Offering an Allegedly Better Plantation w/Much Better Masters, Winsome Sears Wants Black Voters to Join the GOP. The Real Question is WTF Would Anyone Prefer Having a Master Over a World of Equals?

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Black Conservative - a lost sheep in master's clothing. A black conservative typically has nothing of his own to conserve with the exception of his or her own double-consciousness. So-called "Black Conservatives" dodge the reality of their folly and posit is that what they truly are conserving is traditional "values" as if values ever had anything whatsoever to do with morality or ethics. A black conservative unknowingly preserves the differential power-relations and dynamics between those of African descent he and their bosses, the overruling overclass elite. A black conservative is a turncoat made of wooly hair with no one to turn to tie because when it comes to empowering his own people, his master will turn to him say: "Get your hat, your robe and coat and leave—you're still just a nigger Clarence!" (See: Sambo, Nigger, Somnamnesiac, Values, Status Quo, Strawboss, Double Consciousness, Overclass, Uncle Tom. Status-Quoticians & Assimilationism)

The incoming lieutenant governor of Virginia was an unlikely candidate: a deeply conservative Black woman, and an immigrant, who supports Donald Trump. She will take office on Jan. 15, along with Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin.

The focus on Ms. Sears’s triumph, in news profiles and in the post-election crowing of conservative pundits, has been on the rare combination of her biography and politics: a Black woman, an immigrant and an emphatically conservative, Trump-boosting Republican.

“The message is important,” Ms. Sears, 57, said over a lunch of Jamaican oxtail with her transition team at a restaurant near the State Capitol. “But the messenger is equally important.”

This is the question that Ms. Sears embodies: whether she is a singular figure who won a surprise victory or the vanguard of a major political realignment, dissolving longtime realities of race and partisan identification. Democrats say there is little evidence for the latter, and that Ms. Sears won with typical Republican voters in an especially Republican year. But Ms. Sears insists that many Black and immigrant voters naturally side with Republicans on a variety of issues — and that some are starting to realize that.

“The only way to change things is to win elections,” she said. “And who better to help make that change but me? I look like the strategy.” [MORE]

Black conservatives call the Democratic party a plantation because it is - but so is the GOP. Elites maintain both plantations for all people. All statists (dems, GOP, libertarians, green, whatever believe in “authority”) want and need a master to obey. FUNKTIONARY explains,

Statism - the belief "citizens"' and "states" exist and the memetic thought patterns supporting such beliefs. 2) the religion of oppression and domination coupled with the science of exploitation and sociopathic control. 3) the opiate of the so-called Elites. 4) a philosophy that idealizes majority rule gang force (authority) over individual authenticity (autonomy). 5) servitude over liberty and statutes over humanity. [MORE]

Undeceiver Larken Rose explains, “There is a big difference between striving for a new, wiser, nobler master, and striving for a world of equals, where there are no masters and no slaves. Likewise, there is a big difference between a slave who believes in the principle of freedom, and a slave whose ultimate goal is to become the new master. And this is true, even if that slave truly intends to be a kind and generous master . . . As long as the people believe in the myth of “authority,” every downfall of one tyrant will be followed by the creation and growth of a new tyrant.“

Larken Rose further explains; 

"Among those who vote Democrat or Republican – or for any other party – no one recognizes the underlying problem, and as a result, no one ever gets any closer to a solution. They remain slaves, because their thoughts and discussions are limited to the pointless question of who should be their master. They never consider – and dare not allow themselves to consider – the possibility that they should have no master at all. As a result, they focus entirely on political action of one kind or another, But the foundation of all political action is the belief in “authority,” which is the problem itself So the efforts of statists are, and always will be, doomed to fail.

Unfortunately, this is also true of the less mainstream, supposedly more pro-freedom “political movements,” including Constitutionalists, the Libertarian party, and others. As long as they think and act within the confines of the “government” game, their efforts are not only completely incapable of solving the problem but actually aggravate the problem by inadvertently legitimizing the system of domination and subjugation which wears the label of “government.”

The Rules of the Game

Even most people who claim to love liberty and to believe in “unalienable” rights allow the superstition of “authority” to drastically limit their effectiveness. Most of what such people do, in one way or another, consists of asking tyrants to change their “laws.” Whether activists campaign for or against a particular candidate, or lobby for or against a particular piece of “legislation,” they are merely reinforcing the assumption that obedience to authority is a moral imperative.

When activists try to convince politicians to decrease “taxes,” or repeal some “law,” those activists are implicitly admitting that they need permission from their masters in order to be free, And the man who “runs for office,” promising to fight for the people, is also implying that it is up to those in “government” to decide what the peasants will be allowed to do. As Daniel Webster put it, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern; they promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Activists spend huge amounts of time, money and effort begging their masters to change their commands. Many even go out of their way to stress the fact that they are “working within the system,” and that they are not advocating anything “illegal.” This shows that, regardless of their displeasure with those in power, they still believe in the myth of “authority,” and will cooperate with “legal” injustice unless and until they can convince the masters to change the rules – to “legalize” justice. While the intended message of dissenters may be that they disapprove of what the masters are doing, the actual message that all political action sends to those in power is “We wish you would change your commands, but we will continue to obey whether you do or not.” The truth is, one who seeks to achieve freedom by petitioning those in power to give it to him has already failed, regardless of the response. To beg for the blessing of “authority” is to accept that the choice is the master’s alone to make, which means that the person is already, by definition, a slave.

One who begs for lower “taxes” is implicitly agreeing that it is up to the politicians how much a man may keep of what he has earned. One who begs the politicians not to disarm him (via “gun control”) is, by doing so, conceding that it is up to the master whether to let the man be armed or not. In fact, those who lobby for politicians to respect any of the people’s “unalienable rights” do not believe in unalienable rights at all. Rights which require “government” approval are not unalienable, and are not even rights. They are privileges, granted or withheld at the whim of the master. And those who hold positions of power know that they have nothing to fear from people who do nothing but pathetically beg for freedom and justice, However loudly the dissenters talk about “demanding” their rights, the message they actually send is this: “We agree, master, that it is up to you what we may and may not do.”

That underlying message can be seen in all sorts of activities mistakenly imagined to be forms of resistance. For example, people often engage in protests in front of “government” buildings, carrying signs, chanting slogans, sometimes even engaging in violence, to express their displeasure with what the masters are doing. However, even such “protests,” for the most part, do little more than reinforce authoritarianism. Marches, sit-ins, protests, and so on, are designed to send a message to the masters, the goal being to convince the masters to change their evil ways. But that message still implies that it is up to the masters what the people may do, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: when the people feel beholden to an “authority,” they are beholden to an “authority.” Those in “government” derive all of their power from the fact that their subjects imagine them to have power.

Legitimizing Oppression

The harder people try to work within any political system to achieve freedom, the more they will reinforce, in their own minds and the minds of anyone watching, that the “system” is legitimate. Petitioning politicians to change their “laws” implies that those “laws” matter, and should be obeyed. Nothing better shows the power of the belief in “authority” than the spectacle of a hundred million people begging a few hundred politicians for lower “taxes.” If the people truly understood that the fruits of a man’s labor are his own, they would never engage in such lunacy; they would simply stop surrendering their property to the political parasites. Their trained-in desire to have the approval of “authority” creates in them a mindset not unlike the mindset of a slave: they literally feel bad about keeping their own money and making their own choices without

first getting the master’s permission to do so. Even when freedom is theirs for the taking, statists continue to grovel at the feet of megalomaniacs, begging for freedom, thus ensuring that they will never be free.

The truth is, one cannot believe in “authority” and be free, because accepting the myth of “government” is accepting one’s own obligation to obey a master, which means accepting one’s own enslavement. Sadly, many people believe that begging the master, via “political action,” is all they can do, So they forever engage in rituals which only legitimize the slave-master relationship, instead of simply disobeying the tyrants. The idea of disobeying “authority,” “breaking the law,” and being “criminals” is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave.

Those who want a significantly lower level of authoritarian control and coercion are sometimes accused of being “anti-government,” an allegation most vehemently deny, saying that they are not against “government” per se, but only want better “government.” But by their own words they are admitting that they do not believe in true freedom, but still believe in the Divine Right of Politicians and the idea that a ruling class can be a good and legitimate thing. Only someone who still feels an abiding obligation to obey the commands of politicians would want to avoid being labeled “anti-government.” Since “government” always consists of aggression and domination, one cannot be truly pro- freedom without being anti-”government.” The fact that so many activists reject that label (”anti-government”) shows how deeply ingrained the superstition of “authority” remains, even in the minds of those who imagine themselves to be ardent advocates of individual liberty.

(One particularly fascinating phenomenon is worth mentioning here. Outraged by authoritarian injustice, but still unwilling to give up the “authority” superstition in themselves, many in the growing freedom/militia/”patriot” movement continue to seek, or claim to have found, some “legal” remedy which will persuade tyrants to leave them in peace. Over the years, one theory after another has surfaced alleging the existence of some secret “government” form, or some “legal” trick, or some official procedure, which can free an individual from the control of “government.” Sadly, this demonstrates only that such people are still doing nothing more than looking for a way to get permission to be free. But the road to true freedom has never been, and will never be, a new political ritual, a new “legal” document or argument, or any other form of “political” action. The only road to true freedom is for the individual to let go of his own attachment to the superstition of “authority.”)" 

Speaking for the Real Dems and the Willing-Slave Community, RecogNegro Michael Nutter Wants to Lock Up More Blacks [Racists Need NGHRS (and vice-versa) to maintain consensual Master/Servant Relations]

From [HERE] When Larry Krasner, Philadelphia’s liberal district attorney, was asked this month about the city’s crime surge that includes an unprecedented 550 homicides this year, he said. “We don’t have a crisis of crime. We don’t have a crisis of violence.” Since then neuropeon and neuropean Dems and Republicans, who are obsessed with crime statistics in Black communities, have pretended to be super upset about it, as part of their general overall interest in the well being of Black people. Only a gullible NGHR would believe that racists have real concern about any Black community. Racist republicans and liberals always propagandize Black crime. Dr. Amos Wilson kept it real:

"Given the historical and contemporary virulence of White racism in America and the injustice toward Blacks that such racism engenders, the number of arrests, incarcerations, and in many instances, convictions of Black males should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. The willingness of White Americans to heavily tax themselves in order to finance accelerated and increased prison construction, rapidly expanding police forces and so-called criminal justice system personnel, burgeoning private police and security establishments; their willingness to finance the incarcera­tion of a Black male prisoner upwards of $30,000 to $40,000 per year, in sharp contrast to their unwillingness to tax themselves to provide for the appropriate funding of the education of Black children and to commit themselves to the ending of racist employment practices; to provide adequate housing medical care, food and clothing; clearly implies that alleged Black male criminality plays a very important role in defining the collective White American ego and personality.”

Krasner, who is White, has been an ally of Black leaders pushing for changes to the criminal justice system, but SNAG Michael Nutter, a former Philadelphia mayor who is African American, erupted at Krasner, accusing him of dismissing the pain of Black residents who suffer from the violence while purporting to support them.

“It all goes back to supremacy, paternalism. 'I’m woke. I’m paying attention. I spend a lot of time with Black people. Some of my best friends … ’ All that bulls---," Nutter said in an interview. “And so you get a guy like Larry Krasner who is the great White hope and ‘I’m gonna ride in on a white horse with a white hat.’ ”

A safe-negro writer at the liberal Wash Post wrote, “It was a jarring rebuke of one Democrat by another. But it also laid bare a broader turbulence within the party and the progressive movement, as those pushing a message of racial equity sometimes do so with a zeal or tone that fails to resonate with portions of the Black or Latino communities. The dynamic is even more fraught when those ideas are championed by White leaders.'"

As opposed to a “black” leader like Nutter? lol, wtf makes Nutter black? Said negro writer sounds well trained by his elite masters, the same way Nutter was. Nutter, is a recognegro Sambo, basically a creation of elite whites, whose last poll numbers among Blacks in Phili were abysmal. Nutter functions as a proxymoron who speaks on behalf of his racist, moronic masters in the Democratic party. A major goal of racism white supremacy is to place Black men in greater confinement. Krasner, apparently is opposed to that but racists and NGHRS like Nutter are not.

Dr. Amos Wilson explains, "Alleged Black criminality, while evoking White American fear and loathing, reassures them of their vaunted self-worth, their assumed innately superior moral standing, of their self-congratulatory self-constraint in contrast with presumed Black American unworthiness, innate inferior moral standing, inherent criminality, lack of self-constraint and self-control.

White America's self-appreciation is enhanced as it insatiably feeds on overblown reports about Black criminality while denying its own incomparable criminal record, and its own racist-imperialist incubation and giving birth to the very same criminal forces which now threaten to destroy it.

Black criminals function as a negative reference group vital to maintaining the White American self-image. The Black criminal is used to support the White American community's self-serving, self-justifying judgments of itself. White America's preoccupation with Black criminality betrays its own need for reassurance; betrays its own basic insecurity regarding its projected moral purity. Consequently, the higher the incidence of reported Black criminality, the more exceptionally righteous White America feels itself to be. The more righteous it feels itself to be the more intensely and guiltlessly it promulgates and justifies its domination and exploitation of African peoples at home and abroad. [MORE]

Alleged Black criminality plays a very important role in defining the collective White American ego and personality. [MORE] Racists project criminality upon Blacks in order to treat Blacks criminally and to simultaneously empower themselves. Wilson states, such maneuvers are necessary in order to justify racist White American community's repression of African Americans and psychodynamically defend the collective White American ego complex. [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY defines:

Negro - a man or woman of Afrikan descent living in pathological mental state of cultural abstinence and historical amnesia— one who wants to impress his or her oppressor while ignoring the effects and plight that his or her accommodationist posture inures. 2) a Hanky-head. 3) an indigenous-to-the-land (American) Afrikan who does everything in his or her power to suppress or pretend that he or she is other than someone of recent Afrikan descent. 4) ethnicity-denying, assimilated and confused Afrikans indigenous to America. 5) one who truly believes he or she is white American—masquerading in black face. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's a Negro after all? (See: Snigger, Rentellectual, McNegro & Negropolitan)

Dr. Phil Valentine: "It Has Come To an End... It's Over"

The link between 5G and COVID: Is There Evidence that Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation from 5G is Harmful to People? Can 5G Frequency Cause COVID like Symptoms or Affect Levels of Oxygen?

[MORE]

Doctors Release Public Statement: COVID Poses a Negligible Risk of Permanent Harm to Otherwise Healthy Persons, No Empirical Evidence Exists to Show Healthy Asymptomatic People Spread It

Summary

This expert statement makes the case that

• the WHO’s act of declaring COVID-19 a “pandemic” was unjustified;

• COVID-19 poses a negligible risk of permanent harm to otherwise healthy persons, particularly those of young age;

• no empirical evidence exists to support the use of masks, social distancing, or lock-downs to prevent the spread of COVID;

• empirical evidence does exist to show that healthy people do not infect others with COVID;

• lock-downs, school closures and other scientifically baseless ‘pandemic control measures’ have devastating effects on the mental health of our children.

Measures such as lock-downs, mask mandates, and school closures are therefore unsupportable and should be revoked.

From Michael Palmer MD and Sucharit Bhakdi MD [PDF]

1. The misconception of the “COVID-19 emergency”

The WHO issued its declaration of a “pandemic” on March 11th, 2020. Considering that less than two weeks before that date the number of “cases” reported worldwide had been only 80,000 [1], this declaration was strangely premature. However, this low case number is not the only thing that was amiss with this “emergency.”

1.1. The WHO’s criteria for calling a “pandemic” are flawed

British Medical Journal editor Peter Doshi has pointed out that, shortly before Swine Flu was declared a “pandemic” in 2009, the WHO had redefined its criteria for making such a declaration [2]. According to Doshi, as of 2003 the now defunct WHO Pandemic Preparedness homepage had contained the following statement:

An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.

A definition that includes “enormous numbers of death and illness” is certainly in keeping with the general understanding of the term “pandemic,” considering that it is commonly used in connection with the “Black Death” of the Middle Ages or with the Spanish Flu of 1918. However, the WHO’s revised definition from 2009 does not contain any reference to deaths or disease severity. As of that year, the same WHO web page merely stated: 

An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.

Nor do death or clinical disease severity receive any mention in the more detailed definition given by the WHO’s 2009 guidance document on influenza epidemics, which is currently still available [3]. Accordingly, pursuant to these guidelines, any new strain of influenza could be declared a “pandemic,” whether or not it results in significant surplus mortality and morbidity.

Considering the far-reaching and detrimental consequences for commerce, international travel etc., it should go without saying that declaring a pandemic is disproportionate and unjustified when the disease in question is merely widespread but not severe. Exactly this kind of malfeasance, however, has occurred in the case of COVID-19: a pandemic was declared by the WHO, and subsequently by the governments of the world, without regard for clinical severity.

1.2. All-cause mortality soared only shortly after the declaration of the COVID-19 “pandemic,” not before

Figure 1: All-cause mortality in New York city and in Texas, before and after the declaration of the COVID-19 “pandemic” by the WHO (red vertical line). A sharp yet short-lived spike occurred in New York City immediately after the declaration, whereas no such event manifested itself in Texas. Before the declaration, all-cause mortality for the winter 2019/20 had been tracking significantly lower than two years before; the higher mortality rate during that previous winter season was due to a worldwide outbreak of influenza that was not declared a pandemic. Graphics taken from Figures 8 and 10 in [4].

Rancourt has examined the correlation in time between the WHO’s declaration of the “pandemic” and all-cause mortality in various jurisdictions [4]. Immediately after the declaration, there occurred a sharp peak in all-cause mortality in some jurisdictions, but not in others; this discrepancy is illustrated in Figure 1 for New York City and Texas.

Common sense and historic precedents suggest that a deadly virus pandemic would not respect international or state borders. Furthermore, if the virus had indeed been both deadly and truly novel, the wave of deaths in New York should not have subsided within such a short time period as is apparent from Figure 1. Thus, as Rancourt convincingly argues, any peaks in mortality were most likely caused by government malfeasance, which led to consequences such as the rapid spread of the infection in senior homes. In the case of New York, this has led to the filing of criminal complaints against former governor Andrew Cuomo.

1.3. Mortality due to COVID-19 is very low except in the frail and elderly

In the vast majority of people (≥ 99.8% globally), an infection with SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is non-lethal [5–7]. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness with a case fatality rate similar to that of influenza (see again Figure 1 for context). The relationship of COVID mortality with age is illustrated in Figure 2. Panel A very clearly shows that mortality is vanishingly small in the young and middle-aged. Moreover, even among the elderly, almost all fatal cases occur in people with co-morbidities. In Italy, the average age at the time of death was above 80 years, and only 0.8% of all fatal cases suffered from none of the 10 most common co-morbidities [8]. University of Hamburg forensic pathologist Prof. Klaus Püschel reviewed over 100 autopsies on patients at his institution whose deaths had been ascribed to COVID-19, and he concluded that not one of them had died due to COVID alone [9].

Figure 2: COVID mortality, number of cases, and infection fatality rate by age group. A: Total cases reported to the Robert Koch Institute as of July 13þ, 2021, and mortality per age group, based on 2018 census numbers [10]. B: Infection fatality rates by age in various countries. Adapted from Figure 3 in [11].

The collective findings can be summarized as follows: in otherwise healthy persons of all ages, COVID-19 poses a negligible risk of death or of severe disease with irreversible harm.

1.4. The misconception of the “pandemic” was implanted and perpetuated with inappropriate testing practices

From the very beginning, the number of COVID “cases” was artificially inflated by the inappropriate use of the PCR test. There are two key aspects to this misuse of the technique:

• the calibration of the method is inadequate; in particular, the number of amplification cycles is excessive;

• the application of the PCR test to healthy (“asymptomatic”) people, for example in connection with travel. This could not but generate a large number of false positive test results, which were then elevated to “cases.”

For further detail pertaining to this question, please refer to Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer’s separately submitted PCR expertise.

1.5. Flattening which curve?

When the first restrictions such as masks, “social distancing,” and lock-downs were imposed on the public, they were justified with the purported need to “flatten the curve,” that is, to slow down the spread of the virus so as to distribute clinically severe cases in time and thereby avoid the overload of hospitals with grave COVID cases. Media outlets such as the Canadian CBC propped up this narrative with invented stories about overflowing hospitals; see for example the fraudulent CBC story about triage of patients in the parking lot of the hospital in Steinbach, Manitoba—a reporter from another media outlet who investigate on-site found both the parking lot and the hallways of the hospital deserted [12].

In the real world, emergency room visits and hospital admissions declined after the declaration of the “pandemic;” this was consistently reported from various countries [13–17]. The reason for the decline was likely a general reluctance in the population to seek medical assistance, for fear of being infected with the supposedly deadly virus at the hospital. The decline was not offset by any proportional numbers of actual severe COVID cases. Thus, the need for “flattening the curve,” and with it that for imposing the very harsh and oppressive “emergency” measures, never existed.

2. On the necessity and effectiveness of the restrictions imposed by the governments

2.1. Do lock-downs and other restrictions reduce COVID mortality?

Reports like the one by Püschel (see Section 1.3) make it clear that COVID mortality statistics cannot be trusted. Püschel’s use of autopsies is of course the correct approach; in order to understand the seriousness of a novel pathogen, it would be essential to perform autopsies on as large a scale as possible. However, in general, autopsies were rarely performed and discouraged by the authorities worldwide. In their literature review entitled No Autopsies on COVID-19 Deaths: A Missed Opportunity and the Lockdown of Science, Salerno et al. observe [18]:

Despite the increasing number of published studies on COVID-19, in all the examined studies the lack of a well-defined pathophysiology of death among patients who died following COVID-19 infection is evident. Autopsy should be considered mandatory to define the exact cause of death … Only 7 papers reported histological investigations. Nevertheless, only two complete autopsies are described and the cause of death was listed as COVID-19 in only one of them.

The lack of rigorous standards for determining the causes of death in diagnosed cases of the infection has produced a very large spread in the COVID mortality rates reported by different countries (Figure 3A). While some variation between countries must be expected, it surely is difficult to believe that the mortality in France, whose healthcare system is considered of very high quality, should be twenty times higher than in Iceland, or that Belgium should have five times more deaths per capita than Denmark.

The distortion apparent in these numbers makes it impossible to place any trust into those in panel B of the same figure. This graph shows the correlation—or rather, the lack thereof—between a “stringency index,” which summarizes the rigour of the lock-down and other measures imposed by national governments, and the reported COVID deaths. In this sample of 31 European countries (which includes the 16 countries represented in panel A), the correlation is very low, with an R2 value of only 0.02 (and a positive slope of the linear regression line). In other words, the quality of the mortality data is so low as to render the task of discerning any correlation between the stringency of lock-down measures and COVID mortality hopeless. In view of this deplorable quality of the raw data, it is unsurprising that proper epidemiological studies, too, fail to detect any benefits of more restrictive interventions [19,20].

Figure 3: COVID mortality and stringency of government responses across European countries. A: COVID mortality per million residents in 16 European countries. B: COVID mortality vs. stringency of government response for 31 European countries. The linear regression line shown has an R2 value of 0.02. Mortality data from [21] as of September 16th, 2021; response stringency index from [22] as of September 23rd, 2021.

2.2. Lock-downs and overall mortality

We just saw that it is impossible to statistically detect any benefit of lock-downs and other mandates and restrictions imposed on the populace. The only recourse is to look at excess overall mortality during the “pandemic.” An instructive example is the comparison of three European countries provided by Kowall et al. [23]. In contrast to both Spain and Germany, Sweden never imposed any school closures or other hard “lock-down” measures, yet its standard mortality rate is unremarkable in comparison with these two other countries (see Figure 4). Kowall et al. also review possible causes for the observed excess mortalities in Spain and in Sweden, without however offering a definite conclusion regarding role of the lock-down measures. Obviously, no certain conclusions are possible in this regard based on the limited information available.

2.3. Do masks work?

A meta-analysis of 15 clinical studies by an international consortium of epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists offers the following conclusions [24]:

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases … or influenza … for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers … There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators … Harms were poorly reported and limited to discomfort with lower compliance.

If no effect on disease transmission can be demonstrated even with the use of proper surgical or N95 masks, then surely the notion that those fashionable cloth masks will provide any benefit is fanciful. In conclusion, the evidence shows that masks don’t work.

We should note that influenza viruses and coronaviruses differ in some aspects of their biology from each other and from other “influenza-like” viral pathogens. However, all of these viruses are equivalent when it comes to airborne transmission—the viruses are exhaled with micro-droplets, which may or may not be inhaled by another person. The question as to whether a mask reduces transmission comes down simply to its ability to stop these micro-droplets, regardless of the identity of their viral cargo. Thus, the findings reported by Jefferson et al. are valid for COVID-19 as well.

Figure 4: Weekly standardized mortality ratio (SMR) by calendar week in Spain, Germany and Sweden (with consideration of life expectancy). Adapted from Figure 3 in [23].

A recent “cluster-randomized trial” conducted in Bangladesh claims to finally have unearthed the missing evidence to support the effectiveness of masks. The study was predictably covered with great fanfare in the mainstream press; it does, however, not stand up to scrutiny. The diagnostic method used in this study was an IgG antibody test, which is not suitable for diagnosing current or recent infections. Moreover, the study reports that the proportion of those with symptoms and a positive antibody test among the masked group was 0.76%, whereas in the unmasked group it was 0.68%. Passing off a reduction of 0.08% in an irrelevant diagnostic parameter as proof that masks reduce acute COVID infections is evidence not of mask effectiveness but of scientific incompetence, or worse. Rancourt [25] further dissects the many flaws of the study by Abaluck et al.

2.4. Is COVID likely to be transmitted outdoors?

It is well accepted that the risk of airborne transmission of infections is highest in indoor spaces that have limited ventilation with outdoor air [26–28]. Unlike the air in enclosed spaces, outdoor air will not stagnate or be recirculated, and it generally has a lower relative humidity, which will cause more rapid evaporation of exhaled micro-droplets. In addition, outdoors there is a higher level of ultraviolet radiation, which inactivates airborne microbes. Single-stranded RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are particularly sensitive to UV irradiation. Therefore, while to my knowledge no hard evidence exists to completely rule out outdoors transmission of COVID, the likelihood is certainly far lower than indoors. Thus, confining healthy people to their homes in order to ‘flatten the curve’ or ‘stop the spread of COVID’ is disproportionate and unreasonable.

2.5. Can clinically healthy people transmit COVID?

A subtext of the imposition of sweeping masking, distancing, or lock-down mandates on clinically healthy people is the idea of “asymptomatic spread”—persons who have been infected, but who show no signs of it other than a positive PCR test, are assumed to transmit this infection to other susceptible individuals. If we accept the idea of such asymptomatic spread, then the above drastic measures might indeed appear reasonable means for protecting those at risk.

It has, however, been unambiguously determined that such asymptomatic transmission is not relevant in practice. In a large-scale study, which involved almost 10 million Chinese residents, no new infections could be traced to persons that had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR, but who did not exhibit any other signs of infection [29]. This agrees with several studies which compared PCR to virus isolation in cell culture among patients with acute COVID-19 disease. In all cases, growth of the virus in cell culture ceased as symptoms subsided, whereas PCR remained positive for weeks or months afterwards [30,31]. It was accordingly proposed to use cell culture rather than PCR to assess infectiousness and to determine the duration of isolation [31].

These findings indicate that restricting contact of persons at risk with those who show, or very recently showed, symptoms of acute respiratory disease would be effective and sufficient as a protective measure. Indiscriminately restricting the movements of persons who are not themselves at risk of severe disease, or of those who are currently asymptomatic is not required to achieve such protection.

2.6. COVID-19 can be treated effectively

A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment of COVID-19 with existing drugs reduces hospitalisation and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively [32–36]. These treatment protocols include many tried and true antiviral, antiinflammatory, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D. Two of the safest and most effective drugs for early treatment are ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Ivermectin, in particular, is generally considered so safe that it is often prescribed even in scabies, an unpleasant but harmless parasite disease of the skin that can be cured with topical treatment. It’s very strong inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro [37] can account for its observed clinical effectiveness.

The current restrictions and obstacles imposed by the WHO [38] and other authorities worldwide regarding the availability and distribution of these proven and safe drugs are scientifically and medically unjustifiable; they are simply more evidence of deliberate government malfeasance.

3. Lock-downs and children’s mental health

Kowalyshyn et al. have reviewed the literature on the effects of school closures, social distancing etc. on child mental health [39]. The authors note a very substantial increase of child suicides and suicide attempts in the year 2020. Here is the evidence. The Children’s Hospital of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, reported an almost 300% increase in youth suicide attempts between October 2020 and January 2021, compared to the same time period one year before. The city of Pima, Arizona reported a 67% increase in child suicides during the 2020 lock-down, and Boston Children’s Hospital reported a 47% increase in children hospitalized for suicide attempts and suicide ideation between July and October 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.

These harrowing findings make it clear that the supposed pandemic control measures are not only unfit for their declared purpose, but that they are doing real harm to the health and sometimes even the lives of our children. Any such measures must be stopped immediately.

References

1. Cucinotta, D. and Vanelli, M. (2020) WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic. Acta biomed91:157-160

2. Doshi, P. (2011) The elusive definition of pandemic influenza. Bull. World Health Organ.89:532-8

3. Anonymous, (2009) Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response: A WHO Guidance Document.

4. Rancourt, D. (2020) All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response. (Unknown journal) (preprint)

5. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50 (preprint)

6. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2021) Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 5:e133554

7. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bull. World Health Organ. p. BLT.20.265892

8. Anonymous, (2020) Report sulle caratteristiche dei pazienti deceduti positivi a COVID-19 in Italia. Il presente report è basato sui dati aggiornati al 17 Marzo 2020.

9. Pueschel, K. (2020) Forensic Pathologist: No One in Hamburg Has Died of COVID-19 Alone.

10. Anonymous, (2020) Bevölkerung nach Altersgruppen und Geschlecht.

11. Axfors, C. and Ioannidis, J.P. (2021) Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview. medRxiv (preprint)

12. Bexte, K. (2020) CBC says this Manitoba hospital is OVERWHELMED by COVID—is it really? Keean Bexte investigates.

13. Hartnett, K.P. et al. (2020) Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Department Visits — United States, January 1, 2019-May 30, 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 69:699-704

14. Kruizinga, M.D. et al. (2021) The impact of lockdown on pediatric ED visits and hospital admissions during the COVID19 pandemic: a multicenter analysis and review of the literature. Eur. J. Pediatr. 180:2271-2279

15. Kuitunen, I. et al. (2020) The effect of national lockdown due to COVID-19 on emergency department visits. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 28:114

16. Ojetti, V. et al. (2020) Non-COVID Diseases during the Pandemic: Where Have All Other Emergencies Gone?. Medicina 56 (preprint)

17. Rennert-May, E. et al. (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on hospital admissions and emergency department visits: A population-based study. PLoS One 16:e0252441

18. Salerno, M. et al. (2020) No Autopsies on COVID-19 Deaths: A Missed Opportunity and the Lockdown of Science. J. Clin. Med. 9 (preprint)

19. Bendavid, E. et al. (2021) Assessing mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID‐19. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 51 (preprint)

20. De Larochelambert, Q. et al. (2020) Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation. Frontiers in public health 8 (preprint)

21. Anonymous, (2021) Incidence of coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths in the European Economic Area and the United Kingdom as of September 19, 2021, by country.

22. Anonymous, (0) COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.

23. Kowall, B. et al. (2021) Excess mortality due to Covid-19? A comparison of total mortality in 2020 with total mortality in 2016 to 2019 in Germany, Sweden and Spain. PLoS One16:e0255540

24. Jefferson, T. et al. (2020) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1—Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis. medRxiv (preprint)

25. Rancourt, D. (2021) Do Face Masks Reduce COVID-19 Spread in Bangladesh? Are the Abaluck et al. Results Reliable?.

26. Knibbs, L.D. et al. (2011) Room ventilation and the risk of airborne infection transmission in 3 health care settings within a large teaching hospital. American journal of infection control 39:866-72

27. Morawska, L. and Milton, D.K. (2020) It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clin. Infect. Dis. 71:2311-2313

28. de Man, P. et al. (2021) Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Nursing Home Associated With Aerosol Transmission as a Result of Inadequate Ventilation. Clin. Infect. Dis. 73:170-171

29. Cao, S. et al. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11:5917

30. Wölfel, R. et al. (2020) Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature 581:465-469

31. Basile, K. et al. (2020) Cell-based culture of SARS-CoV-2 informs infectivity and safe de-isolation assessments during COVID-19. Clin. Infect. Dis. (preprint)

32. Orient, J. et al. (2020) A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.

33. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21:517-530

34. Procter, B.C. et al. (2021) Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International journal of innovative research in medical science 6:219-221

35. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16-22

36. Anonymous, (2020) Real-time database and meta analysis of 588 COVID-19 studies.

37. Caly, L. et al. (2020) The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Antiviral Res. 178:104787

38. Anonymous, (2021) WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials.

39. Kowalyshyn, J. and Alexander, P.E. (2021) Deaths of Despair: Child suicde evidence package.
    
    
    
    
    

Parroting his Master’s Dogma, Halfrocentric Clone Kareem Abdul-Jabber Criticizes Lebron for Not Promoting Experimental, Useless COVID Injections that Kill/Harm People and are Shielded from Liability

“Smile Negro And Grin—while I put it in.” FUCK A SNAG & NEVER TRUST A COIN-OPERATED CLONE. KAREEM WOULD SELL OUT HIS PEOPLE JUST TO GET A PAT ON THE HEAD FROM HIS RACIST MASTERS. SHADOWBOX ANOTHER BLACK MAN FOR NOT ADVOCATING THE DEATH OF HIS OWN PEOPLE? MF SAMBO TRAITOR.

“KAREEM GONE.” From [HERE] NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar asked LeBron James to make his stance on the COVID-19 vaccine clear due to his influence on the African-American community.

“I don’t talk about other people and what they should do. We’re talking about individual bodies. We’re not talking about something political or racism or police brutality. I don’t think I personally should get involved in what other people do for their bodies and livelihoods … I know what I did for me and my family … But as far as speaking for everybody and their individualities and things they want to do, that’s not my job,” James said in September.

Kareem penned an article, parroting his masters about how COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted the African-American community, at least in part due to their distrust of vaccines.

This past weekend, James posted the above meme on his Instagram account, comparing COVID-19 to the flu. Apparently, Kareem’s masters Big Tech, Big Pharma, Authority [aka Uncle Brother, Crimeth Inc., Doggy] and their Dependent Media needed what they think is an influential Black spokesperson to censor Lebron, so they trotted Kareem out to do so. The usual authoritarian playbook calls for bignorant, propaghandi to attack the person’s character and never to actually discuss COVID injection facts and research in contention. That is, Kareem didn’t refute Lebron’s contention that in reality COVID is like the Flu or an overblown plandemic. Rather, Kareem just shadowboxed Lebron for his white masters. Well done, negro. This has been the pattern with any celebrity figure, white or Black who dares to criticize or remain neutral to Big Pharma’s deadly COVID injections.

Big up to BronBron for taking a risk against the vested interests. Contrary to SNigger Kareem, in reality:

All-cause mortality soared only shortly after the declaration of the COVID-19 “pandemic,” not before

Figure 1: All-cause mortality in New York city and in Texas, before and after the declaration of the COVID-19 “pandemic” by the WHO (red vertical line). A sharp yet short-lived spike occurred in New York City immediately after the declaration, whereas no such event manifested itself in Texas. Before the declaration, all-cause mortality for the winter 2019/20 had been tracking significantly lower than two years before; the higher mortality rate during that previous winter season was due to a worldwide outbreak of influenza that was not declared a pandemic. Graphics taken from Figures 8 and 10 in [4].

Rancourt has examined the correlation in time between the WHO’s declaration of the “pandemic” and all-cause mortality in various jurisdictions [4]. Immediately after the declaration, there occurred a sharp peak in all-cause mortality in some jurisdictions, but not in others; this discrepancy is illustrated in Figure 1 for New York City and Texas.

Common sense and historic precedents suggest that a deadly virus pandemic would not respect international or state borders. Furthermore, if the virus had indeed been both deadly and truly novel, the wave of deaths in New York should not have subsided within such a short time period as is apparent from Figure 1. Thus, as Rancourt convincingly argues, any peaks in mortality were most likely caused by government malfeasance, which led to consequences such as the rapid spread of the infection in senior homes. In the case of New York, this has led to the filing of criminal complaints against former governor Andrew Cuomo.

Mortality due to COVID-19 is very low except in the frail and elderly

In the vast majority of people (≥ 99.8% globally), an infection with SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is non-lethal [5–7]. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness with a case fatality rate similar to that of influenza (see again Figure 1 for context). The relationship of COVID mortality with age is illustrated in Figure 2. Panel A very clearly shows that mortality is vanishingly small in the young and middle-aged. Moreover, even among the elderly, almost all fatal cases occur in people with co-morbidities. In Italy, the average age at the time of death was above 80 years, and only 0.8% of all fatal cases suffered from none of the 10 most common co-morbidities [8]. University of Hamburg forensic pathologist Prof. Klaus Püschel reviewed over 100 autopsies on patients at his institution whose deaths had been ascribed to COVID-19, and he concluded that not one of them had died due to COVID alone [9].

Figure 2: COVID mortality, number of cases, and infection fatality rate by age group. A: Total cases reported to the Robert Koch Institute as of July 13þ, 2021, and mortality per age group, based on 2018 census numbers [10]. B: Infection fatality rates by age in various countries. Adapted from Figure 3 in [11].

The collective findings can be summarized as follows: in otherwise healthy persons of all ages, COVID-19 poses a negligible risk of death or of severe disease with irreversible harm.

The misconception of the “pandemic” was implanted and perpetuated with inappropriate testing practices

From the very beginning, the number of COVID “cases” was artificially inflated by the inappropriate use of the PCR test. There are two key aspects to this misuse of the technique:

• the calibration of the method is inadequate; in particular, the number of amplification cycles is excessive;

• the application of the PCR test to healthy (“asymptomatic”) people, for example in connection with travel. This could not but generate a large number of false positive test results, which were then elevated to “cases.” [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

SNAGs - $nitch-ass Negroes Aiding Governments. 2) COINTEL-BROs. 3) Smile Negro And Grin—while I put it in. SNAGs are coin-operated piece-activist sniggering infiltraitors from the native Black American community. SNAGs are on the stroll, exacting Black life as the toll, while klandestinely on the rogue "government" payroll. Dumb-ditty dumb where the hell do these sorry-ass sellout Negroes come from? When you see them, go and give them some—or at least a piece of your mind. It's easy to heckle and hyde, but why do we seem to always let self-hating sucker-perpetrating Negroes electric slide? SNAGs are Negroes who run from the fabric, the very essence of their Afrikan heritage struggle, culture and consciousness, and run to support the psychopathological dominant minority elite European global racist-supremacist mindset and Agenda along with its narcissistic projections and population control objectives (genocide and eugenics). The more you pull at a snag, the more problems it causes—hence, you have to cut it off from the garment so it will cease causing constraint and strain on the integrity of the fabric of Afrikan consciousness and liberation. Don't just run them off, cut them off. SNAGs get dealt with! SNAG's are responsible for facilitating agents of various "government intelligence" operations in successfully accomplishing the "wet jobs" (assassinations) and downfall of some of our most cherished leaders, luminary thinkers, uncompromising revolutionaries and lovers of justice for all humanity. SNAGs come in all shapes, colors, sizes and forms within the Black American community but they all share one common thread—self-hatred. Some of the less known but high-exposure SNAGs were Alex Haley (who covertly worked his roots on Malcolm X), Ernest Withers (civil rights photographer and FBI informant), and Justice Thurgood Marshall (also snitching and informing on the Right-Reverend Martin L. King, Jr.), not to mention another "Reverend" from Memphis, TN who was involved (along with Jesse Jackson) in the orchestration of King's assassination. SNAGs have also been known to be complicit in both successful and botched assassination schemes plotted and executed by the shadowy characters within and behind the veil of the Corporate State and its wet-works black operations spy agencies. (See: COINTELPRO, FBI, CIA, Manhood, Snigger, Sigma Pi Phi, Coin-Operated, Racism White Supremacy, HO-Method, Infiltraitors, Wet Jobs & Piece-Activist) [MORE]

“Comply or Go To Jail" [the False Choice Offered in the Free Range Prison]: Liberal New Yorkers Use the NYPD to Enforce Their New Vax Papers Law to Break Up a Child's Birthday Party at a Restaurant

The video captured Monday shows a group of at least a dozen NYPD vaccine enforcers surround a child and his friends at a restaurant, demanding to see their vaccine passports. “If you don’t have it, you’re going to have to leave,” an officer tells the unmasked child, who proceeds to cry. When it was apparent none of them had their vaccine papers, the cops began breaking up the gathering. [MORE]

Dr Peter McCullough says COVID Injections are the ‘most dangerous biological medicinal product rollout in human history' and provides Detailed evidence of the devastating damage COVID Jabs can do

From [HERE] At a recent online symposium on covid science that was organized by Doctors for COVID Ethics, the most detailed evidence yet against Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccination” was presented for the world’s consideration.

This international group, which has long opposed the mass rollout of Fauci Flu shots, argued that the human immune system, provoked by the injections, could end up attacking its own tissues (autoimmune disease) when it detects the presence of synthetic spike proteins.

Untold thousands of deaths have already occurred from this, though most of them never make it into the government databases. Numerous presenters, including Dr. Peter McCullough, who has also long stood against the injections, revealed scientific evidence to support these and other claims.

McCullough, by the way, has actually come out to say that covid “vaccines” are the “most dangerous biological medicinal product rollout in human history.” He remains one of the most vocal opponents to the current agenda.

German pathologist and professor Dr. Arne Burkhardt, who has more than 40 years of experience in the field, also presented at the symposium. He conducted his own research on the tissues and organs from 15 different patients where a post-mortem had been performed.

Eight of the bodies were women and seven were men, all between the ages of 28 and 95. Each of these individuals died between seven days and six months post-injection.

What Burkhardt found is that in nearly every case, the jabs caused the individuals’ bodies to self-destruct. A specific type of immune cell called a lymphocyte was found to have invaded various parts of the body, eventually causing early death.

Burkhardt presented slides showing that lymphocytes had infiltrated the heart muscle in particular, causing systemic inflammation. The resulting lesions were small and probably overlooked, “but the destruction of just a few muscle cells may have a devastating effect,” he warned.

“If the inflammatory infiltration is found where the impulse for the contraction of the heart is given, this may lead to heart failure,” he further said.

It was also discovered that a lymphocyte invasion occurred in other vital organs such as the liver, kidneys, uterus, brain, thyroid and skin, all of which showed signs of autoimmune damage.

How much mRNA poison can the body handle before it goes kaput?

Canadian microbiologist and professor Dr. Michael Palmer summed up Burkhardt’s presentation by explaining that anyone with honest medical training will clearly see “just how devastating the effect of these vaccines can be, at least in those who die after the vaccination.”

“We also now know why the authorities were very hesitant to have autopsies performed on such victims,” Palmer added.

As to why some people are not suffering such an extreme fate post-injection, Palmer warned that the total lifetime dose of messenger RNA toxins is limited, suggesting that it varies from person to person.

Due to a lack of experimental data, it is unknown what these thresholds are. And according to Palmer, this is “one of the great scandals of these vaccines, that no proper toxicity studies have been carried out.”

We do know from animal studies that the contents of the jabs do not remain at the site of injection. They circulate throughout the entire body, combining with receptors and lining blood vessels, which in many people causes clotting and excessive bleeding.

The long-term risks of this are what will really be telling once the contents of the jabs really make their way throughout people’s bodies over the long haul. Widespread death from seemingly no specific cause is likely to occur in the coming months and years.

A Number of Medical Experts, Scientists and Published Studies Prove that Endless Boosters Destroy Immune Function and the Higher the Vax rate in a Given area, the Higher the COVID "case rate"

SCREEN SHOT FROM PEAK PROSPERITY VIDEO BELOW.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

• The COVID shots reprogram your immune system to respond in a dysfunctional manner. Aside from increasing vulnerability to infections, this can also result in autoimmune diseases and cancer

• A paper published in early May 2021 reported the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID jab “reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses,” causing immune depletion

• Antigens in vaccines have been shown to induce defects in the immune system that can raise the risk of autoimmune diseases

• Leaky or nonsterilizing vaccines can also trigger the evolution of more hazardous viruses, and the COVID jabs are among the leakiest “vaccines” ever created

• According to health authorities, the vaccine-evading Omicron variant necessitates a third COVID injection, but this recommendation will only perpetuate mutation

From [MERCOLA] A number of medical experts, scientists and published studies now warn that the COVID shots reprogram your immune system to respond in a dysfunctional manner. Aside from increasing vulnerability to infections, this can also result in autoimmune diseases and cancer. 

Pfizer Shot Reprograms Both Arms of Your Immune System

A paper1 posted May 6, 2021, on the preprint server medRxiv reported that the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID jab "reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses," causing immune depletion. 

While they confirmed the jab "induced effective humoral and cellular immunity against several SARS-CoV-2 variants," the shot "also modulated the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells upon stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and nonspecific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli."

In other words, we're looking at a horrible tradeoff. You may get some protection against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, but you're weakening your overall immune function, which opens the door wide to all sorts of other health problems, from bacterial, fungal and viral infections to cancer and autoimmunity. 

After the injection, innate immune cells had a markedly decreased response to toll-like receptors 4, 7 and 8 (TLR4, TLR7, TLR8) ligands, while cytokine responses induced by fungi were stronger. According to the authors, defects in TLR7 have previously been linked to an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in young males. 

People who were "fully vaccinated," having received two doses of the Pfizer shot, also produced significantly less interferon upon stimulation, and this can hamper the initial innate immune response against the virus. 

Repeated Vaccinations and the Risk of Autoimmunity

Pathogenic infections and cancer are but two potential outcomes of this kind of reprogramming. Previous research, for example, has linked defects in the immune system to a higher risk of autoimmune diseases. What's more, it's been shown that antigens in vaccines, specifically, can induce this kind of immune system dysfunction.2 As reported in the paper in question:3

"Repeated immunization with antigen causes systemic autoimmunity in mice otherwise not prone to spontaneous autoimmune diseases. Overstimulation of CD4+ T cells led to the development of autoantibody-inducing CD4+ T (aiCD4+ T) cell which had undergone T cell receptor (TCR) revision and was capable of inducing autoantibodies. 

The aiCD4+ T cell was induced by de novo TCR revision but not by cross-reaction, and subsequently overstimulated CD8+ T cells, driving them to become antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL). 

These CTLs could be further matured by antigen cross-presentation, after which they caused autoimmune tissue injury akin to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host's immune 'system' by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality."

Fast-forward to mid-May 2021, when a study4 in the Journal of Clinical Investigations reported that "SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines induce broad CD4+ T cell responses that recognize SARS-CoV-2 variants and HCoV-NL63." HCoV-NL63 is a human coronavirus associated with the common cold.

"Interestingly, we observed a 3-fold increase in the CD4+ T cell responses to HCoV-NL63 spike peptides after vaccination," the authors stated, adding, "Our results suggest that T cell responses elicited or enhanced by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines may be able to control SARS-CoV-2 variants and lead to cross-protection against some endemic coronaviruses."

What they did not address was that excessive CD4a+ T cell responses could also result in the development of autoantibodies and autoimmune disease. 

COVID Shots May Also Cause More Hazardous Variants

We've long known that leaky or nonsterilizing vaccines can trigger the evolution of more hazardous viruses.5,6,7,8 So far, SARS-CoV-2 variants have mutated into less dangerous versions, which is fortunate, but the risk of the COVID shots creating a "monster" still remains.

In a February 9, 2021, article,9 NPR highlighted this risk, stating that "vaccines could drive the evolution of more COVID-19 mutants." According to NPR science correspondent Richard Harris, "the virus is always mutating. And if one happens to produce a mutation that makes it less vulnerable to the vaccine, that virus could simply multiply in a vaccinated individual."

The Omicron variant appears to have significant resistance against antibodies produced by the original COVID shots, which is why Omicron infection is being primarily reported in those who have received the injections. 

In 2018, Quanta Magazine detailed how vaccines drive the evolution of pathogens.10 I've referenced that article on previous occasions, as have many others. In response, the editor of Quanta Magazine added a "disclaimer" dated December 6, 2021, to the article, stating:

"This article from 2018 discusses how leaky vaccines — vaccines that do not reduce viral replication or transmission to others — can drive the pathogens they target to evolve and become more virulent. These concerns do not apply to COVID-19 vaccines, because COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduce coronavirus replication and transmission, reducing the chance that mutations occur and variants arise ..."

That statement is clearly false, as studies have repeatedly shown the COVID shots are in fact leaky. They do not "significantly reduce" viral replication or transmission, as the editor claims. Quite the opposite. 

People who have received one or more COVID shots have been found to harbor higher viral loads than the unvaccinated, and Israel (which appears to have the best tracking and monitoring) reports that the worst COVID cases are in those who are fully vaxxed. 

December 6, 2021, Newsweek11 reported a COVID outbreak among "fully vaccinated" hospital staff in Spain. After a Christmas dinner with more than 170 fully vaxxed health care workers in attendance, nearly 70 of them tested positive for COVID. Some reported mild symptoms. Daniel Horowitz pointed out the editor's false note in a December 9, 2021, Blaze post:12

"Leaky vaccines are worse than no vaccine at all. That is the unmistakable conclusion one would derive from a May 2018 article in Quanta magazine, a top scientific publication, about the unsuccessful attempts to create vaccines for HIV, malaria, and anthrax that aren't leaky and don't run the risk of making the pathogens more dangerous. 

Yet now that we are seeing such a microbiological Frankenstein play out in real life and people like Dr. Robert Malone have been citing this article to raise red flags about the leaky COVID shots, Quanta magazine took the unprecedented step of slapping an editor's note on an article three and a half years later to get people to stop applying it to the leakiest vaccine of all time."

COVID Shots Stop Working Within a Few Months

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine, published December 9, 2021, also confirms that whatever protection you get from the Pfizer COVID shot is short in duration. As explained by the authors:13

"In December 2020, Israel began a mass vaccination campaign against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) by administering the BNT162b2 vaccine, which led to a sharp curtailing of the outbreak. 

After a period with almost no cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, a resurgent Covid-19 outbreak began in mid-June 2021. Possible reasons for the resurgence were reduced vaccine effectiveness against the delta (B.1.617.2) variant and waning immunity. 

We used data on confirmed infection and severe disease collected from an Israeli national database for the period of July 11 to 31, 2021, for all Israeli residents who had been fully vaccinated before June 2021. 

We used a Poisson regression model to compare rates of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe Covid-19 among persons vaccinated during different time periods, with stratification according to age group and with adjustment for possible confounding factors.

Among persons 60 years of age or older, the rate of infection in the July 11-31 period was higher among persons who became fully vaccinated in January 2021 (when they were first eligible) than among those fully vaccinated 2 months later, in March (rate ratio, 1.6 ...) 

Among persons 40 to 59 years of age, the rate ratio for infection among those fully vaccinated in February (when they were first eligible), as compared with 2 months later, in April, was 1.7 ... Among persons 16 to 39 years of age, the rate ratio for infection among those fully vaccinated in March (when they were first eligible), as compared with 2 months later, in May, was 1.6 ...

The rate ratio for severe disease among persons fully vaccinated in the month when they were first eligible, as compared with those fully vaccinated in March, was 1.8 ... among persons 60 years of age or older and 2.2 ... among those 40 to 59 years of age ... 

These findings indicate that immunity against the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 waned in all age groups a few months after receipt of the second dose of vaccine."

Two Doses Aren't Enough 

Earlier this year, vaccine makers and health authorities said the shots were about 95% effective and if enough people got the shots, normalcy would be restored. We now know that was a false promise. The goal post was moved back with the emergence of Delta and then Omicron, for which we're now told we need a third booster. 

December 13, 2021, Reuters14 reported that British scientists have concluded "two-dose COVID-19 vaccine regimens do not induce enough neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron coronavirus variant," and that "increased infections in those previously infected or vaccinated may be likely."

'Just Deal With' Booster Shots, Fauci Says

When in mid-December 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci was asked if Americans should expect annual COVID boosters, he replied in the affirmative, saying that Americans will "just have to deal with" the prospect of getting boosters at regular intervals.15 So, in essence, Fauci wants us to accept that booster deficiency is the reason why the COVID-19 "pandemic" continues. 

Clearly, that is not the case. The real reason COVID is still an issue is because Fauci and the medical establishment have suppressed viable early treatments. If early treatment was the norm, COVID would rapidly become a distant memory. 

As predicted over a year ago, we're now on an injection treadmill with no end in sight, and every single dose carries the risk of serious side effects, up to and including permanent disability and death. The only scientifically sound way out of this failed experiment is to stop. No more boosters.

Instead, the captured U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to novel gene transfer technologies that don't work like conventional vaccines in that they don't prevent infection and spread, thus creating an evil cycle of new vaccine-resistant variants. As demonstrated by James Lyons-Weiler (in a now broken weblink), the more we vaccinate, the higher the COVID caseload.

Weiler's graph looks very much like that in a September 30, 2021, study16 in the European Journal of Epidemiology, which found that the higher the vaccination rate in a given area, the higher the COVID case rate. 

Dr. Chris Martenson discusses this finding in the video below. As noted by Martenson, "the line goes the wrong way," meaning the more heavily "vaccinated" a population is, the worse things get.

As predicted over a year ago, we're now on an injection treadmill with no end in sight, and every single dose carries the risk of serious side effects, up to and including permanent disability and death. The only scientifically sound way out of this failed experiment is to stop. No more boosters. 

Fortunately, it seems most Americans are starting to catch on, and so far, the fearmongering around Omicron has not resulted in a rush for boosters.17 According to an Axios/Ipsos poll conducted December 10 through December 13, 2021, 67% of unvaccinated respondents said Omicron makes no difference in their decision of whether to get vaccinated; 19% said it makes them more likely while 11% said it makes them less likely to get the shot.

Among respondents who already had received one or two doses, 59% said Omicron makes no difference in their decision to get a third dose; 36% said it makes them more likely and 5% said it makes them less likely to get it. 

Considering the shots have been shown to deregulate your immune function, it would be wise to "just say no" to further boosters. Should you develop symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, remember there are safe and effective early treatment protocols, including the I-MASK+18 and I-MATH+,19 protocols, which are available for download on the COVID Critical Care website in multiple languages. Other protocols that have great success are:

• The AAPS protocol

• Tess Laurie's World Council for Health protocol

• America's Frontline Doctors

• Dr. Peter McCullough's Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19

This is a load of information to review, especially if you are fatigued and sick with COVID or have a family member struggling. After reviewing all of these protocols, I believe the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance's protocol is among the easiest to follow. Below is a summary of that protocol, with minor amendments.

Sources and References

• 1 medRxiv May 6, 2021

• 2, 3 PLOS ONE 2009; 4(12): e8382

• 4 Journal of Clinical Investigations May 17, 2021; 131(10):e149335

• 5 Live Science July 29, 2015

• 6 Newsweek July 27, 2015

• 7 National Geographic July 27, 2015

• 8, 10 Quanta Magazine May 10, 2018

• 9 NPR February 9, 2021

• 11 Newsweek December 6, 2021

• 12 The Blaze December 9, 2021

• 13 NEJM 2021; 385: e85

• 14 Reuters December 13, 2021

• 15 Fox News December 13, 2021

• 16 European Journal of Epidemiology September 30, 2021: 1-4

• 17 Forbes December 14, 2021

• 18 FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol

• 19 FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol

Juvenile Jail Cops in KS Shackled a Handcuffed Black Teen’s Ankles and then Held Him Prone, Assaulted and Killed Him. Arrested for Refusal to Consent to Detention after Foster Fam Called Cops for Eval

From [HERE] A 17-year-old Black boy who died in police custody after being restrained at a juvenile jail in Kansas died by homicide, according to a Sedgwick County autopsy report.

Cedric Lofton, a Black teenager, was taken into custody on Sept. 24 after his foster father called 911 to say his son was having a mental breakdown and needed an evaluation.

When Lofton refused to go voluntarily, he was arrested for battering a law enforcement officer and taken, restrained, to the Sedgwick County juvenile detention facility.

After staff members decided he was too uncooperative after he allegedly punched an employee, Lofton was shackled at the ankles, rolled into a prone position and handcuffed behind his back, according to the autopsy, released Monday.

Minutes after he was handcuffed, Lofton no longer had a pulse and staff began chest compressions.

He died two days later.

The coroner ruled his death from “complications of cardiopulmonary arrest sustained after physical struggle while restrained in the prone position” and labeled it a homicide.

“As supported by the video evidence, these individuals unjustifiably and with excessive and unreasonable force pinned Cedric to the ground, ultimately killing the unarmed, 135-pound, 17-year-old African American teenager,” a lawyer for Lofton’s family said in a statement to the Daily News Tuesday.

“Cedric’s family anxiously awaits the findings of the criminal investigation and believes the Sedgwick County District Attorney should pursue criminal charges against the law enforcement personnel responsible for Cedric’s death. Cedric’s death was caused by the hands of the very authorities that were obligated to protect him and make sure he was safe. Instead, they killed him with conscious disregard for the young life in their keeping.”

Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett told The News Tuesday that his office is “in the process of reviewing the autopsy completed by the Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center as well as the lengthy investigation conducted by agents with the Kansas Bureau of Investigations and investigators with the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department.”

On COVID Injections: why they cannot work, and irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaccination - Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and Arne Burkhardt, MD

Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and Arne Burkhardt, MD

From {HERE] and [PDF] This text is a written summary of Dr. Bhakdi’s and Dr. Burkhardt’s presentations at the Doctors for COVID Ethics symposium that was live-streamed by UKColumn on December 10th, 2021. The two presentations can be viewed at the very beginning of the video recording of the symposium.

The authors

Dr. Bhakdi has spent his life practicing, teaching and researching medical microbiology and infectious diseases. He chaired the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at the Johannes Gutenberg Unversity of Mainz, Germany, from 1990 until his retirement in 2012. He has published over 300 research articles in the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology and parasitology, and served from 1990 to 2012 as Editor-in-Chief of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, one of the first scientific journals of this field that was founded by Robert Koch in 1887.

Dr. Arne Burkhardt is a pathologist who has taught at the Universities of Hamburg, Berne and Tübingen. He was invited for visiting professorships/study visits in Japan (Nihon University), the United States (Brookhaven National Institute), Korea, Sweden, Malaysia and Turkey. He headed the Institute of Pathology in Reutlingen for 18 years. Subsquently, he worked as an independent practicing pathologist with consulting contracts with laboratories in the US. Burkhardt has published more than 150 scientific articles in German and international scientific journals as well as contributions to handbooks in German, English and Japanese. Over many years he has audited and certified institutes of pathology in Germany.

The evidence

We herewith present scientific evidence that calls for an immediate stop of the use of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. We first lay out why the agents cannot protect against viral infection. While no positive effects can be expected, we show that the vaccines can trigger self-destructive processes that lead to debilitating illness and death.

Why the vaccines cannot protect against infection

A fundamental mistake underlying the development of the COVID-19 vaccines was to neglect the functional distinction between the two major categories of antibodies which the body produces in order to protect itself from pathogenic microbes.

The first category (secretory IgA) is produced by immune cells (lymphocytes) which are located directly underneath the mucous membranes that line the respiratory and intestinal tract. The antibodies produced by these lymphocytes are secreted through and to the surface of the mucous membranes. These antibodies are thus on site to meet air-borne viruses, and they may be able to prevent viral binding and infection of the cells.

The second category of antibodies (IgG and circulating IgA) occur in the bloodstream. These antibodies protect the internal organs of the body from infectious agents that try to spread via the bloodstream.

Vaccines that are injected into the muscle – i.e., the interior of the body – will only induce IgG and circulating IgA, not secretory IgA. Such antibodies cannot and will not effectively protect the mucous membranes from infection by SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the currently observed “breakthrough infections” among vaccinated individuals merely confirm the fundamental design flaws of the vaccines. Measurements of antibodies in the blood can never yield any information on the true status of immunity against infection of the respiratory tract.

The inability of vaccine-induced antibodies to prevent coronavirus infections has been reported in recent scientific publications.

The vaccines can trigger self-destruction

A natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) will in most individuals remain localized to the respiratory tract. In contrast, the vaccines cause cells deep inside our body to express the viral spike protein, which they were never meant to do by nature. Any cell which expresses this foreign antigen will come under attack by the immune system, which will involve both IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. This may occur in any organ. We are seeing now that the heart is affected in many young people, leading to myocarditis or even sudden cardiac arrest and death. How and why such tragedies might causally be linked to vaccination has remained a matter of conjecture because scientific evidence has been lacking. This situation has now been rectified.

Histopathologic studies: the patients

Histopathologic analyses have been performed on the organs of 15 persons who died after vaccination. The age, gender, vaccination record, and time of death after injection of each patient are listed in the table on the next page. The following points are of utmost importance:

• Prior to death, only 4 of the 15 patients had been treated in the ICU for more than 2 days. The majority were never hospitalized and died at home (5), on the street (1), at work (1), in the car (1), or in home-care facilities (1). Therefore, in most cases, therapeutic intervention is unlikely to have significantly influenced the post-mortem findings.

• Not a single death was brought into any possible association with the vaccination by the coroner or the public prosecutor; this association was only established by our autopsy findings.

• The initially performed conventional post-mortems also uncovered no obvious hints to a possible role of vaccination, since the macroscopic appearance of the organs was overall unremarkable. In most cases, “rhythmogenic heart failure” was postulated as the cause of death.

But our subsequent histopathological analyses then brought about a complete turnaround. A summary of the fundamental findings follows.

If the Food at a Restaurant Killed as Many People as the Covid "Vaccines" Have Over the Past Year [20,244], Would You Still Eat There? Would the Gov Shut It Down? Would Media be Pushing the Kids Menu?

[MORE] and [MORE]

Dr. Thomas Binder: 'The alleged pandemic is mainly an unreal PCR testing pandemic, but the totalitarian measures it has spawned are real: they threaten our freedom, our livelihoods and even our lives'

From [HERE] and [HERE] Dr. Thomas Binder, a Swiss cardiologist and member of D4CE, has written a strong and accessible piece debunking the prevailing corona narrative for the general public. 

Thomas’ article is available in full from his website.

Thomas has documented three events which presaged the current corona fake pandemic:

• The conjuring up, in 2006, of a fictitious epidemic of whooping cough, based on nothing more than PCR Testing: “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t”.

• The Swine Flu Scandal, 2009: “Profiteers of Fear – The Swine Flu Racket” (German).

• “Event 201:” Corona Pandemic Simulation, 2019. See the movie “Event 201: Corona Pandemic from the Drafting Table,” produced in German with English subtitles

Thomas also counters the “top 10” myths about the prevailing corona narrative with the following arguments:

1. There is no epidemic of COVID-19 in any country – in most countries, there has been no excess mortality.

2. It is wrong to test symptomatic people for only one of all respiratory viruses, and it is even more wrong to test asymptomatic people.

3. The Corman-Drosten PCR protocol, which was hastily developed and prematurely adopted by the WHO, is technically flawed and not fit for the purpose of diagnosing an infection with the virus.

4. Asymptomatic transmission of respiratory viruses is not epidemiologically relevant.

5. Effective prevention measures and treatments for COVID-19 do exist.

6. SARS-CoV-2 mutate slowly but inexorably. Therefore, even the most effective vaccines will always lag behind the new variants.

7. SARS-CoV-2 is becoming more and more contagious indeed, but less and less dangerous, following the laws of evolution.

8. SARS-CoV-2 does not occur perennially but seasonally from late fall to early spring.

9. The basic and cross-immunity protect 80-90% of the population from contracting the seasonal beta corona and influenza viruses, which also applies to SARS-CoV-2.

10. It is not possible to stop the alleged pandemic of the alleged killer virus through vaccination, since the vaccines, aside from causing grave disease, have also proven ineffective.

At the end of the article, Thomas supports his conclusions using real-time ICU occupancy data from Zurich ETH, as shown in the featured picture. The near-real-time monitoring of intensive care occupancy by ETH Zurich, dated November 26th, 2021, exposes the fundamental fraudulence of the prevailing corona narrative. The graph shows that each of the alleged spikes of COVID-19 cases is always mirrored by a decline in non-COVID cases, indicating misdiagnosis of other respiratory infections as COVID.

New Documentary, "PCR Test Deception," Already Censored by Violent, Big Tech Do-Gooders on You Tube

Risk Assessment Expert Norman Fenton Explains the Vax has No Effect On All-Cause Mortality. There's No Evidence the Injections have Any Benefit. Data Shows the Injections are Actually Killing People

“You Do Know that “Warps" Don’t Work? It’s a Star Trek Term. It Doesn’t Really Mean You Can Go Fast.” Dr Mike Yeadon on The Abuse of Emergency Use Authorizations for COVID Injection Bioweapons

Nurse Tells Louisiana 'Legistraitors:' “We've Had More Children Die from the Vax than from COVID Itself.” “Most Doctors Don’t Know What VAERS is, So the Number of Vax Deaths is Not Properly Reported"

From [HERE] Collette Martin, a practicing nurse of seventeen years, spoke at a hearing before the  Louisiana House of Representatives Health & Welfare Committee earlier this month about her experience in the hospital system during the COVID pandemic.

Collette says she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots, but their concerns about the vaccines are being ignored and dismissed.

Collete went on to say that vaccine-injury report databases like VAERS are so little used that most doctors and nurses don’t even know that it exists, let alone how to file a report.

“The Majority of our nurses, nurse managers, and some doctors do not even know what VAERS is. I’ve spoken to our chief medicine managers and other nurses on why we’re not reporting to VAERS, and the most common response is: ‘What is VAERS?‘.”

As if this were not bad enough already, she then said that none of the hospitals are reporting any data, meaning that even if someone was investigating, there would be no data to investigate.

“This is not just where I work. I know many nurses, friends and other local hospitals in Southeast Louisiana that say the same thing.”

However, what she says about the potential long-term effects of the jabs is shocking.

“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.

We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of maybe dying, getting sick of a virus, a virus with a 99% survival rate.”

Collete concludes by saying that these vaccine side-effects are being covered up as being caused by the new variant.

“As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself. And then for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing now.

It’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired.”

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Means Total Immunity for Any Injury Caused by the Vax. Which is Why It is Sought for the Kid Vax and Why "Variants" are Necessary (to keep the Emergency going)

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

• The reason our children are being targeted by COVID mandates is because vaccine makers want to get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule

• Once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety issues and withholds that information

• Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization: There must be an emergency; a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective; the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product; and there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained

• According to a U.S. federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not interchangeable

• Comirnaty is not fully approved and licensed. It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not yet available in the United States. They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, to get the liability shield

From [MERCOLA] In this interview, Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty. [MORE]

The COVID Jab Tragedy

While many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID. 

What’s more, while lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being highlighted by the COVID jabs. 

Many now know of someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot in turn highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children. 

According to Mayer, the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries. 

Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability

The COVID shots currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:

“I put together a slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what's really going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the behaviors [we’re now seeing].

They’re falling all over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start to clarify it right now. 

This presentation is all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government are never going to let go of ... These are the things they're guarding with their lives. 

First of all, they need to guard the emergency ... so they cannot have any early treatments. Those cannot exist. They're also going for full liability protection, and children will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.

Vaccine makers love EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you're injured by an EUA vaccine, you can't sue the manufacturer, you can't sue the person who gave it to you, you can't sue the institution where you got the shot. 

You have to go through something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where they'll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for pharmaceuticals and lost wages.

Now, if you're vaccine injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you sicker. You'll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you're going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that's going to get you better if you're vaccine injured is natural treatments ...

That's the kind of treatment you're going to need, and that's not even covered, even if you were to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it's a child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme disease, they're paying $50,000 out of pocket per year. 

If you can't work and you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don't know how you ever get by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”

Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the end rarely provides adequate compensation.

“If you do end up getting compensation ... they don't pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually going to die of their injuries before they get compensated. 

That's been said to me a bunch of times by people who've been through this horrible process. Now, the CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation, but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]

Stages of Liability: EUA

In her slide show, Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.

“Investigational is a synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on [without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical treatment.

[The Nuremberg Code] is not a law, but it's a code under which the whole world is supposed to be operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as well ... So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it's basically the same as an outright mandate. 

It's illegal medical segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.] So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that's medical segregation. 

That is illegal and I do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn't either. Any access privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a bracelet ... that's also illegal because that creates segregation and medical apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]” 

Importantly, mass violation of the law does not make something legal. 

“If we all drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it's not going to happen. Mass violation of the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn't make it legal. It's all illegal ...

Now, they know full well that it's illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows it's illegal. But what they're counting on is that the court cases overturning their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it's worked.”

Stages of Liability: Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling

The next stage is full licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.

This is the holy grail if you're a manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put on the market until you get it on the children's schedule. ~ Alix Mayer

To get immunity against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow government to mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:

“This is the holy grail if you're a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children's schedule.”

DOJ Redefines Medical ‘Consequence’

In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2 the court held that service members could refuse an EUA product without punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments. Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing an EUA product, other than the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease. 

However, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences” just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a person refuses an EUA vaccine. 

“But this type of consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says. “That's not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of authority. 

They also stated twice — and this is so hard to understand because it's just beyond reason — that the right to accept or refuse an EUA product is 'purely informational.' 

Literally, you can read that you could die by taking it, but it's purely informational. You cannot act on it. That's what the DOJ says. Again, it's not adjudicated, so it doesn't mean anything. It's an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”

Four Standards for EUA

There are four standards that must be fulfilled for an EUA. If any of these criteria are not met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market. And that doesn't just mean vaccines. It also includes the PCR tests and even surgical masks. 

The second standard is evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order to qualify. For an EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.

Now, you probably heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3

For example, if a study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in 1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.

The take-home message here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up. Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well. 

“I remember an analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.

The third standard is that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good. 

The fourth and last standard that must be met is there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the market.

“This is a four-legged stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your EUA products off the market ... by law. I put [state of] emergency and [treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy. 

This means that every variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the emergency going to keep their products on the market. 

You would think this emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90% vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t] go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full liability shield.”

Comirnaty’s Quasi Approval

With regard to Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:

“Comirnaty’s quasi approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn't have to do with Pfizer, and this is why I'm doing this presentation because I'm going to explain what’s going on with that. 

This is the race to get liability protection. Remember, that's the other stranglehold that they want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability. 

There's all this confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate legal? It's all the same answer. No, no, no, no. 

The FDA issued an intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty. It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying it's ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it's ‘legally distinct.’ 

In that same approval, they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they did this BS dual approval.

So, [Comirnaty] is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not available in the United States. It's available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not available in the United States because they're really scared of liability. 

Now, are you ready for this one? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for approval.’5 It doesn’t say it's approved anywhere in the document. And they buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more. 

Here's what they said; ‘We're deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16. For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed.’

Why did they do this? Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18. That's a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country. Why 16? 

The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children's vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That's why this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”

Comirnaty Is Not Fully Licensed

This confusion is clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it's also legally distinct. Courts have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They're not interchangeable. That means Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn't have full approval and it's not on the market. 

“Military members involved in lawsuits are challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate. They filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are interchangeable. So, we're still hammering on this legally, but a court has ruled that they're not interchangeable. 

[Editor’s note: This information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]

So, how do we know that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it's an EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn't have liability protection. Third, if it were available, it's an alternative [treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market. 

No. 4, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children's recommended schedule. That's how we know it's not fully approved and on the market. 

Here is the label for Comirnaty. It says it's emergency use authorization. It doesn't say it's fully approved, because it's not. But look at the safety information they are recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who've received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. 

So, this is saying that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and children in schools have died of heart attacks. That's what's going on here. 

And the reason they have to declare this is because they know it. They know it's happening. And the only way they can be sued is if they know there's a problem with their vaccine and they don't declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as if it's not that big of a deal, but it's a very big deal. Young people are dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID ...

The holy grail is to get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they're going after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate ...

Every medical intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn't calculate for kids at all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don't prevent transmission. They don't prevent cases. They don't prevent hospitalization or death.” 

How You Can Help

Children’s Health Defense has sued the FDA over the approval of Comirnaty, alleging that this is a “bait and switch” to convince people they are receiving a licensed vaccine, when in fact they are getting an EUA vaccine that cannot be lawfully mandated. Unfortunately, these kinds of legal cases can take a long time, and children are being needlessly harmed while we wait for legal clarification. 

They also have a couple dozen other legal cases underway. If you want to help, please sign up to become a member on childrenshealthdefense.org. It’s only $10 for a lifetime membership.

“That really helps us with standing in our legal cases, because the more people we represent, the stronger our cases are,” Mayer says. If you're in California, you can join the local chapter at ca.childrenshealthdefense.org. You can also help by purchasing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.” 

Sources and References

• 1 Reuters October 19, 2021

• 2 Biotech Law December 22, 2003

• 3 Maryannedemasi.com November 11, 2021

• 4 The BMJ Opinion

• 5 FDA BioNTech BLA Approval

• 6 USA Today December 22, 2021