fall within the long-established definition of a vaccine at all. They are instead treatments and must be analyzed as such under the law.

Even if OSHA possessed the statutory and constitutional authority to issue the Emergency Temporary Standard ("ETS")2 now challenged before the Court, which it does not, the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would require the federal government to 

establish that the OSHA ETS is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. This is a standard it cannot meet.

ARGUMENT

A. Covid-19 injections do not create immunity. They are treatments, not vaccines.

The uncontroverted medical consensus is that existing Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. This is admitted openly today, including by U.S. Health Agencies, which is why the CDC Director stated on CNN, "What the vaccines can't do anymore is prevent transmission.''3 Examples abound:

a. NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci to NPR: "We know now as a fact that [vaccinated people with Covid-19] are capable of transmitting the infection to someone else.''a

b. Dr. Anthony Fauci on November 12, 2021, referring to the experience of health officials regarding the injections:

They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn't just the elderly.

It's waning to the point that you're seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital. 5

c. WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan: "At the moment I don't believe we have the evidence of any of the vaccines to be confident that it's going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.''6

d. Chief Medical Officer of Moderna Dr. Tal Zaks: "There's no hard evidence that it stops [the Covid-19 vaccinated] from carrying the virus transiently and potentially infecting others who haven't been vaccinated.''7 e. The Surgeon General of the State of Florida, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD: "... the infections can still happen whether people are vaccinated or not. That's very obvious.''s

f. Professor Sir Andrew Pollard who led the Oxford vaccine team: "We don't have anything that will stop transmission, so I think we are in a situation where herd immunity is not a possibility and I suspect the virus will throw up a new variant that is even better at infecting vaccinated individuals."9

g. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, Professor of Health Policy, Stanford University: "Based on my analysis of the existing medical and scientific literature, any exemption policy that does not recognize natural immunity is irrational, arbitrary, and counterproductive to community health.'’1o 

h. 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine Dr. Luc Montagnier (also winner of the French National Order of Merit and 20 other major international awards):

The vaccines don't stop the virus, they do the opposite - they 'feed the virus,' and facilitate its development into stronger and more transmissible variants...You see it in each country, it's the same: the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths ... the vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca do not prevent the transmission of the virus person-to-person and the vaccinated are just as transmissive as the unvaccinated.ll

i. A study of a Covid-19 outbreak in July 2021 published in Eurosurveillance observed that 100 percent of severe, critical, and fatal cases of Covid-19 occurred in injected individuals. The authors stated that the study "challenges the assumption that high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent COVID-19 outbreaks.’'12

j. Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School:

"The bottom line is that these vaccines do not prevent transmission.'’13 

k. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Infectious Disease Epidemiologist and Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford:

[I]t is really not logical to use [these] vaccines to protect other people ... I don't think they should be forced [] on the understanding simply because this vaccine does not prevent transmission. So if you just think of the logic of it, what is the point of requiring a vaccine to protect others if that vaccine does not durably prevent onward transmission of a virus?14 

The Court may already be aware of the countless news reports of outbreaks on fully "vaccinated" sports teams15 and cruise ships,16 not to mention in the fully "vaccinated" White House.17 There is simply no question that the Covid-19 injections do not create immunity. This was summed up quite nicely by Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, who "warned that the trial results show that the vaccine can prevent someone from getting sick or 'severely sick,' from COVID-19, however, the results don't show that the vaccine prevents transmission of the virus.''is Recognition of this fact may explain why, in August of 2021, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" from "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease" to "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection to a specific disease.’'19

However, this newly created CDC definition conflicts with the statutory criteria for a vaccine, which focuses solely upon immunity. In 1986, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1, which established "a National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization " (emphasis added). Clearly, from both a public health standpoint as well as from a legal standpoint, immunization is the intended sine qua non of vaccination.

Since they do not create immunity, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, the so called Covid-19 vaccines are treatments, not vaccines.2o Even the FDA has classified them as "CBER-Regulated Biologics" otherwise known as "therapeutics" which fall under the "Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.’'21

The FDA's "therapeutics" classification of the injections is consistent with representations made by Pfizer partner BioNTech to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in its 2020 Annual Report, where it stated with regard to the mRNA technology forming the basis of its Covid-19 injection: 

Although we expect to submit BLAs [biologics license applications] for our mRNA-based product candidates in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products, and other jurisdictions may consider our mRNA-based product candidates to be new drugs, not biologics or gene therapy medicinal products, and require different marketing applications.22

Similarly, in its June 30, 2020 Quarterly Report to the SEC, Moderna stated with regard to the mRNA technology underpinning its injection: "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.’'23

Thus, the medical community, the relevant agencies, and both Pfizer and Moderna -- the manufacturers of the dominant injections -- recognize that the socalled vaccines are therapeutics, or medical treatments. Since they do not achieve immunization, this conclusion is also consistent with Congress' definition of vaccines in establishing the National Vaccine Program in 1986: the "prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization.''24 Accordingly, we herein refer to the Covid- 19 "vaccines" as Covid- 19 injections.

B. The Government's attempt to mandate treatments is subject to strict scrutiny.

The judiciary has too often assumed without analysis that requiring individuals to submit to Covid-19 injections is permissible under the determination made in Jacebsen.25 However, because these injections do not confer immunity, but are instead merely treatments that may reduce the severity of symptoms, the proper analysis stems from Cruzan v. Dir., Me. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).26

In Cruzan, the Court addressed whether the parents of a young woman severely brain damaged in a car wreck could compel the hospital to remove her from life support in the absence of any clear directive memorializing her intent. Missouri required clear and convincing evidence of intent to remove a patient from life support, and the parents argued this violated both their and their daughter’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. Significantly for the issue at hand, the Court began by recognizing a fundamental human right of informed consent to medical treatment stemming from the right of self-determination, stating:

At common law, even the touching of one person by another without consent and without legal justification was a battery. Before the turn of the century, this Court observed that "no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." This notion of bodily integrity has been embodied in the requirement that informed consent is generally required for medical treatment. Justice Cardozo, while on the Court of Appeals of New York, aptly described this doctrine: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages." The informed consent doctrine has become firmly entrenched in American tort law. The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment. 497 U.S. at 269-270 (citations omitted).

The Court went on to state that "[t]he principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions" citing three cases pertinent to our analysis here. First, the Cruzan Court cited Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-222 (1990), where the Court recognized that prisoners possess "a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Significantly, theCourt in Harper stated that "[t]he forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty." 494 U.S. at 229. Second, the Cruzan Court cited Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 494 (1980), where the Court recognized that the transfer to a mental hospital coupled with mandatory behavior modification treatment implicated liberty interests. Third, the Court cited Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) where the Court recognized that "a child, in common with adults, has a substantial liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment.”

Cruzan was followed in 1997 by Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), where the issue before the Court was whether the substantive due process right to refuse medical treatment included the right to assisted suicide. The following language of the Court is particularly significant to the issue presently before the Court:

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992)(Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against 'certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them"') (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests ....

We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 278-279.

521 U.S. at 719-720. (internal citations omitted)

The fact that the Glucksberg Court identified the right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment as one in a long list of traditional fundamental human rights and liberty interests is extremely important because once a right is so identified, any governmental action infringing upon it is subjected to the "strict scrutiny" test. As stated by the Court in Glucksberg, "the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to infringe fundamental liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (internal quotations omitted, emphasis in original).

The Court's analysis in both Cruzan and Glucksberg was based upon a sick person asserting a right to deny treatment. The ETS mandate, on the other hand, forces treatment on perfectly healthy people. All of the arguments in favor of selfdetermination reviewed by the Court in Cruzan and Glucksberg are even stronger when applied to a perfectly healthy person's right to refuse a treatment on the basis that it may make symptoms of a disease that healthy person may never contract less severe. And we remember here the uncontroverted medical consensus that Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. The bar should be even higher to force a healthy person to accept "treatment" than to force a sick person to accept critical care. As stated by the Court in Harper, where a physically healthy prisoner objected to the administration of antipsychotic drugs, "[t]he forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty." 494 U.S. at 229

Footnotes

2 86 FED. REG. 61402 (November 4, 2021).

3 CNN. The Situation Room, interview with CDC Director Walensky. (August 5, 2021).

https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/status/1423422301882748929

4 Stieg, C. “Dr. Fauci on CDC mask guidelines: ‘We are dealing with a different virus now.’” (July 28, 2021). https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/dr-fauci-on-why-cdc-changed- guidelines-delta-is-a-different-virus.html

5 Coleman, K (November 12, 2021). Dr. Fauci Just Issued This Urgent Warning to Vaccinated People. Yahoo News. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dr-fauci-just-issued-urgent-201846228.html

6. Colson, T. “Top WHO scientist says vaccinated travelers should still quarantine, citing lack of evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission.” Business Insider. (December 29, 2020). https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronavirus-vaccine-prevent-transmissions-2020-12?op=1

7 Manskar, N. “Moderna boss says COVID-19 vaccine not proven to stop spread of virus.” New York Post. (November 24, 2020). https://nypost.com/2020/11/24/moderna-boss-says-covid-shot-not-proven-to-stop-virus-spread/.

8 WFLA News. “Desantis, Moody Speak Out Against Vaccine Mandates in Clearwater.” Twitter Repost. (October 24, 2021). https://twitter.com/4patrick7/status/1452309002021388296?s=21

9 Knapton, S. “Delta variant has wrecked hopes of herd immunity, warn scientists.” The Telegraph. (October 8, 2021). https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/delta-variant- has-wrecked-hopes-of-herd-immunity-warn-scientists/ar-AAN9O4p

10 Bhattacharya, J., et al. “The beauty of vaccines and natural immunity.” Smerconish Newsletter. (June 4, 2021). https://www.smerconish.com/exclusive-content/the-beauty-of-vaccines-and-natural-immunity

11 RAIR Foundation USA video with Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier. https://rairfoundation.com/bombshell-nobel-prize-winner-reveals-covid-vaccine-is-creating-variants/.

(May 18, 2021).

12 Pnina, S. et al. “Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021.” EuroSurveill. 26:39. (September 23, 2021). https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822

13 Adams, P, et al. “Who Are These COVID-19 Vaccine Skeptics and What Do They Believe?” Epoch Times. (October 20, 2021). https://www.theepochtimes.com/who-are-these-covid-19-

vaccine-skeptics-and-what-do-they-believe_4043094.html

14 Allen, R. “Oxford Scientist ‘It’s Illogical & Unethical To Force Jab On NHS Staff.’”

The Richie Allen Radio Show. (September 9, 2021). https://richieallen.co.uk/oxford-scientist-

its-illogical-unethical-to-force-jab-on-nhs-staff/

15 Associated Press. “US sports leagues cope with COVID-19 outbreaks amid variants.”

(December 15, 2021). https://www.foxnews.com/sports/us-sports-leagues-cope-with-covid-19-

outbreaks-amid-variants

16 Lemos, G. et al. “17 Covid-19 cases identified on New Orleans-bound cruise ship.”

CNN. (December 5, 2021). https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/05/us/cruise-ship-norwegian-

breakaway-covid-cases/index.html

17 Chasmar, J. “Psaki doesn’t deny White House COVID-19 outbreak.” Yahoo News.

(December 20, 2021). https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-doesn-apos-t-deny-210029232.html

18 Al-Arshani, S. “Moderna’s chief medical officer says that vaccine trial results only show that they prevent people from getting sick – not necessarily that recipients won’t still be able to transmit the virus.” Business Insider. (November 2020). https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-chief-medical-officer-vaccines-interview-2020-11

19 Attkisson, S. “CDC changes definition of “vaccines” to fit Covid-19 vaccine limitations.” (September 8, 2021). https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/09/read-cdc-changes-definition-of-vaccines-to-fit-covid-19-vaccine-limitations/

20 See, e.g., Moderna Program Patents. (December 2021). https://www.modernatx.com/patents

United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Moderna Form 10Q. (August 6,

2020). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-

20200630.htm

Nakagami, H. “Development of COVID-19 vaccines utilizing gene therapy

technology.” Int Immunol. 33(10):521-527. (September 25, 2021). https://pubmed.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33772572/.

FDA. “Comirnaty. Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics.” (December 2021). https://

www.fda.gov/ vaccines-blood-biologics/comirnaty

21 FDA. “Coronavirus (COVID-19) | CBER-Regulated Biologics.” (2021). https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/industry-biologics/coronavirus-covid-19-cber-regulated-biologic

FDA. “Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program(CTAP).” (2021). https://www.fda.gov/drugs/coronavirus-covid-19-drugs/coronavirus-treatment-acceleration-program-ctap.

22 United States Securities and Exchange Commission. BioNTech SE Form 20-F.

(2020). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776985/000156459021016723/bntx-20f_

20201231.htm at page 26.

23 United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Moderna SE Form 10-Q. (June 30, 2020). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017 /mrna- 20200630.htm

24 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq.

25 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

26 Although Cruzan was decided under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court has long held that the same substantive due process analysis applied to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also applies to the federal government under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 500 (1954) (“In view of our decision that the

Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government.”) See also, Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (same); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) (holding federal law discriminating on basis of sex unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment due process clause based on Fourteenth Amendment analysis); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977) (striking down federal racial classification on basis of Fifth Amendment due process clause stating that strict scrutiny is the proper standard for analysis of all racial classifications, whether imposed by a federal, state, or local actor. Id. at 231, superseded by statute); Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974) (striking down provision of the Social Security Act based upon illegitimacy applying substantive due process analysis through the due process of clause of the Fifth Amendment).