"We are Being Lied to." A Group of New Zealand Doctors Calls for Criminal Investigations into COVID Injection Deaths. 'The Shots are Not Vaccines because They Don't Prevent Disease or Spread'

From [HERE] The group New Zealand Doctors Speaking out With Science (NZDSOS) has published an open letter calling for a comprehensive investigation into the wave of deaths occurring in New Zealand among the “fully vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

A redacted version is available for the public to read, while an unredacted version is still being carefully prepared for law enforcement to ensure it contains all of the necessary information for a proper investigation to be conducted.

According to the group, there is a “shockingly large burden of deaths and injuries following the Covid-19 vaccine, of itself and compared to any other treatment or vaccine in modern times.”

“We report many cases that DEMAND proper investigation, as befits any medication lacking safety studies,” the letter’s executive summary further states.

NZDSOS says the country’s surveillance systems, which would otherwise catch these injuries and deaths, have been disabled “in order to hide the extent of harm.”

“Adverse event reporting is NOT COMPULSORY, and this alone undermines any attempt to portray the injections as safe,” the group further explains.

“CARM (New Zealand’s version of the U.S.-based Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) was never designed to early warn about experimental drugs rolled out to massive numbers.”

Post-covid injection deaths are the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address

Perhaps most concerning are the large numbers of young children who after getting shot are suffering cardiac injuries that used to only occur among the elderly – though many elderly people have mysteriously died post-jab as well.

Seeing as how children have a zero percent risk of dying from covid, let alone getting sick from it in the first place, jabbing them is arguably the worst crime against humanity that has occurred in modern times.

“We believe we are being lied to,” says NZDSOS. “We appeal AGAIN to the Police, headed by Andrew Coster, and our MPs (members of parliament), to intervene to protect the People.

Halfway through the letter, a long list of cases is presented showing that post-injection injuries and deaths are anything but “rare.” They are disturbingly and obviously common when looking at the data, though few are brave enough to actually look.

A summary of some 500 post-injection deaths is included in the letter, as recorded in the Citizen’s Database. A community group of volunteers with backgrounds in healthcare, information technology and science help to maintain it with the support of epidemiology and database professionals.

“It has been built mainly from notifications by relatives, friends and health workers of people who have died following the covid-19 shots,” the letter explains.

“Scientific accuracy forbids the use of the word ‘vaccine,’ since it does not prevent the disease nor its transmission. Some information has been gleaned from social media posts, newspaper reports and obituaries. Has anyone noticed how many there are? ‘Taken too soon,’ ‘sudden and unexpected’ adorn the pages.”

Because the so-called “authorities” refuse to even look into the situation at all is a huge red flag all on its own. If the jabs really are “safe and effective” as claimed, then there should be no problem looking through each case in order to debunk it as unrelated to the injections, right?

This is the elephant in the room that almost nobody in any position of power is willing to address, and NZDSOS is demanding once again that someone step up to the plate and take the matter seriously on behalf of public health.

“Whatever the actual truth, NZDSOS and many others are certain that the true number of dead and injured people is very elevated, and not made clear to the public, who thus continue to sleepwalk into a treatment that is much more dangerous than the disease it purports to prevent, especially for the young,” the group says.

UK Gov. Data Shows COVID Injections are Killing Children. Report Demonstrates that "Vaccinated" Kids are Substantially More Likely to Die than Unvaccinated Kids

From [HERE] and [EXPOSE] On June 17th 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criminally extended the emergency use authorisation of the mRNA Covid-19 injections for use in children as young as 6 months. 

There has never been an emergency in regard to Covid-19 infection among children. Two years of evidence show the alleged disease has only adversely affected the elderly and vulnerable. Children have been unlucky to suffer symptoms more severe than those associated with the common cold. 

But despite this fact, the FDA has decided it is perfectly safe to administer an experimental injection to babies and toddlers, with FDA Commissioner Robert Califf saying – 

“Many parents, caregivers and clinicians have been waiting for a vaccine for younger children and this action will help protect those down to 6 months of age.  As we have seen with older age groups, we expect that the vaccines for younger children will provide protection from the most severe outcomes of COVID-19, such as hospitalization and death. 

Those trusted with the care of children can have confidence in the safety and effectiveness of these COVID-19 vaccines and can be assured that the agency was thorough in its evaluation of the data.”

The FDA Commissioner will live to regret that last sentence. As will any parent who takes the Commissioners words at face value. Because official data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics show that Covid-19 vaccinated children are between 8,100% and 30,200% more likely to die than unvaccinated children.

On 16th May 2022, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published a dataset containing details on ‘deaths by vaccination status in England’ between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st March 2022.

The ONS data shows that between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, double vaccinated children aged 10-14 were statistically up to 39 times more likely to die than unvaccinated children, and double vaccinated teenagers aged 15-19 were statistically up to 4 times more likely to die than unvaccinated teenagers.

For every 100,000 kids aged 10 to 14 who were FULLY VACCINATED in England, over 40 died from Covid-19. That’s a negative effectiveness rate against death of minus 13,633 percent among the triple-vaxxed kids and early teens, but that’s not all. The ONS failed to publish the death rate for children under 10 years young, obviously because that was most likely even MORE shocking. [MORE]

…The ONS data shows that between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, triple jabbed children aged 10-14 were statistically 303 times more likely to die than unvaccinated children of Covid-19, 69x more likely to die of any cause other than Covid-19 than unvaccinated children, and 82x more likely to die of all-causes than unvaccinated children.

This suggests that three doses of a Covid-19 injection increase the risk of all-cause death for children by an average of 8,100%, and the risk of dying of Covid-19 by an average of 30,200%. Whilst two doses increase the risk of all-cause death by an average of 3,600%.

But as things currently stand it’s the other way round for teenagers. Two doses of a Covid-19 injection increase the risk of all-cause death for teens aged 15 to 19 by an average of 300%. Whilst three doses increase the risk of all-cause death by an average of 100%. [MORE]

Letter from 76 Doctors Urgently Tells the UK Government: ‘mRNA Vaccines Are Inappropriate for Small Children’

From [CHD] The letter below was signed by 76 doctors in the U.K. and sent to the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and other U.K. Government officials.

This letter lays out comprehensive reasons why the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) decision authorizing COVID vaccinations in infants and young children must not happen in the U.K.

June 30, 2022

Dear Dr. Raine,

We are writing to you urgently concerning the announcement that the FDA has granted an Emergency Use Authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in preschool children.

We would urge you to consider very carefully the move to vaccinate ever younger children against SARS-CoV-2, despite the gradual but significant reducing virulence of successive variants, the increasing evidence of rapidly waning vaccine efficacy, the increasing concerns over long-term vaccine harms, and the knowledge that the vast majority of this young age group have already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 repeatedly and have demonstrably effective immunity.

Thus, the balance of benefit and risk which supported the rollout of mRNA vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable in 2021 is totally inappropriate for small children in 2022.

We also strongly challenge the addition of COVID-19 vaccination into the routine child immunization program despite no demonstrated clinical need, known and unknown risks (see below) and the fact that these vaccines still have only conditional marketing authorization.

It is noteworthy that the Pfizer documentation presented to the FDA has huge gaps in the evidence provided:

• The protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.

• There was no statistically significant difference between the placebo and vaccinated groups in either the 6-23-month age group or the 2-4-year-olds, even after the third dose. Astonishingly, the results were based on just three participants in the younger age group (one vaccinated and two placebo) and just seven participants in the older 2-4-year-olds (two vaccinated and five placebo). Indeed, for the younger age group the confidence intervals ranged from minus-367% to plus-99%. The manufacturer stated that the numbers were too low to draw any confident conclusions. Moreover, these limited numbers come only from children infected more than seven days after the third dose.

• Over the whole time period from the first dose onwards (see page 39 Tables 19 and 20), there were a total of 225 infected children in the vaccinated arm and 150 in the placebo arm, giving a calculated vaccine efficacy of only 25% (14% for the 6-23 months, and 33% for 2-4s).

• The additional immunogenicity studies against Omicron, requested by the FDA, only involved a total of 66 children tested one month after the third dose (see page 35).

It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children. When it comes to safety, the data are even thinner: only 1,057 children, some already unblinded, were followed for just two months.

It is noteworthy that Sweden and Norway are not recommending the vaccine for 5-11s and Holland is not recommending it for children who have already had COVID-19.

The director of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority stated recently that with what is now known, the decision to vaccinate children was a mistake.

We summarize below the overwhelming arguments against this vaccination.

A. Extremely low risk from COVID-19 to young children

• In the whole of 2020 and 2021, not a single child aged 1-9 died where COVID-19 was the sole diagnosis on the death certificate, according to ONS data.

• A detailed study in England from March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021, found only six children under 18 years died with no co-morbidities. There were no deaths aged 1-4 years.

• Children clear the virus more easily than adults.

• Children mount effective, robust, and sustained immune responses.

• Since the arrival of the Omicron variant, infections have been generally much milder. That is also true for unvaccinated under-5s.

• By June 2022 it is now estimated that 89% of 1-4-year-olds had already had SARS-CoV-2 infection.

• Recent data from Israel show excellent long-lasting immunity following infection in children, especially in 5-11s.

B. Poor vaccine efficacy

• In adults, it has become apparent that vaccine efficacy wanes steadily over time, necessitating boosters at regular intervals. Specifically, vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly against the latest Omicron variants.

• In children, vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly in 5-11s than in 12-17s, possibly related to the lower dose used in the pediatric formulation. One study from New York showed efficacy against Omicron falling to only 12% by 4-5 weeks and to negative values by 5-6 weeks post second dose.

• In the Pfizer 0-4s trial, the efficacy after two doses fell to negative values, necessitating a change to the trial protocol. After a third dose, there was a suggestion of efficacy from 7-30 days but there is no data beyond 30 days to see how quickly this will wane.

C. Potential harms of COVID-19 vaccines for children

• There has been great concern about myocarditis in adolescents and young adults, especially in males after the second dose, estimated at one per 2,600 in active post-marketing surveillance in Hong Kong. The emerging evidence of persistent cardiac abnormalities in adolescents with post-mRNA vaccine myopericarditis, as demonstrated by cardiac MRI at 3-8 months follow-up, suggests this is far from ‘mild and short-lived’. The potential for longer-term effects requires further study and calls for the strictest application of the precautionary principle in respect of the youngest and most vulnerable children.

• Although post-vaccination myocarditis appears to be less common in 5-11-year-olds than older children, it is, nonetheless, increased over baseline.

• In the Pfizer study, 50% of vaccinated children had systemic adverse events, including irritability and fever. Diagnosis of myocarditis is much more difficult in younger children. No troponin levels or ECG studies were documented. Even a vaccinated child in the trial, hospitalized with fever, calf pain and a raised CPK, had no report of D-dimers, anti-platelet antibodies, or troponin levels.

• In Pfizer’s 5-11s post-authorization conditions, it is required to conduct studies looking for myocarditis and is not due to report results until 2027.

• Of equal concern are, as yet unknown, negative effects on the immune system. In the 0-4s trial, only seven children were described as having “severe” COVID-19 – six vaccinated and one given placebo. Similarly, for the 12 children with recurrent episodes of infection, 10 were vaccinated against only two who received placebo. These are all tiny figures and much too small to rule out any adverse impacts such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and other impacts on the immune system.

• Also unanswered is the question of Original Antigenic Sin. It is of note that in a large Israeli study, those infected after vaccination had poorer cover than those vaccinated after infection. In the Moderna trial, N-antibodies were seen in only 40% of those infected after vaccination, compared with 93% of those infected after placebo.

• There is evidence of vaccine-induced disruption of both innate and adaptive immune responses. The possibility of developing an impaired immune function would be disastrous for children, who have the most competent innate immunity, which by now has been effectively trained by the circulating virus.

• Totally unknown is whether there will be any adverse effect on T-cell function leading to an increase in cancers.

• Also, in terms of reproductive function, limited animal bio-distribution studies showed lipid nanoparticles concentrate in ovaries and testes. Adult sperm donors have showed a reduction in sperm counts particularly of motile sperm, falling by three months post-vaccination and remaining depressed at four to five months.

• Even for adults, concerns are rising that serious adverse events are in excess of hospitalizations from COVID-19.

D. Informed consent

• For 5-11s, the JCVI, in recommending a “non-urgent offer” of vaccination, specifically noted the importance of fully informed consent with no coercion.

• With the low uptake in this age group, the presence of ‘therapy dogs’, advertisements including superhero images and information about child vaccination protecting friends and family all clearly run contrary to the concept of consent, fully informed and freely given.

• The complete omission of information explaining to the public the different and novel technology used in COVID-19 vaccines compared to standard vaccines, and the failure to inform of the lack of any long-term safety data, borders on misinformation.

E. Effect on public confidence

• Vaccines against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles, need to be prioritized. Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine onto young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunization program.

• The poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer risks bringing the pharmaceutical industry into disrepute and the regulators if this product is authorized.

In summary, young healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID-19, especially since the arrival of the Omicron variant. Most have been repeatedly exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, yet have remained well, or have had short, mild illness.

As detailed above, the vaccines are of brief efficacy and have known short- to medium-term risks and unknown long-term safety. Data for clinically useful efficacy in small children are scant or absent.

In older children, for whom the vaccines are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination program.

For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licenses.

Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunization program.

Signed by:

Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMed Sci, Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy (ICVI)

Professor Anthony Fryer, Ph.D., FRCPath, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry, Keele University

Professor David Livermore, BSc, Ph.D., Retired Professor of Medical Microbiology, UEA

Professor John Fairclough FRCS FFSEM retired Honorary Consultant Surgeon

Lord Moonie,  MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, former consultant in Public Health Medicine

Dr. Abby Astle, MA(Cantab), MBBChir, GP Principal, GP Trainer, GP Examiner

Dr. Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, retired General Practitioner

Dr. Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, Retired Pharmaceutical Physician

Dr. David Bramble, MBChB, MRCPsych, MD, Consultant Psychiatrist

Dr. Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr. David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General practitioner

Dr. Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional medicine practitioner

Michael Cockayne, MSc, PGDip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN, Occupational Health Practitioner

Julie Coffey, MBChB, General Practitioner

John Collis, RN, Specialist Nurse Practitioner, retired

Mr. Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist

James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nursing (Hons), Master of Public Health

Dr. Clare Craig, BMBCh, FRCPath, Pathologist

Dr. David Critchley, BSc, Ph.D. in Pharmacology, 32 years of experience in Pharmaceutical R&D

Dr. Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB (hons), DipPharmMedDr Elizabeth Evans, MA (Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Retired Doctor

Dr. John Flack, BPharm, Ph.D., retired Director of Safety Evaluation at Beecham Pharmaceuticals and retired Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery SmithKline Beecham

Dr. Simon Fox, BSc, BMBCh, FRCP, Consultant in Infectious Diseases and Internal Medicine

Dr. Ali Haggett, Mental health community work, 3rd sector, former lecturer in the history of medicine

David Halpin, MB BS FRCS, Orthopaedic and trauma surgeon (retired)

Dr Renée Hoenderkampf, General Practitioner

Dr. Andrew Isaac, MB BCh, Physician, retired

Dr. Steve James, Consultant Intensive Care

Dr. Keith Johnson, BA, DPhil (Oxon), IP Consultant for Diagnostic Testing

Dr. Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant pediatrician

Dr. Tanya Klymenko, Ph.D., FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences

Dr. Charles Lane, MA, DPhil, Molecular Biologist

Dr. Branko Latinkic, BSc, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist

Dr. Felicity Lillingstone, IMD DHS Ph.D. ANP, Doctor, Urgent Care, Research Fellow

Dr. Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, Ph.D., Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath

Katherine MacGilchrist, BSc (Hons), MSc, CEO/Systematic Review Director, Epidemica Ltd.

Dr. Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, Consultant Physician, retired

Ahmad K Malik FRCS (Tr & Orth) Dip Med Sport, Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr. Kulvinder Singh Manik, MBBS, General Practitioner

Dr. Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr. S McBride, BSc (Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP (Edinburgh). NHS Emergency Medicine & Geriatrics

Mr. Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Tr&Orth), FFSEM(UK), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr. Franziska Meuschel, MD, ND, Ph.D., LFHom, BSEM, Nutritional, Environmental and Integrated Medicine

Dr. Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS, Emergency Medicine Physician

Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH. Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology

Dr. David Morris, MBChB, MRCP(UK), General Practitioner

Margaret Moss, MA (Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire

Dr. Alice Murkies, MD FRACGP MBBS, General Practitioner

Dr. Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy

Dr. Sarah Myhill, MBBS, retired GP and Naturopathic Physician

Dr. Rachel Nicholl, Ph.D., Medical researcher

Dr. Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause specialist

Rev Dr. William J U Philip MB ChB, MRCP, BD, Senior Minister The Tron Church, Glasgow, formerly physician specializing in cardiology

Dr. Angharad Powell, MBChB, BSc (hons), DFRSH, DCP (Ireland), DRCOG, DipOccMed, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr. Gerry Quinn, Ph.D. Postdoctoral researcher in microbiology and immunology

Dr. Johanna Reilly, MBBS, General Practitioner

Jessica Righart, MSc, MIBMS, Senior Critical Care Scientist

Mr. Angus Robertson, BSc, MB ChB, FRCSEd (Tr & Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr. Jessica Robinson, BSc(Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom, Psychiatrist and Integrative Medicine Doctor

Dr. Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), Retired General Practitioner

Mr. James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal surgeon

Dr. Roland Salmon, MB BS, MRCGP, FFPH, Former Director, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Wales

Sorrel Scott, Grad Dip Phys, Specialist Physiotherapist in Neurology, 30 years in NHS

Dr. Rohaan Seth, BSc (hons), MBChB (hons), MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner

Dr. Gary Sidley, retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist

Dr. Annabel Smart, MBBS, retired General Practitioner

Natalie Stephenson, BSc (Hons) Paediatric Audiologist

Dr. Zenobia Storah, MA (Oxon), Dip Psych, DClinPsy, Senior Clinical Psychologist (Child and Adolescent)

Dr. Julian Tompkinson, MBChB MRCGP, General Practitioner GP trainer PCME

Dr. Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DCH, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, retired doctor

Dr. Stephen Ting, MB CHB, MRCP, Ph.D., Consultant Physician

Dr. Livia Tossici-Bolt, Ph.D., Clinical Scientist

Dr. Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology

Dr. Helen Westwood MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

Mr. Lasantha Wijesinghe, FRCS, Consultant Vascular Surgeon

Dr. Damian Wilde, Ph.D., (Chartered) Specialist Clinical Psychologist

Dr. Ruth Wilde, MB BCh, MRCEM, AFMCP, Integrative & Functional Medicine Doctor

[Genthanasia = A Slow Motion Extermination of Undesirable People by Elites] According to UK Data Thousands of People are Dying “Unexpectedly” Every Week in the Post-Covid Era

From [Natural News] For the week ending July 8, 2022, 10,232 deaths were recorded by the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics (ONS), 432 of which were recorded as being related to the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). This is nearly 1,000 more deaths than normal compared to pre-covid levels, a trend that has been going on for at least the past 11 weeks.

“Excess deaths,” as they call them, have been noteworthy ever since Chinese Virus injections were first introduced. Many now believe that the cause is the shot, which is why there have been calls to end the jabbing and boosting agenda.

“This is not just a U.K. phenomenon,” said Dr. John Campbell, PhD, in a July 6, 2022, video. “This is an international phenomenon.”

Dr. Campbell earned his doctorate from the University of Bolton in 2013, with an emphasis on teaching biosciences in the context of national and international nurse education. His YouTube channel, which boasts some 2.39 million subscribers, contains many videos about the Fauci Flu and the lies that are being told about it.

“Way more people are dying than we would expect based on the previous five years,” he says. “What is going on here? This is too many to be a statistical artifact. This is a genuine effect.”

Covid “vaccines” are a form of mass genocide

Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former vice president at Pfizer, has also come forward with claims that Chinese Virus injections are, in fact, responsible for the excess deaths phenomenon now being seen all around the world.

Prior to Operation Warp Speed, death rates were mostly stable and generally predictable. Now, more people are dying than usual, and there is only one obvious culprit: the jabs.

Even if you exclude the deaths that are being blamed on covid and not the jabs, there is still an excess of them that cannot be explained by anything other than the jabs, Campbell says.

“Excluding that data, the excess death rate in 2022 for England and Wales is 16.6 percent combined, and 18.2 percent just in Wales alone,” write Jennifer Margulis and Joe Wang for The Epoch Times.

One young boy, 14-year-old Ted Sanderson, died suddenly at his school, Woodham Academy, on June 21. Sanderson received his covid injections as recommended by the government, and now his life is over.

That same day, another person named Chris Houghton-Rai collapsed while working his job at a Toyota dealership. For 90 minutes, paramedics tried to revive him but were unable to stop his sudden death.

About a week later, a retired professional soccer player named Gary Pearson, who had just taken on a new job as a soccer team manager, collapsed at his home. Two weeks prior, Pearson had received heart surgery and was “expected to make a complete recovery.”

That did not happen, though, as Pearson, who was described by his friends as being “fit and healthy,” died for no apparent reason. Like Houghton-Rai, paramedics tried to revive Pearson but to no avail.

While plandemic-induced stress and isolation may have also played a role in some of the excess deaths, leading to fatal conditions like cancer that were left either undiagnosed or untreated, the biggest elephant in the room is the injections.

Some post-injection deaths are immediate, but others take weeks or even months to develop. It all depends on a person’s immune capacity as well as any pre-existing conditions that may exist.

Neurologist Dr. Tom Lowry, MD, a concussion and musculoskeletal expert based out of San Antonio, says he and his colleagues are likewise seeing an uptick in neurological damage ever since the jabs were introduced – and young people are especially prone to these conditions, he says.

“We should be doing autopsies on every one of these young people,” Lowry is quoted as saying. “If we did, we would know for sure within six months what is actually going on.”

Professor Richard Ennos Says Official data From Scotland for 2021 -2022 ‘Provide Very Strong Evidence for a Causal Relationship’ Between Vaccinations and a Huge Number of Excess Deaths

From [JOEL SMALLEY] A dramatic and unexplained resurgence in excess death in Scotland points to the covid-19 injections, it is being claimed.

Retired Edinburgh professor Richard Ennos says official data for 2021 and 2022 ‘provide very strong evidence for a causal relationship’ between the vaccinations and a huge number of excess deaths in the country.

Professor Ennos has written to Siobhian Brown MSP, convener of the Scottish government’s covid-19 recovery committee, calling on her to re-open a public inquiry into the deaths which can only be partially explained by the virus.

Earlier this year, the committee investigated the cause of an unprecedented level of excess death recorded in Scotland from week 21 to week 52 of 2021.

Numbering 4,819, it was 12% above the average – the worst ever recorded.

Recorded deaths so far in 2022 are heading in the same direction, and Professor Ennos suggests they are now a consequence of the booster jab.

In a recent letter to Ms Brown, on July 12, he also expresses his concern that the public inquiry earlier this year into the 2021 excess death figures failed to make any mention of the injections as a potential cause.

He states that of 103 public submissions to the inquiry, more than a third pointed to the jabs as a possible reason for the inflated loss of lives.

He tells Ms Brown: ‘However, in your report to Humza Yousaf, cabinet secretary for health and social care, there was not a single mention of adverse reactions to covid-19 vaccines as a possible cause of the excess death seen Scotland in 2021.

‘This was despite the fact that a number of respondents provided detailed information from peer reviewed scientific papers showing that death is a known adverse reaction to the covid-19 vaccines, and that a variety of mechanisms of action have been established (induction of blood clots, myocarditis etc.).

‘Post mortems have also confirmed that covid-19 vaccination can cause death of recipients, and this is acknowledged by the UK government who have already paid compensation to multiple families of those who have died as a consequence of covid-19 vaccination.

‘Your lack of any reference to covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions as a contributor to excess death in Scotland in 2021 is even more concerning because recent detailed analysis of National Records of Scotland data now suggests a causal relationship between excess death in Scotland and covid-19 vaccinations.’

Professor Ennos states that the argument leading to this conclusion begins with the observation that in the last 32 weeks of 2021, excess death began in different age classes of the Scottish population in a staggered manner, approximately 12 weeks after peak vaccination of that age class.

Beginning with the oldest, this pattern was repeated as the jabs rollout continued down through ever younger age groups.

He suggests there can only be two reasons put forward for the extra deaths: it was the injections or it was a lack of medical care caused either by withdrawal of NHS services, or to patients’ failure to access these services, ‘both consequences of the Scottish government response to covid-19’.

However, he says, there was no consistent rise in excess deaths to point to delayed medical care as a result of long waiting lists.

Instead, what National Records of Scotland data reveal, says Professor Ennos, is a second staggering of excess deaths following the booster (third dose) jab – with 2022 mirroring the pattern of 2021 whereby age group deaths occurred approximately 12 weeks after peak administration of the vaccine. [MORE]

Due to Deaths Caused by COVID Shots Lincoln National, the 5th Largest US Life Insurance Company, Reported a 163% Increase in Death Benefits Paid Under its Group Life Insurance Policies in 2021

From [HERE] Five months after breaking the story of the CEO of One America insurance company saying deaths among working people ages 18-64 were up 40% in the third quarter of 2021, I can report that a much larger life insurance company, Lincoln National, reported a 163% increase in death benefits paid out under its group life insurance policies in 2021.

This is according to the annual statements filed with state insurance departments — statements that were provided exclusively to Crossroads Report in response to public records requests.

The reports show a more extreme situation than the 40% increase in deaths in the third quarter of 2021 that was cited in late December by One America CEO Scott Davison — an increase that he said was industry-wide and that he described at the time as “unheard of” and “huge, huge numbers” and the highest death rates that have ever been seen in the history of the life insurance business.

The annual statements for Lincoln National Life Insurance Company show that the company paid out in death benefits under group life insurance polices a little over $500 million in 2019, about $548 million in 2020, and a stunning $1.4 billion in 2021.

From 2019, the last normal year before the pandemic, to 2020, the year of the Covid-19 virus, there was an increase in group death benefits paid out of only 9 percent. But group death benefits in 2021, the year the vaccine was introduced, increased almost 164 percent over 2020.

Here are the precise numbers for Group Death Benefits taken from Lincoln National’s annual statements for the three years:

2019: $500,888,808

2020: $547,940,260

2021: $1,445,350,949

Here are the key numbers for 2021, below, shown on the company’s annual statement that was filed with the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services. These are national numbers, not state-specific:

Lincoln National is the fifth-largest life insurance company in the United States, according to BankRate, after New York Life, Northwestern Mutual, MetLife and Prudential.

The company was founded in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1905, getting the OK from Abraham Lincoln’s son, Robert Todd Lincoln, to use his father’s name and likeness in its advertising.

It’s now based in Radnor, Pennsylvania.

The annual statements filed with the states do not show the number of claims — only the total dollar amount of claims paid.

Group life insurance policies, in most cases, cover working-age adults ages 18-64 whose employer includes life insurance as an employee benefit.

How many deaths are represented by the 163% increase? It is not possible to determine by the dollar figures on the statements.

But the average death benefit for employer-provided group life insurance, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, is one year’s salary.

If the average annual salary of people covered by group life insurance policies in the United States is $70,000, this may represent 20,647 deaths of working adults, covered by just this one insurance company. This would represent at least 10,000 more deaths than in a normal year for just this one company.

The statements for the three years also show a sizable increase in ordinary death benefits — those not paid out under group policies, but under individual life insurance policies.

In 2019, the baseline year, that number was $3.7 billion. In 2020, the year of the Covid-19 pandemic, it went up to $4 billion, but in 2021, the year in which the vaccine was administered to almost 260 million Americans, it went up to $5.3 billion.

The statements show that the total amount that Lincoln National paid out for all direct claims and benefits in 2021 was more than $28 billion, $6 billion more than in 2020, when it paid out a total of $22 billion, which was less than the $23 billion it paid out in 2019, the baseline year. [MORE]

Attorney Generals from Missouri and Louisiana Subpoena Fauci, Biden Officials in Lawsuit Alleging Collusion w/Social Media to Silence Speech. Companies Falsely Labeled Truthful Content Disinformation

From [CHD] Top-ranking Biden administration officials — including Dr. Anthony Fauci — and five social media giants have 30 days to respond to subpoenas and discovery requests in a lawsuit alleging the government colluded with social media companies to suppress freedom of speech “under the guise of combatting misinformation.”

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry on Wednesday served third-party subpoenas on Twitter, Meta (Facebook’s parent company), Youtube, Instagram and LinkedIn.

Schmitt and Landry on Tuesday filed discovery requests seeking documents and information from the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Fauci, its director; White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre; Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy; and former Disinformation Governance Board executive director Nina Jankowicz.

Discovery requests also were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and its director, Jen Easterly; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(HHS).

“In May, Missouri and Louisiana filed a landmark lawsuit against top-ranking Biden Administration officials for allegedly colluding with social media giants to suppress free speech on topics like COVID-19 and election security,” Schmitt said in Tuesday’s press release.

Schmitt added:

“Earlier this month, a federal court granted our motion for expedited discovery, allowing us to collect important documents from Biden Administration officials. Yesterday, we served discovery requests and today served third-party subpoenas to do exactly that.

“We will fight to get to the bottom of this alleged collusion and expose the suppression of freedom of speech by social media giants at the behest of top-ranking government officials.”

Schmitt announced in a July 12 statement that Terry Doughty, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, ruled in favor of a June 17 motion for expedited preliminary injunction-related discovery and set a timetable with specific deadlines for depositions.

According to Schmitt, government officials “both pressured and colluded with social media giants Meta, Twitter and Youtube to censor free speech in the name of combating so-called ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation,’ which led to the suppression and censorship of truthful information on several topics, including COVID-19.”

“The Court’s decision cleared the way for Missouri and Louisiana to gather discovery and documents from Biden Administration officials and social media companies,” Schmitt said in a press release on Tuesday.

“The order states, ‘The First Amendment obviously applies to the citizens of Missouri and Louisiana, so Missouri and Louisiana have the authority to assert those rights,’” he said.

In a statement on Twitter announcing the court’s decision to grant the attorneys general’s request, Schmitt said, “No one has had the chance to look under the hood before — now we do.”

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland, who also serves as CHD general counsel, praised the ruling:

“CHD welcomes this groundbreaking ruling from Judge Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana to discover whether the Biden administration has violated the First Amendment through censorship.

“For two years, CHD and many other media outlets have not been able to comprehend the mechanisms whereby our major media platforms have ruthlessly censored, suppressed and distorted our information.

“Now, through the discovery process that the judge has allowed, we’ll find out how Meta, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube have been colluding with the federal government to curb so-called ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation.’ This is a new day.”

Fauci, CDC, White House press secretary and more must turn over documents

According to the press release, Fauci, chief medical advisor to President Biden and director of the NIAID, was asked to turn over any communications with social media platforms related to content modulation and/or misinformation, and to disclose all meetings with any social media platform related to the subject and to provide all communications with Mark Zuckerberg from Jan. 1, 2020, to the present.

Fauci also must turn over all communications with any social media platform related to the Great Barrington Declaration; the authors and original signers of the Great Barrington Declaration; Dr. Jay Bhattacharya; Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D.; Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D.; Dr. Scott Atlas; Alex Berenson; Peter Daszak, Ph.D.; Shi Zhengli, Ph.D.; the Wuhan Institute of Virology; EcoHealth Alliance; and/or any member of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” including CHD chairman and chief legal counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is required to identify every officer, official, employee, staff member, personnel, contractor or any other person associated with the White House communications team who communicated or is communicating with any social media platform related to content modulation and/or misinformation — and to turn over those communications.

Jean-Pierre also must identify all persons who “engage[s] regularly with all social media platforms about steps that can be taken” to address misinformation on social media, which engagement “has continued, and … will continue,” as stated during an April 25 White House press briefing — and turn over all communications with any social media platform involved in such engagement.

Defendant Nina Jankowicz, who was tasked with heading up the Biden administration’s “Disinformation Governance Board” must provide all documents related to communications with social media platforms and content modulation and/or misinformation.

Jankowicz is required to identify the nature, purpose, participants, topics to be discussed and topics actually discussed at the meeting between DHS personnel and Twitter executives Nick Pickles and Yoel Roth scheduled on or around April 28.

The CDC is required to provide the names of every officer, official, employee, staff member, personnel, contractor or agent of CDC or any other federal official or agency who communicated or is communicating with any social media platform regarding content modulation and/or misinformation.

The CDC must disclose communications with any social media platform related to content modulation or misinformation, any meetings that took place with social media platforms related to content modulation and/or misinformation, and must identify all “members of our senior staff” and/or “members of our COVID-19 team” who are “in regular touch with … social media platforms,” as “Jennifer Psaki [former White House press secretary] stated at a White House press briefing on or around July 15, 2021.”

The agency must also disclose all “government experts” who are federal officers, officials, agents, employees or contractors, who have “partnered with” Facebook or any other social media platform to address misinformation and/or content modulation, including all communications relating to such partnerships.

Like Fauci, the CDC must turn over information and communications on the “so-called disinformation dozen,” Great Barrington Declaration, alternative news outlets and key experts and scientists who have spoken out against the government’s approach to treating COVID-19 or mandating face masks and lockdowns.

Meta (Facebook) was “commanded” to produce all communications with any federal official relating to misinformation and/or content modulation, to produce all documents and communications-related actions taken based in whole or in part on information received, directly or indirectly, from any federal official and to produce all communications and documents related to a list of search terms that include Kennedy’s name and/or the names of prominent doctors and physicians who were censored for their views on COVID-19.

Facebook also must disclose meetings, communications and documents related to remarks made by Psaki, who said the White House is “in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team,” and regarding the White House’s efforts to flag “problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

Similar requests were made to other government officials and social media platforms, including Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn.

Lawsuit alleges collusion to suppress disfavored speakers and viewpoints

Attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri in May filed a lawsuit alleging government defendants “colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation’ and ‘malinformation.’”

The count lawsuit alleges social media companies falsely labeled truthful content “disinformation” and “misinformation” and contends the suppression constitutes government action, violating free speech protected by the U.S. constitution.

The complaint also alleges that DHS’ Disinformation Governance Board was created “to induce, label, and pressure the censorship of disfavored content, viewpoints and speakers on social-media platforms,” and that HHS and DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act to “hold unlawful and set aside final agency actions” that are deemed to be an abuse of power and arbitrary and capricious.

The lawsuit provides several examples of truthful information that was censored by social media companies who later admitted the content was truthful or credible.

According to The Epoch Times, the lawsuit could help bring to light the Biden administration’s “behind-the-scenes efforts” to discourage the dissemination of information related to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origins and the efficiency of masks and lockdowns.

Attorney Reiner Füllmich: COVID Injections Were Designed to Experiment on the Human Race

From [HERE] German lawyer Reiner Füllmich and at least 50 of his colleagues have concluded that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines are designed to experiment on the human race. They arrived at that conclusion after hearing the statements of witnesses in the German Corona Investigative Committee – particularly that of former Pfizer executive Dr. Mike Yeadon.

According to Yeadon, the vaccine manufacturers are still trying to find out what dosage an unknown toxin is needed to kill people. He added that the mortality rate linked to the vaccines is traceable based on the lot numbers of the different batches, some appear to be more lethal than others.

The lawyers said that when taking a look at the available evidence, the main goal of the injections seems to be global depopulation. Füllmich also said the lawyers, who are preparing an international lawsuit against Pfizer, were no longer in doubt as poisoning and mass murder through the vaccines are intentionally being perpetrated on people.

Journalist Ulf Bittner and podcaster Sverige Granskas also stated in their interviews that in Sweden, injuries and death related to known lot numbers are seen to be similar in the different healthcare regions. Bittner is in contact with a vaccine coordinator who was able to provide documents to keep track of the people injured or dead related to the vaccine batches. (Related: COVID vaccines killing more children than the virus, but the government does not care.)

Some lots are extremely dangerous and lethal

It appears that the barcodes at the bottom of the vaccine doses indicate which ones are placebo – the harmless dose being injected to politicians and prominent individuals.

However, Füllmich and his team believe that all of the lots are dangerous.

“The much more important piece of information that we got from Mike Yeadon when we spoke with him in our Corona committee session is that there are certain lots that are extremely dangerous and deadly,” Füllmich explained.

Earlier this year, Dr. Jane Ruby said these pharmaceutical companies not only created lethal batches – they also had codes that allowed them to check which lots are toxic and which ones are causing disabilities, or indicate which disabilities are likely to appear.

Ruby said that for Moderna, it is batch or lot code 011 l 20., which represents the temporal batch order, the concentration that determines the toxicity and the number of adverse reactions. With the number 20 being qualitative, Ruby said an ingredient is considered toxic in these batch lots.

“What it boils down to is that this is about population reduction,” Füllmich said. He explained that if these companies are going to use deadly doses right from the start, they are going to scare everyone off. That’s why they’re experimenting with the right dose that could kill off five to 20 percent of the population. Legally, it means that there is no negligence and that they are not making mistakes.

“This is compelling evidence of premeditated mass murder. Punitive damages come into play whenever you’re dealing with a bad actor who is intentionally doing something harmful, and that is what we’re dealing with here,” he added. (Related: DEPOPULATION: Thanks in part to COVID jabs, most US counties lost population in 2021.)

The makers of the vaccines, the politicians who pushed for them, the mainstream media that advertised them and the doctors who administered the shots are all in it, and Füllmich has promised to bring them to justice.

After Biden Said 'If You're Vaxed You Won't Get COVID, Die or Spread COVID' and 'Approved Vaccines are Available,' Why Would U Believe Anything this Lying MF Says? His Lies Destroyed Informed Consent

Corpse Biden is the latest puppetician, celebrity or social influencer to be showcased by Uncle Brother as “having COVID” in Its propaganda effort to create human vaccine dependence for depopulation and greater control over humanity. The vested interests are trying to kill us. This hollow wooden dummy who only speaks when CrimethInc speaks through him doesn’t have COVID. He doesn’t know what he has because he is fast asleep even while awake. Although he will be responsible for the death of millions of Americans he will probably never be held accountable; he is not likely to serve a second term or be alive to see to his Nuremberg trial. [MORE]

A new film called “Uninformed Consent,” presumably about how authorities destroyed informed consent and coerced populations into taking deadly COVID injections premiers tonight, 7/23/22. The trailer is above and below.

Pursuant to the Nuremberg Code:

a) Informed consent to participate in a medical experiment.
The first principle of the Nuremberg Code is a willingness and informed consent by the person to receive treatment and participate in an experiment. The person is supposed to activate freedom of choice without the intervention, either through force, deceit, fraud, threat, solicitation, or any other type of binding or coercion.

People have not been advised that they are taking part in a medical experiment and that their consent is required under the Nuremberg Code. This as a matter of fact is a genetic medical experiment on human beings performed without informed consent under a severe and blatant offense of the Nuremberg Code.

b) Alternative treatments
– On the subject of informed consent for medical treatment, and based on the Nuremberg Code principles, an obligation exists to detail and suggest to a patient several treatment alternatives, detailing the medical process (and all that is included in it) as well as the advantages and disadvantages/ benefits and risks, existing in every treatment, to enable him to make an intelligent personal decision regarding the treatment he prefers. As stated, this choice must be made freely by the individual.

The US Government has purposefully failed to present the citizens with the currently existing alternatives for treating Covid 19. Alternative treatments that have now been proven to be both extremely safe and extremely efficacious in the treatment of Covid 19 with up to a 100% success rate with alternative treatments mentioned above. The government continues to solicit citizens, pressuring and manipulating them in blatant violation of the informed consent process, intentionally concealing information regarding the vaccinations and creating an atmosphere of fear and coercion.

The experiment will be conducted to prevent suffering or physical injury.

It is known that the m-RNA ‘vaccination’ treatments have caused the death of many as well as injury and severe damage (including disablement and paralysis) after the ‘vaccine’ was administered. Despite this fact, the government did not instruct the initiation of an investigation into the matter. It is also questionable that given the experimental nature of these vaccinations, that there are not any full reports available of the numbers of dead or injured, as may be expected in such a medical process for the benefit of the public participating in the experiment.

d) The experiment must not be conducted when there is reason to assume that death or real injury will occur. The government, vaccine manufacturers and medical professionals and the Dependent Media know full well that vaccines are killing millions of people worldwide.

e) The individual in charge of the experiment must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe it will cause injury, disability or death of the experiment participant.

It has already been proven that many have died from the m-RNA treatments, were injured or became disabled; however the Government continues to compel and propagandize this dangerous experiment on its citizens. [MORE]

Scientist says FBI Raided her Lab After It Tested 1500 Positive COVID Samples and Discovered There is No COVID, No Variants or MonkeyPox. CDC Threatened to Close the Lab Unless Findings Were Changed

Panic-Hype Man, Masterful Liar and Biocide Architect Anthony Fauci to Retire at the End of Biden's Term. Will He be Alive for His Nuremberg Trial?

Anthony Fauci, the psychopathic infectious-diseases fake expert who has helped steer the nation’s response to Covid-19 through two administrations, said he is likely to retire by the end of President Biden’s term. His work undoubtedly will kill millions of people.

Dr. Fauci, 81 years old, has become one of the most well-known public-health leaders during the pandemic, appearing often at White House Covid-19 press briefings and on national TV and other outlets. He delivered unvarnished views in his characteristic Brooklyn accent about the dangers of the virus and a need to take precautions, drawing criticism from some Republicans.

Dr. Fauci is the chief medical adviser to President Biden, while also leading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID. He has directed the institute since 1984, serving under seven presidents.

Dr. Fauci said Monday he hadn’t decided on a date but planned to step down by the end of Mr. Biden’s term in January 2025. “Sometime between now and then, I will step down from my current position and pursue other directions in my professional career,” he said. [MORE]

Scientist says the Experiments Used to Establish COVID are a Fraud. ‘There is No Real Evidence that SARS-CoV2 “virus” Causes Anything More Serious than a Short, Common Cold or that It Actually Exists'

From [EXPOSE] Infecting mice with the deadly SARS-CoV-2 virus should be lethal right? Wrong. In an experiment that used mice the researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the supposed human disease called Covid 19.

But maybe mice are too different to humans to be relevant models for human disease. Maybe if our fellow primates (monkeys) were infected with this deadly virus they would get seriously ill and die right? Wrong.

We are told that the SARS-CoV-2 “coronavirus” causes serious and lethal disease in humans. Three research papers presented by Facebook “fact checkers” in support of this contention prove nothing of the sort. This is called a citation bluff and is a common tactic used by scientific fraudsters. The fraudsters depend on people not reading or understanding the research that is cited but instead just blindly trusting that there is evidence to support the claims made by the fraudsters. I have read and understood the monkey studies for you…

The first is a “Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a nonhuman primate model.” that was published in the prestigious scientific journal “Science”.

This is one of the papers used by Facebook “fact checkers” to justify the official Covid 19 narrative and to prove that Covid 19 is a serious and life-threatening disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It proves nothing of the sort…

They infected some monkeys with the “deadly” SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. This is what happened:

“No overt clinical signs were observed in any of the infected animals, except for a serous nasal discharge in one aged animal on day 14 post inoculation (p.i.). No significant weight loss was observed in any of the animals during the study.”

In other words, one of them got a snotty nose or a “serous nasal discharge” if you prefer to be more polite but nothing more serious than that.

Surely, they must be shedding high levels of this “deadly” and rapidly replicating virus for a long-time post infection, right? Wrong:

“Low levels of infectious virus were cultured from throat and nasal swabs up to day 2 and 4, respectively.”

After 4 days of most monkeys being absolutely fine ( except for the one with a snotty nose) the monkeys were unlikely to be infectious to other monkeys. In spite of this lack of viral shedding the whole world was locked down to prevent spread and to “flatten the curve”.

Sadly, the monkeys had to be killed and their tissues had to be examined under a microscope to detect anything wrong with them at all:

“The main histological lesion in the consolidated pulmonary tissues of both the young and aged animals involved the alveoli and bronchioles and consisted of areas with acute or more advanced DAD.”

DAD is Diffuse Alveola Damage. This is how a pathologist would describe your lungs if you had a cold or lived in a polluted city and they sliced up your lungs to have a look at them down a microscope. They aren’t doing this to humans just yet (except in China) but who knows what they will do in the future when they invent a new new variant.

We are told that SARS-CoV-2 enters the body via the lungs, spreads via the bloodstream, and goes on to ravage all of our internal organs. But:

“The other organs in these two macaques, as well as the respiratory tract and other organs of the other two animals, were normal.”

What no seriously deadly pneumonia? No renal failure? No liver damage? No brain damage? No blood clots? No cytokine storm? No multi-organ failure? Doesn’t sound like the deadly COVID 19 human plague to me:

“Virus replication was primarily restricted to the respiratory tract (nasal cavity, trachea, bronchi, and lung lobes) with highest levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in lungs.”

Sounds like a common cold affecting only the airways then:

“The other aged macaque, without virological or pathological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the lungs, did have SARS-CoV-2 antigen expression in ciliated epithelial cells of nasal septum, nasal concha, and palatum molle, in the absence of associated histopathological changes. No SARS-CoV antigen expression was detected in other sampled tissues, including brain and intestine.”

This monkey evidently had a great immune system. Do you? Lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, chronic stress and the shots will adversely affect your immune system.

The researchers summarised their findings:

“In summary, we inoculated young and aged cynomolgus macaques with a low-passage clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in productive infection in the absence of overt clin- ical signs.”

“These data show that cynomolgus macaques are permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection, shed virus for a prolonged period of time, and display COVID-19–like disease.”

In summary, they gave some monkeys a mild mostly asymtomatic cold. Not the deadly plague that has been invoked to terrify the human population into compliance.

What these data really show is that a mild self-limiting common cold can be induced in some monkeys (but not all) when their airways are inoculated with an un purified soup of biological material and toxins which they choose to call “SARS-CoV-2”.

These data do not show serious or fatal respiratory or systemic disease caused by this strain of “coronavirus”. These data do not justify lockdowns, social isolation, the destruction of small businesses, tracking and tracing people’s movements, the taking of our freedoms, rights and democracy.

The second paper is titled “Infection with novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causes pneumonia in Rhesus macaques.” and was published in the journal “Cell Research”.

This is another one of the papers used by Facebook “fact checkers” to justify the official Covid 19 narrative and to prove that this disease is real. It once again proves nothing of the sort…

They infected some more poor monkeys with the “deadly” SARS-CoV-2 “coronavirus”. This is what happened:

“No obvious clinical signs were observed during the study course except that one animal showed reduced appetite. All animals investigated did not show body weight changes from 1 to 6 days post infection…Body temperatures were monitored from day1 to day14 and no obvious changes were found.”

One animal went off its food a bit but none of them lost weight and none of them developed a fever. Doesn’t sound too serious, does it? They went on:

“No viral RNA could be detected in blood from day 1 to day 14”

We are led to believe that Covid 19 causes multi-organ systemic serious and fatal disease but it doesn’t even get into the bloodstream? Hmmm:

“No specific viral RNA could be detected in heart, liver, spleen, kidney, intestine, stomach and reproductive tract on day 3 and 6 post infection”

The virus doesn’t infect these internal organs? Hmmm…

“We presume that the respiratory tract is the preliminary target of SARS-CoV-2 infection, while other organs might not be the direct targets.”

So, it’s what we used to call a common cold then…

“After 6 days of infection, the lung lesions of RMs were alleviated, with decrease of monocyte and lymphocyte infiltrations, increase of macrophages, and reduction of edema and hyaline membrane.”

“On day 6 post infection, the mucosal lesions of trachea and bronchus were significantly alleviated and the epithelial cell structure was basically restored, but a small number of monocytes, lymphocytes and eosinophils were still seen in the submucosa.”

So, they have demonstrated a mostly asymptomatic self-limiting common cold that the monkeys recovered from in less than a week. So, what has actually been killing people then? The authors explained:

“A retrospective study in China showed that compared to the recovered group, more patients in the death group exhibited pre-existing comorbidities, dyspnea and decrease of oxygen saturation, characteristics of advanced age.”

They died from old age and pre-existing comorbidities. The elderly and those with pre-existing comorbidities are routinely poisoned to death by their doctors. It’s very profitable. They get cash bonuses for doing it. The elderly and infirm are considered by some to be a burden on society. The Nazis were of the same opinion.

“In another study investigated in China, 1099 COVID-19 cases showed that majority of the cases (84.3%) were non-severe, ~5% of confirmed cases required ICU attendance after severe pneumonia occurred, 2.3% needed mechanical ventilation support, and 1.4% died.”

Prolonged mask wearing is a great way to give yourself “severe pneumonia” and inappropriate mechanical ventilation together with toxic drugs can be lethal. Draconian societal measures don’t seem proportionate to a disease which in 84.3% of cases is non-severe. But I’m not a Chinese Communist so what would I know…

“This animal model has confirmed the causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and respiratory disease in RM reminiscent of the mild respiratory symptom or non-symptomatic cases in COVID-19 already reported in humans.”

They have proven once again that a “coronavirus” can cause a mild common cold, something which has been known for many decades. Where is the proof of serious and life-threatening disease? It doesn’t exist.

What about immunity to this “deadly virus”?

“The neutralizing antibody generated by infection could prevent secondary infection by SARS-CoV-2, which suggested that humoral immunity could play a role in protection, although T cell and innate immune could be further investigated in the future to examine their role in the protection.”

So, they admit that natural immunity is a thing then? Weird how the media don’t think it’s a thing and everyone should get the shots instead. The shots are causing a type of immunodeficiency similar to AIDS but affecting a different cell type. Vaccine induced antibodies to “coronaviruses” are often not protective but due to Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) cause more serious disease.

The third study is another Chinese Communist Party paper that Facebook “fact checkers” love: “Age-related Rhesus Macaque Models of COVID-19.” which was published in the journal “Animal Models and Experimental Medicine.”

They infected some more poor monkeys and…

“Clinical signs were transient and lasted for a few days.”

None of the monkeys developed a fever or died from the infection. Get the picture? See the pattern here?

There is no real evidence that the SARS-CoV2 “virus” causes anything more serious than a mild mostly asymptomatic short-lasting common cold. In fact, there is no real evidence that the virus actually exists except in-silico (on a computer). All of the above studies used a complex mixture of biological and toxic material that has not been properly purified but the researchers refer to this as the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” nevertheless.

Do you really believe that multi-million amounts of money were spent on “gain of function” research to develop such a pathetic damp squib “bioweapon”?

The fatalities and serious illness in humans are due to other causes (often old age) and Covid 19 is a misdiagnosis used to create a pseudo pandemic. The sick globalist psychopaths running the show don’t care whether you believe the gain of function bioweapon narrative or the naturally occurring deadly virus narrative. They only care that you believe in the deadly virus on the loose hoax narrative.

References

1) Shi-Hui Sun et al (2020) “A Mouse Model of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Pathogenesis.” Cell Host Microbe. 2020 Jul 8; 28(1): 124–133.

2) Rockx Barry et al (2020) “Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a nonhuman primate model.” Science 368, 1012–1015 29 May 2020.

3) Shan Chao et al (2020) “Infection with novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causes pneumonia in Rhesus macaques.” Cell Research 30:670–677; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41422-020-0364-z.

4) Yu Pin et al (2020) “Age-related rhesus macaque models of COVID-19.” Animal Model Exp Med. 2020;3:93–97.

Is COVID a Real Virus Created in a Lab or a Mind Virus Created to Control People? David Icke says COVID is a ‘Meaningless New Name for an Old Familiar Cluster of Seasonal Flu-Like Symptoms’

Like “authority,” “government,” “race,” and “money” (monetized debt), the mind virus COVID-19 is a granfalloon enslaving and ensnaring mankind.

FUNKTIONARY explains;

mind viruses – memes with both the anchor and carrier embedded into its payload. Mind viruses are stealth psychopathogens in that they can mutate to penetrate our natural defenses undetected, pretend to be part of us, and compel us to spread them further.(See: Memes, Memetics, Evolution, Religion, Government, Corporate State & Taxation)

Granfalloon – an empty representation, of which one cannot even positively aver that it is even a concept. All Corporate State fictions (stationary bandits) are “created” by its creators as a psychological retro-virus in people’s minds as if it were a real (existential and volitional) entity, the sole purpose of which is to command, mediate, control and subdue the natural inclinations of a sleeping people who do not understand (know) themselves in order that they may silently rob them of their property and mind—under the Great Brain Robbery. The Constitution is a putative agreement or covenant to which you were neither a signatory nor interested party. The Constitution made provisions for the establishment of a Congress. Congress never formally created the so-called Internal Revenue Service as a duly formed agency of the United States of America. The Secretary of the Treasury never created revenue districts in the States of the Union. Internal Revenue Service was never granted authority to tax income of American citizens (or citizens of the United States of America, not U.S. citizens or subjects of Congress) earning money within the 50 States of the Union. The word “income” is not explicitly defined in the Internal Revenue Code (although it is implicitly defined by the most basic of accounting principles, i.e., cost. The income (“money”) that you earn is simply hypothecated “credit” created as iconic numbers within yet another fictitious corporate entity known as a bank. When every foundation is imaginary, alienation becomes desirable but impossible. You can elude the “authorities” but you cannot escape that which simply isn’t real or has no reality to begin with—so just what are any so-called “authorities” agents of anyway? Where are the office and the oath of office? Never fight (oppose) things that are not or ‘what is not’—as you will stratify your energy and dissipate your life-force while paradoxically strengthening what-is-not. Determine whether something has a real existence or whether it is just an absence. If it is an absence—a granfalloon—then don’t fight with “it,” seek the thing of which it is the absence (for), find it and handle your business accordingly. (See: Reification, Stationary Bandits, Territorial Gangsters, Voting, Doggy, Somnamnesiac, Sleepwalking, Corporate State, Income, “Government,” President, SimCult, Authority, Grand Juries, Tax Invasion, “Credit,” Hegelian Banking, Holodeck Court, Judicial Victimization, Statutory Oppression & The Flag)

DC Forces Genocidal COVID Shots on Kids Ages 12+. Law Destroys Rights to Refuse Medical Treatment and Refuse Emergency Use Vaccines. Falsely Claims Vax Slows Spread, Disproportionately Affects Blacks

COVID Injections Don't Immunize or Stop Spread. They're Treatments (Not Vaccines) that feed the Virus and Facilitate its Development into More Variants. The Government IS TRYING TO KILL YOU.

From [HERE] and [HERE] D.C. schools have a new mandate requiring all students 12 and up to receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccine before returning to school this fall.  

In a July 19 press release, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education directed that all students eligible for COVID-19 vaccines according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must receive their vaccines for the 2022-2023 school year.  

The mandate extends to all schools, including private, parochial, and independent. Students must verify their vaccine status as part of enrollment and attendance requirements.  

According to the mandate, all students 12 and up, unless exempted, must have received a series of COVID-19 shots or begun the process of vaccination before the start of the school year. Pursuant to implementing regulations, “School authorities may exclude from regular instruction a student who is not immunized and provide for special instruction for the student.” DCMR 5- 5300.13

With regard to exemptions the new law states, § 38–506. Exemption from certification.

“No certification of immunization shall be required for the admission to a school of a student:

(1) For whom the responsible person objects in good faith and in writing, to the chief official of the school, that immunization would violate his or her religious beliefs; or

(2) For whom the school has written certification by a private physician, his or her representative, or the public health authorities that immunization is medically inadvisable.” D.C. Code § 38–506.

It makes no exception for children with natural immunity.

The legislative record indicates that DC lawmakers were explicitly warned that COVID injections are dangerous to all people. The liberal puppeticians were also aware that the mandate will disproportionately impact Black people. The record states, “In a school system made up of mainly Black students, this Council is determined to override the decision‐making of Black parents about the medical care of their own children. This is pure white supremacy.“ [MORE]

The mandate is part of the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination law passed in D.C. last year. The law required all eligible teachers and students to receive the experimental vaccines.  

NO FULLY APPROVED COVID SHOTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE US. Despite evidence showing the vaccine is more dangerous to children than the virus on July 7th the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC) recently approved the experimental shots for children as young as six months old.  

However, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S for any age group and is not the same formula as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine currently authorized under EUA and being distributed as a “fully approved” vaccine.

That is, all all the shots are Emergency Use, which are legally distinct, not interchangeable w/comirnaty. As such, the only way to comply with the D.C.’s mandate will be children are injected with a shot under an EUA. This is especially important because EUA vaccines bypass the FDA and PHS Act's requirements for safety and efficacy.

Pfizer’s information hotline says it has no specific information on when Comirnaty will be available. The FDA said earlier this month that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be, authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.” The CDC’s website states that Comirnaty is “not orderable.”

According to FDA documents, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S. and nobody has received a fully approved and licensed COVID-19 vaccine.

“Comirnaty has not been made available under EUA,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, physician and senior science editor for The Defender. “The FDA and Pfizer have already stated very quietly, that they have no intent of manufacturing Comirnaty for distribution. Everyone is getting the non-licensed formulation that carries no liability for pharmaceutical companies.” [MORE]

Apparently in the recent case NFIB v. OSHA before the US Supreme Court, it was undisputed by the government that “Comirnaty is not available at all in the United States.”

The distinction between an EUA and an FDA-approved product matters. In particular, the FDA's grant of EUA requires little, if any, demonstration that the EUA product is safe and effective. Nor does the EUA include FDA review or approval of manufacturing processes, facilities, storage, distribution, or quality control procedures. This is why the FDA has acknowledged the products are "legally distinct.'' [MORE] and [MORE]

An amicus brief filed by Defending The Republic (DTR) in NFIB v. OSHA importantly pointed out the following;

Important Differences Between EUA and FDA-Approved Vaccines

“There are significant differences between the FDA's approval standards and the EUA standards. EUA vaccines require little to no proof of safety or efficacy. FDA vaccine approvals do.

The FDA may grant an EUA where: (1) the HHS Secretary has declared a public health emergency that justifies the use of an EUA, see 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(b)(1); and (2) the FDA finds that "there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating" the disease in question. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c)(3).

The differences between licensed vaccines and those subject to an EUA render them "legally distinct." First, the requirements for efficacy are much lower for EUA products than for licensed products. EUAs require only a showing that, based on scientific evidence "if available," "it is reasonable to believe," the product "may be effective" in treating or preventing the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(A).

Second, the safety requirements are minimal, requiring only that the FDA conclude that the "known and potential benefits ... outweigh the known and potential risks" of the product, considering the risks of the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(B). There is no requirement that the FDA know the potential risks of the product.

In comparison, vaccines that go through traditional FDA review typically take 10 years or more to reach approval. And the approval process compiles more information on the risks of the vaccine, gathered through lab testing and clinical trials, "to assess the safety and effectiveness of each vaccine.''

The Right to Refuse an EUA Vaccine

The FDA's grant of an EUA is subject to informed consent requirements to "ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed" that they have "the option to accept or refuse administration of the product." 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).

For the three COVID-19 vaccines, FDA implemented the "option to accept or refuse" condition described in Section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) in each letter granting the EUA by requiring that FDA's "Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers" be made available to every potential vaccine recipient. These include the statement that the recipient "has the option to accept or refuse" the vaccine. Moreover, the EUA label itself must expressly state that the recipient has a "right to refuse" administration of the EUA product.

Informed Consent Rights

The norm of informed consent has been "firmly embedded" in U.S. law and FDA regulations for nearly 60 years. Adullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 182 (2d Cir. 2009). Congress first enacted this requirement in 1962 drawing on the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, "which suggests the government conceived of these sources' articulation of the norm as a binding legal obligation." Adullahi, 562 F.3d at 182. Informed consent requirements are a cornerstone of FDA rules governing human medical experimentation. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. §§ 50.20, 50.23-.25, 50.27, 312.20, 312.120 (2008); 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.111, 46.116-117.

EUA and FDA Licensed Products do not have the "Same Formulation" and are not "Interchangeable"

The EUA and licensed versions of Pfizer- BioNTech do not have the "same formulation" as revealed by a simple inspection of the Pfizer Vaccine EUA letters and the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action (SBRA) for Comirnaty. Thus, they cannot be treated as "interchangeable," because there is no legal basis to administer an EUA product as if it were the FDA-licensed product. By definition, they are different.

There is no evidence in the public record for finding that the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and FDA-licensed Comirnaty have the "same formulation." There is, however, ample evidence for finding that they do not. The most detailed information on Comirnaty's composition, manufacturing process, manufacturing locations and other matters approved by the FDA is included in the FDA Comirnaty SBRA, nearly all of which is redacted, while most of this information was never made available in the Pfizer- BioNTech EUA applications or authorizations. To the extent such information is available, it reveals differences in the composition of the EUA and the licensed product. There is also no dispute that the FDA EUA does not address manufacturing processes or locations, which are addressed in the Comirnaty license.

For the same reasons, the public record does not support any argument that the two admittedly "legally distinct" products are "interchangeable." "Interchangeable" and "interchangeability" are specifically defined terms in Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act ("PHS Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 262, in relation to a "reference product," which is a biological product licensed under Section 351(a) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262(a). For the purposes of determining "interchangeability," the "reference product" must be an FDA-licensed product; in this case, the FDA- licensed Comirnaty Vaccine. But the "interchangeable" product, the EUA BioNTech Vaccine, must be the subject of a later filed "abbreviated" application under 42 U.S.C. § 262(k), and there is no indication that any such application was ever filed by BioNTech, much less reviewed or approved by the FDA.

Any "interchangeability" determination would therefore reverse the temporal order of the COVID-19 licensed product and the interchangeable product. The reference product under 42 U.S.C. § 262(a) is the first licensed product, and therefore the basis for determining the interchangeability of the later product (i.e., the generic or EUA product). Here, however, the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine is the earlier product, while the licensed Comirnaty is the latter product; the earlier EUA product cannot rely on the FDA's safety and efficacy determinations for Comirnaty. Thus, an "interchangeability" determination would be a transparent attempt to retroactively license the earlier EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine, solely for the purpose of enabling the unlawful vaccine mandate.

Moreover, "FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before [FDA] approval." Austin, 2021 WL 5816632, at *6. Any EUA-labeled vaccines manufactured before licensure and "vaccines produced after August 23 in unapproved facilities--remain 'product[s] authorized for emergency use,"' i.e., EUA rather than licensed products. Id. In any case, such a post hoc interchangeability determination should not even be considered by the Court. "An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted." DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1909 (2020). [MORE]

COVID Shots Don't Prevent Infection or Transmission. As such, they are Treatments Not Vaccines; and People Have a Right to Refuse Medical Treatment. Mandates Violate Rights/Equal Protection.

At any rate COVID injections are not actually vaccines because they do not create immunity. The injections are treatments. As such, individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment.

Prosecute Now explains, 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.'

The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.

The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law. [MORE]

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.’'

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.

That is, the CDC eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” The CDC apparently did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19. 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.

Even the FDA has classified them as "CBER-Regulated Biologics" otherwise known as "therapeutics" which fall under the "Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.’'

The medical community, the relevant agencies, and both Pfizer and Moderna -- the manufacturers of the dominant injections -- recognize that the so-called 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.''

This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which individuals have a fundamental human right to refuse. [MORE]

As explained by Dr. Devan Griner’s complaint against the CMS mandate,

“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).

It further explained,

As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.

No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.

The Injections may have been somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV- 2 strain, but that strain has come and gone, and the Injections—designed to fight yesterday’s threat—are simply ineffective against the current variant.

Since the Injections are ineffective against the Delta and Omicron viral variants, and the original variant has been supplanted, there can be no compelling interest to mandate their use at this time.”

But even if there were a compelling interest in mandating the Injections, the CMS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.

The blanket mandate ignores individual factors increasing or decreasing the risks that the plaintiff—indeed, all healthcare workers—pose to themselves or to others.

Defendants entirely disregard whether employees have already obtained natural immunity despite the fact that natural immunity does actually provide immunity whereas the Injections do not.

Treating all employees the same, regardless of their individual medical status, risk factors, and natural immunity status is not narrowly tailored.

Moreover, the CMS Mandate fails entirely to consider other existing treatment options beyond the Injections as part of a more narrowly tailored approach. 97. Given these facts, as more fully set forth above, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Alternatively, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law as to Plaintiff, who already has natural immunity.” [MORE]

Eight-year-old Boy Dies after Receiving COVID Injection in Mexico

From [HERE] An eight-year-old boy reportedly died on Sunday July 10, after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine five days earlier in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca.

The family of the eight-year-old boy reported the child died after receiving the COVID vaccine on July 5, resulting in symptoms such as a fever, that got progressively worse.

Due to his deteriorating health, an ambulance was called, which took him to a nearby hospital, where hours later, his death was announced.

Family members claim that the child died as a result of the vaccine and the symptoms he had suffered.

The death was confirmed by the Secretary of Health of the state of Oaxaca, Virginia Sanchez, and reported that “there is already an investigation to find out the causes of the child’s death”.

“It is several days after the child received the vaccine, so there will be a thorough investigation into what really caused his death,” she added.

The epidemiology unit will carry out a full autopsy as well as an investigation in to the death of the young child.

The news follows the FDA granting Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine full approval for use in adolescents, on Sunday, July 10.

The FDA said the approval followed a rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data conducted. [MORE]

'We See People with Bad Colds. None with Severe COVID Disease.’ LA Hospital Officials say Media Reports About a Rising Threat and Hospitalizations are Inaccurate; 90% of COVID Positive Not Admitted

From [HERE] Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center (LAC+USC) officials Thursday slammed claims that COVID hospitalizations are rising, a claim being used by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to likely return to mask mandates by the end of the month. 

“With the coronavirus resurgent and cases and hospitalizations on the rise, Los Angeles is poised to become the first Southern California county to reinstate mandatory public indoor masking,” reported the Los Angeles Times Friday. 

But LAC+USC Chief Medical Officer Brad Spielberg says that as far as hospitalizations go, everything is pretty much the same at the 600-bed hospital. 

“It’s just the same,” he said in a video alongside LAC+USC CEO Jorge Orozco and epidemiologist Paul Holtom. “It’s been the same. It’s been like two months of the same.” Spielberg shared graphs showing how hospitalizations have largely plateaued, even though cases are going up. 

“The numbers at LAC: COVID-positive tests continue to go up, but this isn’t because we’re seeing a ton of people with symptomatic disease getting admitted.” 

In fact, said Spielberg, not only are very few patients being admitted due to COVID, but even those few are not being put on ventilators.  

“We’re seeing a lot of people with mild disease in urgent care or ED who do not get admitted, and of those who are admitted, they’re 90% of the time not admitted due to COVID,” he continued. “Only 10% of our COVID-positive admissions are admitted due to COVID. Virtually none of them go to the ICU, and when they do go to the ICU, it is not for pneumonia. They’re not intubated . . . we haven’t seen one of those since February. It’s been months." 

“It is just not the same pandemic as it was, despite all the media hype to the contrary,” he confirmed. “A lot of people have bad colds is what we’re seeing.” 

“I’m going to really have to work to burst that soothiness bubble,” Holtom then chimed in. “Maybe we can turn to the media which is trying to burst that bubble by talking about a new variant in India that is sweeping the country.” 

Holtom echoed Spielberg’s statement that cases are going up due to more people testing positive, but cautioned against taking the numbers too seriously. 

“Although, we have to understand that first of all, most of that data is completely incomprehensible because at the moment many, many people are testing at home and most people are not reporting those tests in. So no one has any idea actually how many people are testing positive at any point.” 

“We’re just seeing nobody with severe COVID disease,” he continued. "As of this morning, we have no one in the hospital who had pulmonary disease due to COVID. Nobody in the hospital. We have 24 people who have tested positive for COVID but nobody, nobody who had COVID-19 disease as we would see in the past." 

Rule Thru Fabricated Emergency: Without Public Input, Review or Vote an Unelected Health Director in LA Uses Her Unilateral Authority to Declare a Useless Mask Mandate Using Science-Free Metrics

From [HERE] Los Angeles County health director Barbara Ferrer just declared that the county was in a “high” level of Covid transmission. She is an unelected administrative official who was appointed to her position. Apparently, she has the unilateral authority to declare “an emergency” and then issue orders to the public without any public input or review. As with all laws, the public has a moral and legal duty to obey or face some form of punishment for non-compliance. Apparently, “the emergency rule” will last as long as she deems fit.

While health officers nationwide are largely shying away from new restrictions Los Angeles County health officials hope that forcing people to mask up will curb the virus’s spread as well as growing hospitalization and death rates.

Ferrer has declared that the mask mandate will take effect July 29 absent a sudden turnaround in Covid tracking metrics. It would apply to indoor shops, offices, events, schools and more. The order would be rescinded once case levels begin to drop again.

At a recent press conference, Brad Spellberg, chief medical officer of Los Angeles County and epidemiologist Paul Holtom rebuked the corporate media and took a swipe at the government’s terror tactics.

“It is just not the same pandemic that it was, despite all the media hype to the contrary… Spellberg said. “I mean – a lot of people have bad colds is what we’re seeing.

one day after Barbara Ferrer tried to con Los Angeles into further oppression, epidemiologist Paul Holtom spoke at a press conference, rebuking the narrative. “As of this morning, we have no one in the hospital who had pulmonary disease due to Covid. Nobody in the hospital….NOBODY.”

Chief Medical Officer Brad Spellberg presented the actual case data and hospital admission data. “The numbers at [LAC+USC] Covid-positive tests have continued to go up, but this isn’t because we’re seeing a ton of people with symptomatic disease being admitted,” Spellberg said. “We’re seeing a lot of people with mild disease in urgent care and [emergency department] who go home and do not get admitted.”

“Of those who are admitted, they’re 90% of the time not admitted due to Covid. Only 10% of our Covid-positive admissions are admitted due to Covid. Virtually none of them go to the ICU, and when they do go to the ICU, it is not for pneumonia. They are not intubated.”

Spellberg iterated that it has been “months” since the hospital has seen a COVID cases that requires ICU admission. He said the COVID ICU admissions usually present with an “auto-immune attack of the nerves that may or may not be Covid-driven.”

Hospital administrators have complied with a fraudulent narrative for far too long

When covid-19 propaganda and medical tyranny first swept the nation, hospital CEOs and administrators largely kept their mouths shut. Lock downs ensued, and people across the nation did not receive critical health care services in their time of need. Patients were unduly isolated from their families and subjected to deadly remdesivir, sedation and ventilator protocols. These issues are still taking place in hospitals nationwide.

A “national state of emergency” allowed hospitals to enjoy financial incentives every time a fraudulently-calibrated PCR test presented false evidence for a covid-19 diagnosis. Under this medical tyranny, a patient’s true cause of death does not matter. If covid-19 is “suspected” or “could not be ruled out,” it is codified as the cause of death. Worse, this ongoing “national emergency” allows hospital staff to enjoy indemnity from medical error and iatrogenic death — which is one of the top causes of death in the US.

The PREP Act enabled the Department of Health and Human Services to issue broad immunity protections to health care professionals who administer or use countermeasures during the national state of emergency. The CARES Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, provided federal liability protections for volunteer health care professionals. The Biden regime renewed the medical tyranny and signed a new decree in February of 2022, allowing the national state of emergency and all of its liability protections to persist. [MORE]

MASKS ARE USELESS AND MAY HARM YOU

The evidence that masking healthy people in community settings reduces viral transmission is – at best – weak and contradictory. Face masks do not reduce covid cases. [MORE] and [MORE] and [MORE] At least 400 studies show face masks don’t work, meaning they are useless [MORE] and [MORE] New studies show masks may harm people by making COVID worse [MORE]

It is intriguing that a sphere of society where one might reasonably expect a reliance upon evidence-based practice is now the outlier in persisting with the unscientific and pervasively damaging mass-masking phenomenon. After all, a piece of ill-fitting cloth or plastic does not transform into an impermeable viral barrier, or shed its associated harms, by virtue of crossing the threshold of a hospital or health centre. It seems that doctors, nurses and allied-health professionals are becoming culturally wedded to masks, a symbolic gesture to demonstrate a united team – patient and staff – fighting against a virus. It is hugely concerning that this ideological trend ignores a fundamental tenet: a positive relationship between professional and patient is a necessary ingredient of a healing environment, and such a therapeutic alliance is much more difficult to achieve when access to facial expressions is denied.[MORE]

Prior to facemask mandates as an alleged preventive for Covid infection and transmission, such masks were infrequently worn in hospitals and other medical facilities. They were only used in operating theatres or for visiting seriously ill patients in order to prevent infection from spit or droplets into open wounds or to partially protect visitors from acquiring and transmitting pathogens more dangerous than Covid.

No studies were needed to justify this practice since most understood viruses were far too small to be stopped by the wearing of most masks, other than sophisticated ones designed for that task and which were too costly and complicated for the general public to properly wear and keep changing or cleaning. It was also understood that long mask wearing was unhealthy for wearers for common sense and basic science reasons.

There has been an international flood of lies about mask wearing in order to justify the bizarre and disturbing situation we have today of almost everyone wearing masks in many regions, inside and outside healthcare facilities, in schools with children of all ages, during sports events, in churches, in grocery stores and all commercial facilities, while driving and walking, and long after peak infection has passed. [MORE]

Dr. Michael Yeardon explains, masks are “mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others' masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you're told, even if the measure is useless.

We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.

Cloth masks definitely don't stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.

Some people speak of "source control" catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?

It's not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don't do anything.

Many don't know that blue medical masks aren't filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that's all. [MORE]

Researchers Find High Bacterial, Fungal Counts in Face Masks - fungi continues to grow and accumulate with usage

From [MERCOLA] and [HERE] In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers found high counts of both fungi and bacteria on face masks worn by the study subjects. On the face side, bacterial colonies were found in 99% of the samples. On the outer side, bacterial colonies were found in 94% of samples.

Researchers found fungal colonies in 79% of the face-side samples and 95% of the outer sides. While the bacteria tended to die off after the masks were removed, the fungi continued to grow and accumulate with usage.

Bacterial counts also were higher in males’ masks than females’.

Researchers said, “Since masks can be a direct source of infection to the respiratory tract, digestive tract, and skin, it is crucial to maintain their hygiene to prevent bacterial and fungal infections that can exacerbate COVID-19.” [MORE]