Dr Peter McCullough testifies at the Texas Senate for the second time on June 29, 2022.
From [HERE]
by Sasha Latypova
Abstract
The rushed “warp speed” development and approval of completely novel Covid-19 mRNA and DNA vaccines pushed on the people of the world has resulted until today in millions of reported injuries and thousands of deaths according to public health databases such as VAERS (US), EudraVigilance (EU), Yellow Card (UK) and others. This article reviews some of the publicly available documents on Pfizer’s non-clinical development program and points out its deficiencies, omissions and gaps, which were very obvious, yet were never questioned by the regulators or other health authorities. The cursory nature of the entire preclinical program can be summed up as “we did not find any safety signals because we did not look for them.” The omission of safety studies which are considered standard or even mandatory, and the scientific dishonesty in those studies which were performed are so obvious and glaring that they cannot be attributed to the incompetence of the manufacturers and regulators. Rather, the question of wilful negligence must be raised.
The focus of my review is the scope and adequacy of the program of non-clinical assessment for a novel gene therapy vaccine, combined with a brief discussion of the relevant regulatory frameworks. I did not dive deeply into the review of the results of specific studies. My goal is to illustrate the complete breakdown of the regular process of drug development and approval, previously known to be rigorous and ethical, as well as the shocking negligence on the part of the regulatory agencies which are supposed to keep the pharmaceutical manufacturers honest. In carrying out this review, I have made the following findings:
Pfizer’s program did not include a comprehensive end-to-end test of all components of the final approved product (the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine). Instead, the studies included in the document package submitted to the FDA employed several variants and analogues of the product, whose comparability to the actual COVID-19 vaccine was not demonstrated or evaluated. Thus, no comprehensive assessment of product safety can be made on the basis of these studies.
A key determinant of a drug’s toxicity is its distribution within the body. However, with the mRNA active ingredient of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, this crucial aspect was never studied!
Pfizer claimed absence of potential for “vaccine-elicited disease enhancement” based on studies of an animal species that does not get sick from SARS-CoV-2.
The CDC, the FDA and Pfizer all lied about “vaccine staying at the injection site”; they knew all along that distribution of the vaccine throughout the body had to be expected.
Pfizer skipped major categories of safety testing altogether.
Pfizer used dishonest and self-serving interpretation of regulatory guidelines to justify the shortcuts it took in routine safety testing.
Both FDA and Pfizer knew about major toxicities associated with gene-therapy medicines in general, and they therefore cannot claim lack of anticipatory knowledge of these risks with the particular gene therapy medicine that is Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. This points to intentional fraud and collusion between Pfizer and the regulators, who conspired to push this untested dangerous product on the market.
Overall, therefore, both the manufacturer and the regulators behaved in a highly dishonest manner and conspired to push an entirely novel technology and product on millions of people without carrying out a single well designed safety assessment.
Reuters reports, Mainland China reported 143 new coronavirus cases for June 23, of which 37 were symptomatic and 106 were asymptomatic, the National Health Commission said on Friday.
That compared with 135 new cases a day earlier - 48 symptomatic and 87 asymptomatic infections, which China counts separately.
There were zero new deaths, leaving the nation's death count at 5,226.
As of Thursday, mainland China had confirmed 225,434 cases with symptoms.
A new peer-reviewed studypublished in the journal Andrology shows that men who get “vaccinated” with Pfizer’s Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) injections experience massive decreases in sperm counts.
Sperm samples collected from three fertility clinics in Israel show that Fauci Flu shots fight against men’s reproductive capacity, rendering them impotent and in some cases sexless.
Call it hidden fertility risks, if you will, but the findings contradict claims by the government and Big Pharma that COVID shots are “safe and effective.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
Early on following the launch of Operation Warp Speed, animal studies pointed to an increased risk of miscarriage because of the jabs. There was also evidence to suggest that the contents of the shots reached both the ovaries in female rats and testes in male rats.
So-called “health authorities,” however, denied all of this and continued pushing the shots on humans. And now serious problems are arising to suggest that “fully vaccinated” men may no longer be able to reproduce. (Related: COVID “vaccines” are also linked to causing AIDS.)
“Now – after a half-billion men have received mRNA shots – the skeptics appear to be right. Again,” wrote Alex Berenson on his Substack.
“The Israeli paper offers hard evidence that the vaccines may present a systemic risk to men’s sperm counts. What was a conspiracy theory is now just a theory. AGAIN.” [MORE]
From [EXPOSE] The majority of the testing for Covid infection has been performed using what is called a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test in which a person’s nose or sometimes throat is swabbed for evidence of viral genetic material. The inventor of this test stated that no clinical infection can be diagnosed using the PCR test alone. Yet the CDC used this test to imply that tens of millions of Americans were infected with Covid-19.
We have now learned that the test does not identify the whole virus, just a segment. In addition, many other viruses, bacteria, and even some things that are not microorganisms at all can yield a positive test. For instance, the president of Tanzania secretly had a sheep, a goat, and pawpaw (a type of fruit) tested using PCR by his health department. The goat and the pawpaw both tested positive.
Recently, the CDC announced that the PCR test would no longer be used because they discovered that it cross-reacts with the influenza virus, meaning virtually all influenza infections in the last flu season could have been diagnosed as Covid-19. This explains why there were only a few hundred flu cases reported in the entire U.S. this past season — a number unprecedented in modern times. (The CDC claims that each year there are about 30,000 deaths from the flu and over 300,000 hospital admissions).
Cycles of the PCR test are run to amplify its sensitivity, and it is known that doing more than 30 cycles increases the likelihood of the test being falsely positive. Yet the CDC recommended that all labs perform 40 or more cycles, which would have meant that around 97% of positive tests were, in fact, negative. That is, the person tested most likely did not have a Covid infection.
Combined with the lack of specificity of the PCR test, fear-mongering by the media and the CDC greatly exaggerated the impact of the first wave of the Covid outbreak. The same is almost certainly true with the new Delta variant. Virologists emphasise that the more people who are vaccinated, the more variants will appear. However, while the variants are more contagious, they are less harmful. This is the nature of virus mutations.
In fact, based on the observation that the vaccinated have very high titers of virus in their nasopharynx, according to mRNA technology developer Dr. Robert Malone, it is the vaccinated who are more likely to spread the new variant, as they remain asymptomatic longer than an unvaccinated person. Viral titers (concentrations) were found to be very high in the noses of vaccinated as well as infected unvaccinated people. If the “vaccine” worked, they should have found none or extremely small amounts of the virus.
The average age of death from Covid-19 is around 75 years (95% occurred over age 65 years). Moreover, the highest death rate among vaccinated people is in the same age group — the very ones the vaccines are supposed to protect.
The most egregious form of this fear-mongering is to imply that the Delta variant infections are all in the unvaccinated. This is not true. A study in Scotland, for example, found that 87% of Delta variant cases occurred in the fully vaccinated. Similar findings were reported in the United Kingdom and Israel. Moreover, a recent report released by the CDC found that 74% of the cases in a Cape Cod, Massachusetts cluster were among vaccinated individuals. Most of these people were reported to have the Delta variant.
In fact, based on the observation that the vaccinated have very high titers of virus in their nasopharynx, according to mRNA technology developer Dr. Robert Malone, it is the vaccinated who are more likely to spread the new variant, as they remain asymptomatic longer than an unvaccinated person. Viral titers (concentrations) were found to be very high in the noses of vaccinated as well as infected unvaccinated people. If the “vaccine” worked, they should have found none or extremely small amounts of the virus.
The average age of death from Covid-19 is around 75 years (95% occurred over age 65 years). Moreover, the highest death rate among vaccinated people is in the same age group — the very ones the vaccines are supposed to protect.
The most egregious form of this fear-mongering is to imply that the Delta variant infections are all in the unvaccinated. This is not true. A study in Scotland, for example, found that 87% of Delta variant cases occurred in the fully vaccinated. Similar findings were reported in the United Kingdom and Israel. Moreover, a recent report released by the CDC found that 74% of the cases in a Cape Cod, Massachusetts cluster were among vaccinated individuals. Most of these people were reported to have the Delta variant.
The vaccines for Covid-19 stand to make more money for their developers than any other vaccines at any time in history. Those same companies also wield enormous financial power and influence in the media, medical journals, medical societies (such as the American Medical Association), hospitals, research institutions, and government bureaucracies (such as the National Institutes of Health [NIH]). Moreover, of course, they donate vast sums to elected officials.
We are witnessing an unprecedented attack on free speech directed at anyone who challenges pro-vaccine propaganda, including virologists, infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists, and pulmonologists. Dr. Michael Yeadon, ex-chief science officer for Pfizer; a whistle-blower from Moderna; Dr. Robert Malone, the developer of the mRNA vaccine technique; and other highly qualified scientists have been banned from social media and the mainstream news outlets for speaking out. Why? Because they might convince people that these vaccines are dangerous and that they should be halted immediately.
There is growing evidence that government agencies are hiding the true number seriously injured and killed by these vaccines. A lawsuit has been filed in Alabama federal court by attorney Thomas Renz based on the sworn testimony of a government whistle-blower. This person testified under oath that, according to actual government records from the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 45,000 people have died after getting the vaccine.
This refers to data from just one government system reporting to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The real number of dead could be much higher.
Recall that at the height of the “pandemic,” about 50% of all deaths occurred in nursing homes and that government officials in several states had deliberately placed infected patients in these high-risk facilities.
Where are the highest rates of vaccine-related deaths now occurring? Nursing homes and among the elderly — the very ones we are supposed to be protecting. In some places, nursing home death rates secondary to the vaccines (most of which occur within 2 days of being vaccinated) equal or exceed the rate of deaths caused by the virus itself. Some nursing homes have reported vaccine-related death rates of 30% or higher. The vaccines were meant to protect the most vulnerable, but now those individuals are the ones dying and being injured by the vaccine itself.
Russell Blaylock, a retired American neurosurgeon, wrote the above in an extensive paper, ‘Covid-19 pandemic: What is the truth?’, published on 8 December 2021 in the Surgical Neurological Internationaljournal. We are republishing sections, more easily digestible portions, of his article as a series of articles titled ‘Covid Pandemic Truths’.
This article is the fifth in our series and covers the sections in Blaylocks’s paper as subtitled above. You can find the first article in this series HERE.
Although we have not included them, Blaylock’s article is well referenced.
Read Blaylock’s full article – Russell L. Blaylock. Covid-19 pandemic: What is the truth?. 08-Dec-2021;12:59. – by following this LINK.
From [HERE] and [HERE] Spanish police have dismantled a criminal network that sold fake COVID-19 vaccination certificates, El Periodico reports.
Under the umbrella of ‘Operation Jenner,’ named after the English developer of the first smallpox vaccine, Edward Jenner, authorities have been tracking down those thought to be in possession of false COVID-19 certificates. The certificates were recorded in the official registry by a Spanish nurse and a nursing assistant working at the La Paz University Hospital. [MORE]
The European investigation, revealed a large bunch of world-class individuals committing fraud. They spent an infinite amount of money to have their names added to the National Immunization Register. Jose Maria Fernandez Sousa-Faro, the 76-year-old president of PharmaMar was included in the scandal of fake vaccination for reflecting that he had received the third dose of the vaccination.
He was arrested on suspicion of falsifying his Covid-19 vaccination status. It was discovered that he had injected saline rather than the vaccine using bribes to change the records. The investigation revealed that he had spent a tremendous price to get his name included in the database of immunized people. According to sources connected to the case, Sousa-Faro will soon be summoned to present himself in court.
PharmaMar is an IBEX 35 company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in Spain. The company is dedicated to researching drugs including cancer, Alzheimer’s and yes, COVID-19.
Dr. Sousa-Faro has more than ninety scientific publications and patents in the fields of biochemistry, antibiotics, and molecular biology to his name. Since 1985, Fernández Sousa has headed the Board of Directors of the Zeltia Group, a world leader in the research and development of medicines of marine origin.
The “Operation Jenner” investigation revealed a vast network of “elite” names who paid a large sum of money to have their names registered at the National Immunisation Register.
The investigation has revealed that a nursing assistant working at the La Paz University charged more than 200,000 euros for illegally registering the names of people on the National Immunisation Register. He has been arrested and is currently in custody. [MORE]
The police have disclosed that the nurse charged the people according to their social standings The more popular they were, the higher the price. [MORE]
Amongst those that have been investigated are leading singers, musicians, football stars, business people, politicians and top medical personnel, such as Trinitario Casanova, one of the richest men in Spain, Kidd Keo, trap singer in English and Spanish, Anier, rap singer, Jarfaiter, rap singer, Veronica Echegui, actress, Bruno Gonzalez Cabrera, soccer player, Fabio Díez Steinaker, former beach volleyball Olympian, José Luis Zapater, alias Titín, former boxer, Camilo Esquivel, recognized and prestigious doctor. [MORE]
From [CHD] A new peer-reviewed study shows two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine yield negative protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, while previous infection without vaccination offers about 50% immunity.
The findings, published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) analyzed information from more than 100,000 Omicron-infected and non-infected residents in Qatar from Dec. 23, 2021, through Feb. 21, 2022.
The authors compared the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, natural immunity from previous infection with other variants and hybrid immunity (a combination of infection and vaccination) against symptomatic Omicron infection and severe, critical and fatal disease.
Researchers found those who had a prior infection but had not been vaccinated had 46.1% and 50% immunity against the BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron subvariants more than 300 days after the previous infection.
However, individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but had not been previously infected, had negative immunity against the BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron subvariants — indicating an increased risk of infection compared to someone without prior infection and vaccination.
Six months after the second dose of Pfizer, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -3.4% below an average person without infection and vaccination, which as a control, was set at 0.
For two doses of Moderna, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -10.3% about six months after the last dose.
The authors said three doses of the Pfizer shot increased immunity to over 50%, but immunity was measured only at a median of 42 days after the third dose, showing a rapid immune declinein a very short period of time.
In comparison, those who had previously been infected had 50% immunity even at 300 days after infection.
After six months, the study showed vaccine efficacy fell to negative figures 270 days after the second dose, predicting more rapidly waning immunity for vaccines compared to natural immunity.
The researchers concluded:
“No discernable differences in protection against symptomatic BA.1 and BA.2 infection were seen with previous infection, vaccination and hybrid immunity. Vaccination enhanced protection among persons who had had a previous infection. Hybrid immunity resulting from previous infection and recent booster vaccination conferred the strongest protection.”
But that statement is ambiguous, said Dr. Madhava Setty, a board-certified anesthesiologist and senior science editor for The Defender, because it could lead readers to wrongly conclude the researchers found that previous infection, vaccination or some combination of vaccination and infection provided equal protection against the BA.1 or BA.2 Omicron variants.
Setty also pointed out the lack of statistical significance in the data surrounding severe, critical or fatal infections:
“Table S5 compares natural immunity to the Moderna formulation. With the BA.1 variant, only natural immunity has positive effectiveness that is statistically significant. You can see that for all the other combinations of vaccine doses, the window of statistical significance extends into the negative range.
“For example, in the “Three Doses with no prior infection” row the effectiveness where we can be 95% certain ranges from -435% to 100%. This is meaningless. They cannot claim that three doses is predictive of benefit. In fact, it could very well be deleterious. We just don’t know because so few people had severe illness in that cohort.
“The equivalent table is not given for Pfizer, however Figure 2 in the main text shows there is a statistically significant benefit against severe illness.”
With regard to the BA.2 variant, natural immunity may also fall in the negative range (-6.8 to 92.4), as does three doses with no prior infection (-3800 to 100), Setty said. “Only when they group the two variants together can they calculate effectiveness that is statistically significant.”
Setty said researchers also excluded a large number of cases from their calculation and failed to disclose how many people got severe, critical or fatal COVID-19.
Setty told The Defender:
“As is always the case right now, they only count cases from the time of maximum vaccine effect (>14 days after the second jab or >7 days after the booster). Figure S3 shows that 116 vaccinated people got COVID-19 between the first and second dose, while three people got COVID-19 within 14 days of the second dose and 156 got COVID-19 within a week of the third dose.
“All of these cases were excluded from their calculation. Nowhere do they tell us how many of those got severe, critical or fatal COVID-19.”
Setty also noted researchers glossed over the time frames where they compare effectiveness. He said:
“In Figure 3, researchers only calculated effectiveness of natural immunity by adding up cases after four months. This is probably because researchers define previous infection occurring greater than 90 days earlier.
“However, even 120 days out, a previous infection still offers greater protection than two or three doses at their maximum window of protection. Even a year out, natural immunity is still on par with a recently boosted individual.”
Previous NEJM study showed natural immunity superior to two doses of Pfizer shot
The June 15 NEJM study followed another NEJM study, published June 9, that found natural immunity “protection was higher than that conferred after the same time had elapsed since receipt of a second dose of vaccine among previously uninfected persons.”
Using the Israeli Ministry of Health database, researchers extracted data for August and September 2021, when the Delta variant was predominant, on all persons who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The study found both natural and artificial immunity waned over time, but individuals who were previously infected but were not vaccinated had half the risks of reinfection compared to those who received two doses of Pfizer and who had never been infected.
“Among persons who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, protection against reinfection decreased as the time increased,” researchers said, “however, this protection was higher” than protection conferred during the same time interval through two vaccine doses.
“Natural immunity wins again,” tweeted Dr. Martin Makary, a public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, referring to the study.
Researchers acknowledged natural infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 “provides natural immunity against reinfection,” adding that recent studies have shown “waning of the immunity provided by” Pfizer’s vaccine.
From [CHD] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,307,928 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 17, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That’s an increase of 6,572 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 29,031 reports of deaths — an increase of 172 over the previous week — and 240,022 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 1,610 compared with the previous week.
Of the 29,031 reported deaths, 18,814 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 7,627 cases to Moderna and 2,525 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 835,063 adverse events, including 13,388 deaths and 84,542 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 17, 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 13,388 U.S. deaths reported as of June 17, 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., 592 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of June 16, including349 million doses of Pfizer, 223 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 June 17, 2022, for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds show:
1,757 adverse events, including 64 cases rated as serious and 3 reported deaths.
4 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.
13 reports of blood clotting disorders.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to June 17, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
11,534 adverse events, including 298 rated as serious and 6 reported deaths.
The most recent reported death (VAERS I.D. 2315376) occurred in a 9-year-old female from Florida who died 172 days after receiving Pfizer’s vaccine. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 on May 28, 2022, and treated with various drugs, including Remdesivir. She was found unresponsive at home on June 3, and was declared brain dead.
22 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis.
The Defender has noticed over previous weeks that reports of myocarditis and pericarditis have been removed by the CDC from the VAERS system in this age group. No explanation was provided.
44 reports of blood clotting disorders.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to June 17, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
32,386 adverse events, including 1,834 rated as serious and 44 reported deaths.
62 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 97% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
655 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 643 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
166 reports of blood clotting disorders with all cases attributed to Pfizer. VAERS reported 167 cases of blood clotting disorders in the 12- to 17-year-old age group last week.
20 cases of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) with all cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to June 17, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
53% of those who died were male, 42% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
The average age of death was 73.
As of June 17, 5,592 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccines, including 1,748 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
Of the 3,614 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 51% were attributed to Pfizer vaccinations, 40% to Moderna and 8% to J&J.
892 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, with 42% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 30% to Moderna and 27% to J&J.
2,290 reports of anaphylaxis where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
1,726 reports of myocardial infarction.
14,118 reports of blood-clotting disorders in the U.S. Of those, 6,313 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 5,065 reports to Moderna and 2,703 reports to J&J.
4,060 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with 2,596 cases attributed to Pfizer, 1,441 cases to Moderna and 172 cases to J&J.
11 cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease with 5 cases attributed Pfizer, 5 cases to Moderna and 1 case to J&J.
267 cases of POTS with 165 cases attributed to Pfizer, 84 cases to Moderna and 17 cases to J&J.
CDC advisors recommend Moderna shot for children ages 6 through 17
The CDC’s vaccine advisory panel unanimously voted 15 to 0 to recommend two doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 6 through 17 years old.
Members of the panel acknowledged there is a risk of heart inflammation associated with both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but they said a follow-up survey suggests most fully recover.
Not everyone agrees, including University of British Columbia professor Dr. Steven Pelech, who last year criticized health agencies’ relaxed attitude about myocarditis as misleading.
“Contrary to what a number of people have said, there is no such thing as ‘mild myocarditis,’” Pelech said.
Pelech explained that once the heart muscle cells are killed, “they can never be replaced by new muscle cells, but only by scar tissue.” This can lead to “a greater chance of heart attack and other problems later in life.”
The FDA last week authorized Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in the child and adolescent age group.
Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the H1N1 Vaccine Task Force at the CDC, said the risk of myocarditis “may be higher” with the Moderna vaccine compared to Pfizer, but there are limitations to what scientists know about the condition in this age group.
Shimabukuro said most adverse events reported following vaccination are “mild and transient events like injection site or systemic reactions,” and the CDC would continue to monitor the safety of COVID-9 vaccines.
CDC admits it never monitored VAERS for COVID vaccine safety signals
In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the CDC last week admitted it never analyzed VAERS for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.
The CDC is supposed to mine VAERS data for safety signals by calculating what are known as proportional reporting ratios (PRRs).
This is a method of comparing the proportion of different types of adverse events reported for a new vaccine to the proportion of those events reported for an older, established vaccine.
If the new vaccine shows a significantly higher reporting rate of a particular adverse event relative to the old one, it counts as a safety signal that should then trigger a more thorough investigation.
According to a briefing document, the CDC “will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed.”
Yet in its response to CHD’s FOIA request, the agency wrote, “no PRRs were conducted by CDC” and data mining is “outside of the agency’s purview.” The agency suggested contacting the FDA, which was supposed to perform a different type of data mining, according to the briefing document.
Reports of chickenpox, shingles following COVID-19 vaccines on the rise
Doctors and scientists are seeing an increase in the reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus, which causes chickenpox, following COVID-19 vaccines, The Epoch Times reported.
After a person gets chickenpox, the virus lies dormant in the nervous system for life and can be reactivated, showing up as shingles, or herpes zoster, later in life.
Federal health officials said there’s no correlation between COVID-19 vaccines and shingles, but numerous studies show a higher incidence of shingles in people who received the vaccine.
The FDA claims it has not detected any safety signals regarding shingles following approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC alleges “there is no current connection” between COVID-19 vaccines and the reactivation of the chickenpox virus.
Scott Pauley, CDC spokesperson, said any adverse reactions experienced after receiving the shot are “temporary and a positive sign that the vaccine is working.”
Pfizer, Moderna COVID vaccines may increase risk of infection
A new peer-reviewed study shows two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine yield negative protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, while previous infection without vaccination offers about 50% immunity.
The findings, published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine, analyzed information from more than 100,000 Omicron-infected and non-infected residents in Qatar from Dec. 23, 2021, through Feb. 21, 2022.
Researchers found those who had a prior infection but had not been vaccinated had 46.1% and 50% immunity against the BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron subvariants more than 300 days after the previous infection.
However, individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but were not previously infected, had negative immunity against the subvariants — indicating an increased risk of infection compared to someone without prior infection and vaccination.
Six months after the second dose of Pfizer, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -3.4% below an average person without infection and vaccination, which as a control, was set at 0.
For two doses of Moderna, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -10.3% about six months after the last dose. [MORE]
Pfizer is Not German, it is a German Chinese Company. China Owns the Tech Behind Vax Designed to Kill the West
From [HERE] and [HERE] Naomi Wolf graduated from Yale in 1984 and was a Rhodes scholar at New College, Oxford University. She is the author of the new book The Bodies of Others: The New Authoritarians, COVID-19 and The War Against the Human and bestseller feminist books, “The Beauty Myth”, “Fire with Fire”, “Promiscuities” and “Misconceptions”. The New York Times called “The Beauty Myth” one of the 70 most significant books of the century. More recently, Naomi has written books critiquing the establishment’s advances in censorship, Covid-19 vaccinations and many more issues which she addresses with James.
From [HERE] and [HERE] Spanish police have dismantled a criminal network that sold fake COVID-19 vaccination certificates, El Periodico reports.
Under the umbrella of ‘Operation Jenner,’ named after the English developer of the first smallpox vaccine, Edward Jenner, authorities have been tracking down those thought to be in possession of false COVID-19 certificates. The certificates were recorded in the official registry by a Spanish nurse and a nursing assistant working at the La Paz University Hospital. [MORE]
The European investigation, revealed a large bunch of world-class individuals committing fraud. They spent an infinite amount of money to have their names added to the National Immunization Register. Jose Maria Fernandez Sousa-Faro, the 76-year-old president of PharmaMar was included in the scandal of fake vaccination for reflecting that he had received the third dose of the vaccination.
He was arrested on suspicion of falsifying his Covid-19 vaccination status. It was discovered that he had injected saline rather than the vaccine using bribes to change the records. The investigation revealed that he had spent a tremendous price to get his name included in the database of immunized people. According to sources connected to the case, Sousa-Faro will soon be summoned to present himself in court.
PharmaMar is an IBEX 35 company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in Spain. The company is dedicated to researching drugs including cancer, Alzheimer’s and yes, COVID-19.
Dr. Sousa-Faro has more than ninety scientific publications and patents in the fields of biochemistry, antibiotics, and molecular biology to his name. Since 1985, Fernández Sousa has headed the Board of Directors of the Zeltia Group, a world leader in the research and development of medicines of marine origin.
The “Operation Jenner” investigation revealed a vast network of “elite” names who paid a large sum of money to have their names registered at the National Immunisation Register.
The investigation has revealed that a nursing assistant working at the La Paz University charged more than 200,000 euros for illegally registering the names of people on the National Immunisation Register. He has been arrested and is currently in custody. [MORE]
The police have disclosed that the nurse charged the people according to their social standings The more popular they were, the higher the price. [MORE]
Amongst those that have been investigated are leading singers, musicians, football stars, business people, politicians and top medical personnel, such as Trinitario Casanova, one of the richest men in Spain, Kidd Keo, trap singer in English and Spanish, Anier, rap singer, Jarfaiter, rap singer, Veronica Echegui, actress, Bruno Gonzalez Cabrera, soccer player, Fabio Díez Steinaker, former beach volleyball Olympian, José Luis Zapater, alias Titín, former boxer, Camilo Esquivel, recognized and prestigious doctor. [MORE]
From [HERE] As a pathologist analyzing diseased body tissues, Dr. Ryan Cole, MD, (Twitter @drcole12) has seen an alarming and wide-ranging increase in injuries from Covid-19 injections...what he calls a "nuclear bomb." Miscarriages, heart conditions, cancers and compromised immune function are just some of the harms that Dr. Cole (rcolemd.com) is fighting to make the public aware of.
Immune suppression
Increased cancer rates
Reactivation of latent viruses
30,000 VAERS deaths, over a million adverse reactions
All-cause mortality is higher in the jabbed
Persists in the body for at least 60 days
Dr. Ryan Cole: “This is a dangerous product with no track record being used willy-nilly on humanity for a virus that no longer exists [and] does nothing but cause increased disease in those who now get additional series of these shots.”
From [HERE] “Putting tens of millions of 5G antennas, without a single biological test of safety, has to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world” – Professor Martin Pall
Professor Pall is wrong, Mark Steele said in a 15-page report: “It is not a stupid idea but a heinous crime if one understands the motive behind this deployment. 5G is a compartmentalised weapons deployment masquerading as a benign technological advance for enhanced communications and faster downloads.”
“The 5G network has the capability to target acquire and attack the vaccinated due to their nano metamaterial antenna Covid-19 vaccine. Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) require the 5G networks to maintain their geo-position and navigate their environment to the target; these weapons cannot rely on satellite communications due to the potential for inclement weather events and signal latency to disrupt their signals so they must have localised 5G networks.”
Steele clarified the definition of a weapon, it’s “a device, tool, or action that has been fashioned to cause physical or psychological harm in breach of the primary legislation.”
“The compartmentalisation of weapons systems development has played a crucial role in not alerting those within the regulatory authorities and telecommunications industry to the real purpose and intentions of those ultimately driving and funding the deployment of 5G and biological chemical weapons masquerading as Covid-19 vaccines for a planned control and command kill grid.
“The world is blindly following the plans of the technocratic elite and the military-industrial-pharma complex to terminate large numbers within populations across the world with no regard to the primary legislation.
“5G is a weapon system, a crime against humanity so monstrous that even an educated person would find it unbelievable on first inspection of the facts. The prima facie evidence of this globalist depopulation agenda is unequivocal and should be tested in the courts so that the conspirators involved in this murderous plan can be brought to justice. This is the greatest crime ever to be perpetrated on mankind and all of God’s creation.”
Expert Report on Fifth Generation (5G) Directed Energy Radiation Emissions in the Context of Nanometal-contaminated Vaccines that include Covid-19 with Graphite Ferrous Oxide Antennas, Mark Steele, February 2021
From [HERE] Reinfections in vaccinated (vs unvaccinated) people were never proven in a large official randomized controlled trial, until now. As you know, randomized controlled trials offer the gold standard of evidence: randomize people between a vaccine group and a placebo group, and see if the vaccine group does better than the placebo group.
Fortunately, we have data from Pfizer’s own official trial submitted to the FDA. This randomized controlled trial concerns vaccinating young kids and proved beyond doubt that vaccination causes repeated reinfections. Look at Page 38:
What is that page saying? There were a total of 12 kids-participants who managed to get two COVID infections within the time frame of the trial. 11 of them were vaccine recipients and only one received no vaccine!
Say that again?
Out of 12 kids who had two COVID infections, only ONE was in the never-vaccinated group!
Mind you, as the above passage says, all of these 12 reinfected children, never had Covid prior to the trial. So what caused vaccinated children to develop a disproportionate amount of repeat infections? The vaccine, of course. It is a randomized controlled trial, after all.
Thanks to Pfizer, we finally know that Covid reinfections are real and that their vaccine causes them by disabling natural immunity.
A little caveat is that Pfizer made the trial purposely complicated (because it is a resuscitated FAILED trial where they added one more booster dose and more kids). Pfizer vaccinated the control group. This complication somewhat affects the 6-23 months age category, but still shows obvious vaccine failure.
The 2-4-year-old group is much less complicated: all reinfections happened in the vaccinated participants, five of six were from the first-vaccinated group. “All of these participants received 3 doses of assigned study intervention, except for one participant in the BNT162b2 group who received two doses”. We have a smoking gun that reinfections are vaccine driven. [MORE]
The latest release by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19vaccine documents reveals numerous instances of participants who sustained severe adverse events during Phase 3 trials. Some of these participants withdrew from the trials, some were dropped and some died.
The 80,000-page document cache includes an extensive set of Case Report Forms (CRFs) from Pfizer Phase 3 trials conducted at various locations in the U.S., in addition to other documentation pertaining to participants in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine trials in the U.S. and worldwide.
The FDA on June 1 released the documents, which pertain to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the vaccine, as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August 2021.
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), a group of doctors and public health professionals, submitted the FOIA request.
CRFs show deaths, severe reactions to the vaccines during Phase 3 trials
The CRFs included in this month’s documents contain often vague explanations of the specific symptoms experienced by the trial participants.
They also reveal a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events (SAEs) — as being “not related” to the vaccine.
Read MoreFrom [HERE]
According to FUNKTIONARY:
dummy – a wooden puppet or programmed dupe that only speaks when spoken through. 2) one seeming to act independently but in reality controlled by another. ~Webster’s Dictionary. I know it’s hard for most people to imagine themselves as dummies, but the reality of our circumstances painfully underscore this sad fact. How else could it be that for eons, centuries, and even up to this day, that the elite few rule, fool, divide and terrorize the many? If we imagine that we are free, we won’t ever suspect or imagine we are dummies. Seeming to be free and actually experiencing, i.e., load testing, your alleged freedom are two different things altogether. As long as we seem to be free (despite all the facts to the contrary), it is most trivial to be manipulated and conned into doing the will of another against your own vital interests. If and whenever one is willing to overcome denial and accept his or her apparently free condition as false or an abject delusion, then the strings of control that have been (mis)guiding you will begin to become noticeable or perhaps even felt. What part of you has been complicit in “pulling the strings” of the puppet master as the fat lady sings another stanza from the starspangled banter? (See: Politician, Borg, Zombie, Proxymoron, Jehovah’s Witness Protection Program, Dummy Return, True Believer, Perceptions & Disciple)
dummies – creatures that obliviously accept and protect the parameters imposed on them by their unavowed or avowed enemies. (See: Cowards, Dupe-lification, Dummy Return, Reality Boxes, Knowledge Vacuums & Orglings)
From [MERCOLA] Data from Kansas show counties with mask mandates had a higher death rate than counties without a mask mandate; two other large studies found similar results, one that gathered data in Europe only and the other from 69 countries
According to a study in early 2021, face masks increase your daily inhalation of microplastics; another study released in April 2022 found microplastics similar to that used in face masks in lung tissue sampled during surgery. Some were found in the deepest parts of the lung
Data show that masks can collect antibiotic-resistant pathogens and trigger a cluster of symptoms called Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES) that negatively impacts your immune system, and causes carbon dioxide retention, skin irritation, headaches, difficulty breathing and decreased cardiopulmonary capacity
It is crucial that accurate data are gathered and communicated to provide a strong foundation for developing local public policy before the next plandemic creates a scenario in which government officials attempt to mandate masking and lockdowns
Fiona Lashells is an 8-year-old second grader who lives in Florida. She made the local1 and national news2 when she was suspended an outrageous 38 times for standing up for her right to do something that isn't supported by data or science in a school system — wearing a mask.
The New York Post described Lashells as a “recalcitrant student,”3 who apparently knew and exercised her rights better than most. July 30, 2021, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis4 issued an executive order ruling that school districts could not require students to wear masks. However, in defiance of authority, the Palm Beach County School District where Lashells lives reinstated their mask mandate.5
After DeSantis’s executive order was issued, Lashell's mom told her she didn't have to wear the mask for the upcoming school year. Lashell had been complaining about fatigue from wearing the mask during the last school year. At first, she was made to eat lunch alone in the hallway outside the office of an administrator. Soon, in-school suspensions began and were quickly followed by out-of-school suspensions.
After 38 suspensions, the school district repealed its mask mandate November 8, 2021. Out of the mouth of an 8-year-old came these words, “I’m not wearing a mask because you touch it, and you have germs on your hand. And then you put it on your face and breathe in all the germs.”6
Mandating masks for school children have been an unprecedented public move that has not been scientifically validated. Instead, CDC data7,8 show school children have the least risk from the virus and national data9 gathered before the pandemic show children who experience relational and social risks have a four times higher likelihood of having mental, emotional or behavioral problems.
In other words, the government mandated masks on a population who had the least risk of illness and the greatest long-term risk from wearing the mask. Several journals have finally begun publishing data gathered during the pandemic revealing that while prevention efficacy is minimal or not evident,10 wearing masks increases your risk of death if you do get sick.11
German physician Dr. Zacharias Fögen12 found no published evidence that masking could effectively reduce the severity of the disease or had an influence on case fatality.
Fögen used demographic data from the state of Kansas to run an analysis on a county-wide level comparing counties that mandated mask-wearing and those that didn't. The data suggested that using a mask could present a greater threat to the user, making it a “debatable epidemiological intervention.”13
The death rate in counties where masks were mandated was higher by 85%. After an analysis that accounted for confounding factors, the mortality rate remained 52% higher in counties that mandated masking.
Further analysis showed that 95% of the effect “can only be attributed to COVID-19, so it is not CO2, bacteria or fungi under the mask.”14 In other words, while the pathogens or CO2 buildup may have weakened the immune system, it was COVID-19 that caused the deaths.
He named this the “Foegen Effect,” referring to the reinhalation of viral particles trapped in droplets and deposited on the mask, which worsens outcomes. In the journal article, he writes:15
“The most important finding from this study is that contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case. Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ~50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.
The mask mandates themselves have increased the CFR (case fatality rate) by 1.85 / 1.58 or by 85% / 58% in counties with mask mandates. It was also found that almost all of these additional deaths were attributed solely to COVID-19.
This study revealed that wearing facemasks might impose a great risk on individuals, which would not be mitigated by a reduction in the infection rate. The use of facemasks, therefore, might be unfit, if not contraindicated, as an epidemiologic intervention against COVID-19.”
Fögen notes two other large studies that found similar results with case fatality rates. The first was published in the journal Cureus16 and found no association between case numbers and mask compliance in Europe but a positive association with death and mask compliance.
The second study17 was published in PLOS One and demonstrated there was an association between negative COVID outcomes and mask mandates across 847,000 people in 69 countries.
These conclusions were similar to those reached in a preprint study18 posted August 7, 2021, that challenged the prevailing belief masking could slow the spread of the virus. They found mask-wearing could:
Promote facial alkalinization
Encourage dehydration, which enhances barrier breakdown and raises the risk of bacterial infection
Increase headaches and sweating
Decrease cognitive precision, which can lead to medical errors
Many of the mask mandates were initiated to stay in line with CDC guidelines at the time. The data were gathered over multiple seasons using information the CDC gathered, from which the researchers originally concluded, “Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges.”19 They subsequently revised the paper and wrote:20
“The sudden onset of COVID-19 compelled adoption of mask mandates before efficacy could be evaluated. Our findings do not support the hypothesis that greater public mask use decreases COVID-19 spread. As masks have been required in many settings, it is prudent to weigh potential benefits with harms. Masks may promote social cohesion during a pandemic, but risk compensation can also occur.”
According to a study by Chinese scientists posted in January 2021, wearing a face mask can increase your daily inhalation of microplastics.21 In April 2022,22 a team of scientists from Hull York Medical School published findings that showed 39 microplastic particles in 11 of 13 lung tissues sampled during lung surgery.
According to the lead author, microplastics have been found in autopsies in the past, but this is the first study to demonstrate they are found in the living. Interestingly, these microparticles were also found in the lowest parts of the lungs, which researchers had once thought they could not possibly reach.23
The study authors found the subjects had 12 types of microplastics and the most abundant were polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET).24 This finding points to the recent ubiquitous use of blue surgical masks during the pandemic as PP is the most used plastic component in those masks.
One 2021 study25 looked at the risks of wearing blue surgical face masks and inhaling microplastics. The researchers found that reusing masks could increase the risk of inhaling microplastic particles and that N95 respirators had the lowest number of microplastics released when compared to not wearing a mask.
They wrote, “Surgical, cotton, fashion and activated carbon masks wearing pose higher fiber-like microplastic inhalation risk …”26 And yet, according to Chris Schaefer, a respirator specialist and training expert, what health experts have been calling masks are not really masks at all.27
Schaefer calls these “breathing barriers” as they “don't meet the legal definition” of a mask. He was emphatic that the surgical masks used by consumers throughout Canada, the U.S. and the world are shedding microplastics small enough to be inhaled.28
“A [proper] mask has engineered breathing openings in front of the mouth and nose to ensure easy and effortless breathing. A breathing barrier is closed both over the mouth and nose. And by doing that, it captures carbon dioxide that you exhale, forces you to re-inhale it, causing a reduction in your inhaled oxygen levels and causes excessive carbon dioxide. So, they’re not safe to wear.”
He encourages people to cut one open and look at the loose fibers that are easily dislodged within the product.29
“The heat and moisture that it captures will cause the degradation of those fibres to break down smaller. Absolutely, people are inhaling [microplastic particles]. I’ve written very extensively on the hazards of these breathing barriers the last two years, I’ve spoken to scientists [and other] people for the last two years about people inhaling the fibres.
If you get the sensation that you’ve gotten a little bit of cat hair, or any type of irritation in the back of your throat after wearing them. That means you’re inhaling the fibres.”
He went on to note that anyone exposed to these types of fibers in an occupational setting would be required to wear protection. Instead, people are using products that increase the risk of inhaling fibers that "break down very small and, well, what that’s going to do to people in the form of lung function — as well as toxicity overload in their body — I guess we’ll know in a few years."30
In the early days of the pandemic, there was a rush on masks, causing supplies for health care practitioners to dwindle. At the time, health officials were adamant that people should NOT wear masks. In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at the World Health Organization, said, “Medical masks … cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”31
Those specific cases include if you had a cough, fever or difficulty breathing. In other words, you should wear them only if you’re actively sick and showing symptoms. “If you do not have these symptoms, you do not have to wear masks because there is no evidence that they protect people who are not sick,” she continued.32
Also in February 2020, U.K. health authorities advised against the use of masks, even for people working in community or residential care facilities.33 In March 2020, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams publicly agreed, tweeting a message stating, “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” and going on to say that they are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus.34
Fast forward one year and CDC’s mask policy appears to have been determined solely on observational studies, not randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are the gold standard in science.
“In general, observational studies are not only of lower quality than RCTs but also are more likely to be politicized, as they can inject the researcher’s judgment more prominently into the inquiry and lend themselves, far more than RCTs, to finding what one wants to find,” explained Jeffrey Anderson, former director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a review published by City Journal.35
The CDC has relied on an observational cohort study published in July 2020, of two hair stylists from a Missouri beauty salon.36 The stylists tested positive for COVID-19, developed symptoms, but continued to see 139 clients until they received the positive test. They and their clients wore masks during this time.
The data showed that 67 of the clients tested negative and the other 72 did not report symptoms. From this, the CDC concluded that the “face covering policy likely mitigated the spread of SARS-CoV-2.”37
Anderson explained the study had major limitations, “The apparent lack of spread of COVID-19 could have been a result of good ventilation, good hand hygiene, minimal coughing by the stylists, or the fact that stylists generally, as the researchers note, ‘cut hair while clients are facing away from them.’”38
Another important limiting factor is the lack of a control group. Would the results have been different if the stylists or the clients were not wearing masks? No one knows. But what has become apparent is the consistent lack of quality in studies and information on which public policy has been based since the start of the pandemic.
The featured study looked only at the raw numbers from Kansas and did not delve into what may have been behind the increasing severity of disease and death in the people who wore masks.
For example, when researchers from the University of Antwerp, Belgium, analyzed the microbial community on surgical and cotton face masks from 13 healthy volunteers after being worn for four hours, bacteria including Bacillus, Staphylococcus and Acinetobacter were found — 43% of which were antibiotic-resistant.39
Researchers from Germany similarly questioned whether a mask that covers your nose and mouth is “free from undesirable side effects” and potential hazards in everyday use.40 It turned out they were not and instead posed significant adverse effects and pathophysiological changes, including the following, which often occur in combination:41
This cluster of symptoms is referred to as Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES).42 The researchers warned that people who are sick, suffering from certain chronic conditions, pregnant women and children may be at particular risk from extended mask-wearing. Short-term effects may include microbiological contamination, exhaustion, headaches, carbon dioxide retention and skin irritation.
However, long-term effects can lead to chronic issues triggered by “a chronic sympathetic stress response induced by blood gas modifications and controlled by brain centers. This in turn induces and triggers immune suppression and metabolic syndrome with cardiovascular and neurological diseases.”43
Research is needed to determine if the severity of disease and increased death rates in those who wear masks is related to the antibiotic-resistant bacteria that collect on the masks, the impact MIES has on your immune system and the potential dehydration chronic mask wearers may experience, or something else.
Accurate data must be gathered and communicated to provide a strong foundation for developing local public policy before the next plandemic creates a scenario in which government officials attempt to mandate masking and lockdowns — again.
- Sources and References
8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 6, 2022, Table 1 Total tab
9 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, January 25, 2022
10, 20 medRxiv, August 7, 2021, doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385
11, 12, 13, 15 Medicine, 2022;101(7)
18 medRxiv, August 7, 2021, doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385 Abstract
19 medRxiv, May 25, 2021; doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385
24, 27, 28, 29, 30 Western Standard, April 17, 2022
33, 34, 35, 38 City Journal August 11, 2021
39 Frontiers in Medicine, 2021; doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.732047
40, 41, 42, 43 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021 Apr; 18(8): 4344
AMOS WILSON
ARCHIVE
DONATIONS
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.
