Citing its “Christian values” and the Unavailability of Any Humane Means to Carry out its Murders ["executions"], Papua New Guinea Abolishes the Death Penalty

/

From [HERE] Citing its “Christian values” and the unavailability of any humane means to carry out executions, Papua New Guinea has abolished capital punishment. 

On January 20, 2022, the PNG parliament voted to repeal the nation’s 30-year-old death penalty statute and replace capital punishment with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. 

“For us as a Christian nation,” Prime Minister James Marape (pictured) said, “the notion of ‘thou shall not kill’ still prevails.” The death penalty, Marape said, “is not an effective deterrent to serious crime and offences.”

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet “warmly welcome[d]” the parliament’s vote, characterizing it as “reinforcing the rule of law and strengthening public confidence that those found guilty after trials following due process and in line with human rights standards will receive fair, proportionate and consistent punishment.” 

The parliament’s action came in the wake of an August 2021 ruling by the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea that lifted stays of execution for 14 death-row prisoners, removing the last legal hurdle preventing the first executions in 70 years in the 9 million-person nation in western Oceania. In 2013, the PNG cabinet proposed hanging, firing squad, and lethal injection as methods of execution after the country’s constitutional law reform commission traveled to the United States and neighboring Southeast Asian island nations to study their administration of capital punishment. 

Presenting the abolition bill to parliament, Justice Minister Bryan Kramer said PNG did not have the “necessary administrative mechanisms and infrastructure” to conduct executions humanely. The bill commuted the death sentences of 40 death-row prisoners to life without parole.

Republican Legislators Introduce Bill to Repeal and Replace Utah’s Death Penalty

/

From [DPIC] Two conservative Republican legislators, both former supporters of capital punishment, have introduced legislation that would end death-penalty prosecutions in Utah. 

On January 18, 2022, the first day of the three-month 2022 legislative session in the deeply conservative state, State Representative V. Lowry Snow (pictured, left) and Senator Daniel McCay (pictured, right) introduced HB 147, which would prohibit the death penalty for aggravated murders committed after May 4, 2022 and for all other aggravated murders for which prosecutors had not filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty before May 4, 2022. The measure has the support of victims’ family members, business leaders, and four prosecutors representing more than half the state’s population.

Aggravated murder is currently punishable in Utah by the death penalty, life in prison without possibility of parole, or a sentence of 25 years to life. HB 147 would repeal the death-penalty option and add a new non-capital sentencing alternative of 45 years to life. The bill would not affect the sentences of the seven men currently on the state’s death row.

Snow, the House sponsor of the bill, said “The reality is, of our system, in our state, in other states, it’s not a perfect system. But when we impose a death sentence, it is a perfect sentence. There’s nothing that is left after a person’s life is taken. It’s final. There is no way to correct that.” McCay told the editorial boards of the Deseret News and KSL.com that the death penalty “sets a false expectation for society, sets a false expectation for the victims and their families, and increases the cost to the state of Utah.”

Sharon Wright Weeks, whose sister and niece were murdered in 1984, has been an outspoken advocate for repeal. She spoke about how the death-penalty appeals process for Ron Lafferty, the man convicted of killing her family members, caused additional trauma for her family. “The vast majority of people have no idea what victims’ families are going through, going through this appellate process. It’s absolutely horrendous, and it’s mean,” she told The Independent. A meeting with her helped convince Rep. Snow to support abolition. 

“She expressed to me the trauma her family had been through, not just in terms of his two trials but the promise, the representation that was made by the state that he should be put to death, and now we were at 33, 34 years later, and it still hadn’t occurred,” he said. “In between, every time there was anything that happened in terms of him exercising his appellate rights or rehearing rights, or the second trial that the family had to go through, they had to relive again the tragic loss of her sister as well as her sister’s infant daughter.”

Impact of pretrial detention falls more heavily on Blacks, Latinos and low-income people, new report says

/

From [HERE] More than 60% of defendants are detained before trial because they can’t afford to post bail, according to a study finding that the impact falls most heavily on minorities and low-income people.

Nationally, the average bail amount for felonies is $10,000, according to the report released Thursday by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The report is titled The Civil Rights Implications of Cash Bail.

“With the imposition of financial conditions increasing along with bail amounts,” the report said, “the number of defendants who are detained in jail pretrial has grown, but the number of those sentenced have decreased.”

A total of 631,000 people are held in jails every day, and 74% are awaiting trial, the report said.

Research suggests that people of color may be subjected to higher bail amounts and are more likely to be perceived as dangerous during bail hearings, according to the report.

One study, for example, found that when monetary bail was set for Black defendants, it was in significantly greater amounts than for white defendants.

Research also shows that Black and Hispanic defendants have higher rates of pretrial detention than white defendants and are more likely to have financial conditions imposed.

Pretrial detention has collateral consequences, such as job losses, housing insecurity, family problems and an increased likelihood of engaging in future criminal conduct, the report noted. Those consequences have led to increasing concerns, especially given the lack of empirical research showing that pretrial detention increases public safety.

Many defendants post bail by relying on bail bond companies, for-profit businesses that charge a nonrefundable fee, usually set at 10% to 20% of the bail amount. Many defendants sign bail bond contracts that obligate them to pay loan installments and fees after their cases are resolved.

Bail concerns have led to reforms in at least 10 states and 40 counties. Some are revising or have already revised pretrial law and policy, while others are changing state constitutions, the report said.

The report followed a public hearing in which the commission heard from government officials, academics, law enforcement professionals, advocates and impacted people.

Norma V. Cantú, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, commented on the findings in a press release.

“More than half a million unconvicted people sit in jails across the nation awaiting trial,” Cantú said. “Presumption of innocence is the bedrock of our criminal justice system, with liberty the rule and pretrial detention intended to be a ‘carefully limited exception.’ Under the current bail system, it has become the norm.”

Eleventh Circuit Rules ‘No-trick-or-treat’ Warning Signs Put in the Yards of Registered Sex Offenders Violate Rights

/

From [HERE] Georgia sheriff began a policy in 2018 of putting signs in the yards of all 57 registered sex offenders in the county that read, "STOP" and "NO TRICK-OR-TREAT AT THIS ADDRESS." District court: That's fine. Eleventh Circuit(link is external) (with pictures!): Not fine. This is “a classic example” of compelled government speech, and it's unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.

Joyce Watkins, 74 Yr Old Black Woman, Exonerated After 27 Years in Prison for Wrongful Murder Conviction

/

From [EJI], was exonerated in a Nashville courtroom last week. She spent more than 27 years in prison after she and her boyfriend, Charlie Dunn, were wrongly convicted of aggravated rape and felony murder in the 1987 death of her four-year-old great-niece, Brandi.

“Joyce Watkins and Charlie Dunn are innocent,” District Attorney Glenn Funk told CNN. “We cannot give Ms. Watkins or Mr. Dunn their lost years but we can restore their dignity; we can restore their names. Their innocence demands it.”

In the summer of 1987, Joyce Watkins and Charles Dunn were working full-time jobs, were close to their family and friends, and lived in a nice home in a nice neighborhood, according to a report filed by the Davidson County District Attorney’s Office’s Conviction Review Unit. Ms. Watkins was applying to adopt a child of her own and Mr. Dunn was close to and regularly spent time with his children. Neither had any criminal record.

They drove to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on June 26 to pick up Ms. Watkins’s great-niece, Brandi, who had spent the previous two months with her other great-aunt, Rose Williams. Ms. Williams had repeatedly and insistently called Ms. Watkins to come take Brandi to her home in Nashville, the CRU found.

When they arrived home, Ms. Watkins noticed blood in Brandi’s underwear and called the girl’s grandmother to tell her Brandi was bleeding and needed medical attention. Brandi’s mother and grandmother told Ms. Watkins not to take her to the hospital but that they would come to get her. When they hadn’t arrived by morning, the CRU report says, Ms. Watkins took Brandi to the emergency room.

By then, the CRU report says, Brandi was unconscious and bleeding more heavily. She was intubated and transferred to Vanderbilt, where she died the following morning. The cause of death was determined to be head trauma.

Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn cooperated with the investigation and allowed police to retrieve the child’s clothes and bedding from their home. Police interviewed Ms. Watkins several times without informing her of her rights and without an attorney present, the CRU found.

Dr. Mona Gretel Harlan, the assistant county medical examiner who performed the autopsy with her husband, Dr. Charles Harlan, initially said Brandi’s injuries occurred within 24 to 48 hours of her death based on looking at bruises on her body—a method that the CRU said has been discredited.

That period included the time before Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn picked Brandi up, and the investigation initially focused on the theory that Brandi’s injuries occurred in Kentucky, the CRU report says.

In fact, during the two months she lived in Fort Campbell with Ms. Williams, Brandi suffered a variety of bruises, scrapes, and marks, lost consciousness at least twice, and exhibited abnormal behaviors like drinking out of a toilet and vomiting spontaneously at the dinner table, according to the CRU report. She had daily episodes of urinary incontinence and her private parts hurt so badly she wouldn’t sit down in the bathtub, but no one sought medical attention for her.

The Kentucky Department of Social Services received a report that Brandi was being physically abused, but the CRU report says a social worker sent to Ms. Williams’s home closed the investigation without speaking with or observing the child after Ms. Williams falsely claimed Brandi had been returned to her mother in Georgia.

Despite this documented ongoing abuse and neglect of Brandi while she was in Ms. Williams’s care, police “failed to engage in even a cursory investigation into any of the multiple other individuals who had direct access to Brandi during the time frame her injuries likely occurred,” the CRU report says. They instead charged Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn with aggravated rape and felony murder.

At trial in 1988, the “most damning proof” presented to the jury was Dr. Harlan’s opinion regarding the timing of the injuries, which she changed just 20 minutes before trial started. She testified that the injuries occurred less than 12-14 hours before death, when Brandi was in the care of Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn. “To accept her testimony meant a guilty verdict must be rendered,” the CRU found.

In what the CRU calls “emotionally charged, flatly incorrect summations of the evidence,” the State shored up its purely circumstantial case with false claims that painted Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn as monsters, including falsely telling the jury that attempted anal rape had occurred and that Mr. Dunn had caused scratches on Brandi’s back while raping her, the CRU report says. The State also told the jury that Ms. Watkins had washed a bedsheet to destroy evidence of the rape.

Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. After more than 27 years in prison, Ms. Watkins was released on parole in 2015.

She asked the Tennessee Innocence Project to clear her name, CNN reports, and they brought in the Conviction Review Unit, which conducted an extensive investigation and filed a 44-page report in November detailing its findings that Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn “were convicted of crimes they did not commit.”

The Davidson County Criminal Court found that Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn were actually innocent and vacated their convictions in an order issued on January 6.

The court found that new medical evidence proves that Dr. Harlan’s testimony was inaccurate and relied on illegitimate, discredited methods. “Specifically,” the court wrote, “Dr. Lewis [the state’s current chief medical examiner] testified that Dr. Gretel Harlan’s methodology for dating the head injury based upon a lack of histiocytic response in the brain tissue is not a legitimate method for dating pediatric head trauma.”

In addition to the “debunked histiocytic response methodology,” the court found, Dr. Harlan’s reliance on visual inspection of bruising to opine on the timing of the injuries in this case has been disavowed by the medical community.

The new evidence further showed that a more reliable indicator of timing of the injuries in this case is found in the perineal injury, where macrophages were found during the autopsy. Because those cells would not be expected to appear until several days or even more than a week following an injury, they show Brandi’s injuries occurred well before Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn picked her up, the court found—leaving “no compelling scientific evidence that Ms. Watkins or Mr. Dunn committed the crimes for which they were convicted.”

“The evidence presented at trial and post-conviction in this case was misleading, false, and uncorrected as to material issues,” the court continued. Specifically, the court found that the prosecutor not only falsely told the jury that Ms. Watkins washed a bedsheet to destroy evidence, but illegally withheld a Tennessee Department of Human Services report showing the sheet was not washed and was in Ms. Watkins’s home, available for collection.

The court announced its ruling on January 12, but the exoneration came too late for Mr. Dunn, who was granted parole but died suddenly in jail in 2015 while awaiting release.

“I wish my daddy was here to witness this day,” Mr. Dunn’s daughter, Jackie Dunn, told WTVF at last week’s hearing. “He knew he was innocent, he knew he did not commit those crimes.”

Ms. Watson’s lawyer told CNN it was unclear whether she or Mr. Dunn’s family would be compensated for the decades they spent wrongfully incarcerated.

“I thank all the people for their prayers and helping me get out of this mess which has cost me half of my life for nothing,” Ms. Watson told reporters. “But I’ll get over it.”

A Black Child (Keith Belcher) had been sentenced to 60 years in adult prison b/c judge deemed him a “superpredator.” Con Supreme CT Holds Sentence Based on Discredited Superpredator Myth Is Illegal

/

From [EJI] The Connecticut Supreme Court on Friday unanimously ordered a new sentencing hearing for Keith Belcher, a Black child sentenced to 60 years in adult prison because the sentencing judge deemed him a “superpredator.”

Keith Belcher was just 14 years old when he was arrested in 1993. He was prosecuted in adult court and convicted in the sexual assault and robbery of an elderly woman.

At the sentencing hearing on January 24, 1997, the court said, “The conduct here was just so inhumane as to be considered subhuman.” The court continued:

Professor John [J. DiIulio, Jr.], of Princeton University has coined the term ‘superpredator,’ which refers to a group of radically impulsive, brutally remorseless youngsters who assault, rape, rob and burglarize. Mr. Belcher, you are a charter member of that group. You have no fears, from your conduct, of the pains of imprisonment; nor do you suffer from the pangs of conscience.

The court imposed a total effective sentence of 60 years in prison—the longest determinate sentence imposed on a 14-year-old in Connecticut, Deputy Assistant Public Defender Alexandra Harrington, told CT Post last year. “[N]o other person in Connecticut is currently serving a sentence longer than 20 years for a non-homicide offense committed at age 14.”

That sentence was imposed in an illegal manner, the state’s highest court held, because the sentencing court relied on the erroneous and discredited theory of teenage “superpredators.”

In 1995, John DiIulio predicted a coming wave of “tens of thousands of severely morally impoverished juvenile super-predators” who would include ‘‘elementary school youngsters who pack guns instead of lunches’’ and ‘‘have absolutely no respect for human life.’’

These predictions disproportionately demonized Black teens. DiIulio wrote: ‘‘[N]ot only is the number of young [B]lack criminals likely to surge, but also the [B]lack crime rate, both black-on-black and black-on-white, is increasing, so that as many as [one] half of these juvenile super-predators could be young [B]lack males.’’

But as the Connecticut Supreme Court noted, the data did not support DiIulio’s assertions—juvenile offense rates had already dropped from their peak, and five years after he coined the term “superpredator,” the Justice Department found that “the rate of serious juvenile offending as of the mid-[1990s] was comparable to that of a generation ago.” A year later, in 2001, the U.S. Office of the Surgeon General labeled the superpredator theory a myth.

“[T]he superpredator theory was baseless when it originally was espoused and has since been thoroughly debunked and universally rejected as a myth,” the Connecticut Supreme Court found. “[I]t therefore constituted false and unreliable information that a sentencing court ought not consider in crafting a sentence for a juvenile offender.”

The sentencing court’s reliance on this racially biased myth was especially problematic in this case, the court explained, because it called into question whether the court would have sentenced Keith Belcher as harshly if he was not Black.

“The superpredator theory tapped into and amplified racial stereotypes that date back to the founding of our nation”—when enslaved Black people were legally considered to be property, not human beings, the court wrote.

The dehumanization of Black children pervades this country’s history.

Connecticut Supreme Court

In the mid-19th century, the court explained, adolescence was recognized as a distinct developmental stage for white children, prompting social reforms aimed at directing “wayward youth” to reform schools rather than incarcerating them with adults.

Black children, however, remained enslaved and “were viewed as subhuman.”  As a result, the court wrote, by 1850, rather than being sent to reform schools, ‘‘a disproportionate number of Black youths were jailed in cities with majority white populations.’’

The court traced the disparate treatment of Black youth in our criminal legal system today to this “historical fiction that Black adolescents are not actually ‘children’ meriting societal protection.”

Unlike white children who were seen as vulnerable and deserving of legal protections, Black children were seen as dangerous criminals that the public needs to be protected from—and the superpredator theory amplified this presumption of guilt and dangerousness by invoking images of packs of Black teens prowling the streets like animals.

The resulting media frenzy and public panic led nearly every state in the country to change its laws, subjecting children to punishments that were designed for adults. The consequences of these legal changes, the court wrote, fell disproportionately on Black teens.

“[B]y invoking the superpredator theory to sentence the young, Black male defendant in the present case,” the court concluded, the sentencing court “relied on materially false, racial stereotypes that perpetuate systemic inequities—demanding harsher sentences—that date back to the founding of our nation.”

In addition, the sentencing court violated U.S. Supreme Court precedent, including Miller v. Alabama, requiring that the hallmark characteristics of youth—impulsivity, submission to peer pressure, deficient judgment, and the capacity for change—must be considered as mitigating factors in sentencing. Instead, by relying on the superpredator myth, the sentencing court counted those qualities as an aggravating factor against Keith Belcher.

“[T]he superpredator myth is precisely the type of materially false information that courts should not rely on in making sentencing decisions,” the court concluded. “The court’s reliance on the superpredator theory, and its view that it had to protect society from a charter member of this remorseless group, dominated its sentencing remarks”—it was, the court found, “the prism through which the court viewed this defendant.”

Because the court’s “reliance on the false and pernicious superpredator theory in the present case so infected the sentencing that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner,” the supreme court granted Mr. Belcher’s motion to correct an illegal sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

The Journal of Hepatology Explains There is Growing evidence COVID-19 mRNA Injections Can Cause Severe Liver Damage

/

From [HERE] A recent Letter to the Editor published on the Journal of Hepatology website adds to the growing evidence that the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19 can cause severe liver damage. Entitled ‘Immune-mediated hepatitis with the Moderna vaccine, no longer a coincidence but confirmed’, the letter – written by four hospital doctors from the UK – summarizes the case history of a patient who received two doses of the vaccine. The doctors say the case provides “conclusive evidence” that the first dose led to immune-mediated hepatitis, with a rapid onset of liver injury. A second dose resulted in the development of acute severe autoimmune hepatitis. The patient was previously completely well with no other health problems.

The letter describes how the patient, a 47-year-old Caucasian man, received his first dose of the Moderna vaccine in April 2021. He noted malaise and jaundice three days later. Blood tests showed abnormal liver function, with his serum bilirubin around ten times normal and alanine aminotransferase more than twenty times normal. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) and alcohol use were ruled out as potential causes.

“Planned Obsolescence”: The Push for Big Pharma’s Booster Covid Shots and Annual Vaccinations

The patient’s jaundice and liver function tests had improved by late June but were still abnormal. He was subsequently given a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in early July, despite reporting the jaundice to the vaccination center. A few days later he became deeply jaundiced, with a bilirubin level approaching twenty times normal and numerous other liver abnormalities. The doctors say the pattern of injury was consistent with acute hepatitis, with features of autoimmune hepatitis or possible drug-induced liver injury, triggering an autoimmune-like hepatitis.

As the doctors point out in their letter, the onset of jaundice associated with the vaccine was unusually rapid. Significantly, therefore, and as they also acknowledge, this case is hardly the first in which COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have been associated with liver damage. Even prior to the publication of their letter, the doctors say at least seven cases of immune-mediated hepatitis linked to mRNA vaccines had already been reported in the scientific literature. Three of these cases related to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and four to the Moderna vaccine.

The doctors say they reported this latest case in order to encourage vigilance for such reactions, as well as to raise awareness for vaccination centers to incorporate them into their routine checks before administering second doses of mRNA vaccines. They stress that long-term follow up of affected individuals will be essential in determining the prognosis of this type of immune-mediated liver injury.

Ultimately, of course, the fact is that liver damage is only one of many serious side effects reported in connection with the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19. Others include very low platelet counts (thrombocytopenia); high rates of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis); inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis); blood clots (thrombosis); and even death.

Twenty-four centuries ago, the Greek physician Hippocrates is said to have exhorted the medical practitioners of his time to “first, do no harm.” While in conventional medicine this principle was already widely flouted in the pre-COVID era, with the ultrarapid authorization of mRNA vaccines it has essentially been almost completely abandoned. The time has come for political leaders and medical authorities to suspend the use of these experimental injections, pending a full and independent investigation into their dangers.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul Anthony Taylor is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings.

'LOSS THEY MF MIND!' [The Great Brain Robbery] Poll Says Most Dumbocrats Favor House Arrest for People Who Refuse Experimental, Deadly COVID Injections. Nearly 1/3 Want Them To Lose Custody of Kids

/

From [HERE] Democrats were more than twice as likely as other voters to favor harsh government restrictions being placed on unvaccinated people’s lives, ranging from fines and house arrest to imprisonment in government facilities and loss of child custody, in a recent poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute.

Forty-eight percent of Democratic voters said the government should be able to fine or imprison those who publicly question the COVID-19 vaccine’s efficacy, while only 27% of all voters supported the proposal, according to the poll results.

Fines against those who refuse to take the vaccine were viewed favorably by 55% of Democratic voters and just 19% of Republicans, and 59% of Democrats favored a policy requiring unvaccinated people to stay inside their homes at all times, except for emergencies, the poll found. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans opposed a house arrest policy for unvaccinated people.

Forty-five percent of Democratic respondents favored the government forcing people into “designated facilities” until they get the vaccine — a measure opposed by 71% of all voters. 

A government program using digital devices to track the movements of unvaccinated people and ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing was opposed by two-thirds of likely voters, but 47% of Democratic respondents supported the idea of such a program.

Twenty-nine percent of Democratic voters said the government should take people’s children from them if they refuse to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a measure viewed favorably by 7% of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters.

Victims say Rwanda Authorities are Forcibly Injecting People with Deadly Fake COVID Vax

/

From [HERE] Although Rwanda says it will not mandate people to take COVID-19 vaccines, some residents — especially in rural areas — say officials have been forcing Rwandans to take the jabs.

Rwanda has been recognized by the World Health Organization as being among the countries to fully vaccinate at least 40% of their populations against COVID-19 by the end of 2021.

Currently, more than 49% of almost 13 million Rwandans have been double-jabbed, and more than 61% have had at least one vaccine administered.

But some Rwandans say this number is only possible because of force by local leaders and police. DW spoke to some people who said they had been forced to receive vaccinations. For fear of possible consequences, they either chose to remain anonymous or DW decided to leave their names out of the report.

A man from the Muhanga district, in Rwanda's Southern Province, told DW that he was handcuffed in order to receive the jab.

"Around 4 a.m. our local cell leader kicked in my door," he said "I thought they were thieves because I was still asleep. There were three people standing at my door, they ordered me to go to the sector offices, and I was handed over to security personnel and I was told that I was going to be vaccinated against my will." Cells and sectors are administrative entities between villages and districts.

The man recalled that he was forced to sit under the scorching sun until the evening when he got vaccinated. According to him, five police officers and six civilians surrounded him and ordered him into a room.

"They pounced on me and dragged me on the ground, manhandling me, shoving their knees in my back and everywhere, as the handcuffs were cutting deep wounds around my wrists," he said. "They even tried to suffocate me." Then, according to his statement, medics came and injected a vaccine.

'We completely refused'

Some people cited warnings from religious leaders as their reason for not getting vaccinated. Members of a Pentecostal Church, who rejected getting vaccinated, claimed that they were held for a week by the military, police and local leaders trying to sensitize them to take the jabs. According to their account, this happened in transit centers that mainly handle street children and criminals in the Western Province's Ngororero district.

"We completely refused to take the jabs and instead asked the soldiers and police to shoot us or drown us to death. We put up a demonstration, but they said they won’t shoot us," a man told DW. He said the group was forced to take the shots. "When they realized we were not ready to change our mind, they brought in many police officers, and we were handcuffed," he said. "The police officers held us to the ground, and we were vaccinated."

A man from the Rwamagana district, in the Eastern Province, told DW that he fled with his wife from his home when authorities wanted to force them to be vaccinated. "I was suffering from malaria and taking […] medication. I begged them not to vaccinate me. When they insisted, we fled our home."

When DW spoke to him, he had still not returned home. According to him, many people in his neighborhood were forced to get vaccinated: "It's not only me. If you want, I can point to different places where they are."

DW cannot independently verify these testimonies.

CLADHO, an umbrella body for human rights organizations in Rwanda, told DW in a statement that the groups had seen media reports about forced vaccinations. "CLADHO is in the process of investigating to get a clear picture of the situation," said executive secretary Emmanuel Safari. It considers such acts illegal.

DW reached out to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Both told DW that they currently don't have any information on forced COVID vaccinations in Rwanda.

Authorities contradict reports

DW has also contacted Rwanda's Health Ministry and the prime minister's office, asking for a comment about the testimonies. Two deadlines passed without a statement by the authorities.

Christopher Nkusi, the mayor of the Ngororero district, dismissed the reports within his region as false. "Those with resistance are sensitized and vaccinated afterwards because even right now we have many who are not yet vaccinated. We are still in the process of sensitizing them. I am not aware of any case of forced vaccination in my district."

Rumors shared online

Rumors about forced vaccination — with physical violence or psychological pressure — have been circulating for weeks.

In December, video footage was widely shared on social networks and messaging apps among Rwandan people. The 30-second clip shows an elderly man in dirty and worn-out clothes. He says in Kinyarwanda that he doesn't want any injection or vaccination, and closes the door to his house. A person who is not visible in the video is heard saying that the injection would be for his protection, and continues: "But, if you don't accept it, the report about your behavior won't be good."

Later, a widely shared photo showed the same man sitting on the ground while another man in a military uniform put his hands on the elderly man's shoulders and a third person injected a substance into his arm. [MORE]

Doc Fired After Testimony: 'All the Currently Available COVID Shots in the US are Experimental. None is Licensed. Comirnaty has Full License but Isn't Available. Experimental Drugs Can't be Mandated'

/

  • January 11, 2022, the Health and Human Services Committee of the Maine legislature held a public hearing on LD867 “An Act to Prohibit Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for 5 Years to Allow for Safety Testing and Investigations Into Reproductive Harm”

  • Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist with a special interest in vaccine-induced illnesses and expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism, testified in favor of the bill

  • All currently available COVID shots in the U.S. are experimental. None is licensed. Comirnaty, which has received full license, is not available in the U.S., and won’t be made available as long as doses of the Emergency Use Authorized Pfizer shot, BNT162b2, remain

  • Since the COVID shots are experimental, U.S. law requires potential recipients to have the right to refuse. Experimental drugs also cannot be mandated, and potential recipients must give written informed consent. Informed consent cannot be given when reports of side effects are censored and not disclosed

  • Some foundational safety studies are just now starting and won’t be completed until 2027

From [MERCOLA] January 11, 2022, the Health and Human Services Committee of the Maine legislature held a public hearing on LD8671 “An Act to Prohibit Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for 5 Years to Allow for Safety Testing and Investigations Into Reproductive Harm.”

The American Cancer Society is vehemently opposed to this rational bill.2 In some twisted, incomprehensible logic, the ACS claims that banning mandatory COVID jabs would “place the health of cancer patients at greater risk.” How, one might ask, could that happen, considering the jabbed are just as likely to contract and spread the virus?

Getting the shot in no way, shape or form protects anyone around you. So, what could it be? One can only wonder if the ACS’ opposition has anything to do with their “long-standing partnership”3 with vaccine maker Pfizer, which in 2020 alone helped the ACS hand out $3.7 million in grants4 — but which also happens to produce one of the COVID mRNA injections?

If vaccine mandates are upheld, ACS’ partner, Pfizer, has lots to gain. But if mandates are banned, they could have plenty to lose. Among those who testified in favor of the bill was Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist with a special interest in vaccine-induced illnesses and expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism.

In her testimony, Nass presented several key reasons for why we need to prevent COVID jab mandates until there’s adequate safety data. Nass’ testimony is posted on her blog, anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com.5 Here, I’ll provide a summary review of her key points.

The COVID Shots Are Experimental

Yes, the COVID shots are still experimental. No, there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved COVID shots AVAILABLE or IN USE in the United States, and experimental drugs cannot claim to be safe and effective. FDA Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Subchapter D Part 312:[3]6 defines a medical experiment as “any use of a drug except for the use of a marketed drug in the course of medical practice,” and vaccines are a subset of drugs, per the FDA.

“While FDA licensed Comirnaty ... only Emergency Use Authorized (experimental) vaccines are being used,” Nass notes.

What’s more, that term, “safe and effective,” is an FDA term that can only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. Since none of the COVID shots given is actually licensed, they are, by definition, experimental or investigational. Besides, trials have not yet concluded for any of the vaccine makers. They’re still ongoing.

“No matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not ‘safe and effective,’” Nass says. “Medicines and vaccines are EITHER licensed products or experimental products. There is no gray area between them in U.S. law.

Whether or not research is explicitly conducted, the use of experimental products (including those issued under an Emergency Use Authorization) falls under the Nuremberg Code and under U.S. law regulating experimental drugs. As former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn himself noted, ‘EUA products are still considered investigational.’”

Informed Consent and Option to Refuse Are Required by Law

So, the EUA COVID shots are, by definition, experimental, and when a person is offered an experimental product, U.S. law requires that they provide written informed consent.

Now, the informed consent requirement was loosened under the PREP Act that created the EUAs, but the law still requires that participants be informed “of the significant known and potential benefits and risks,” and “the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown.” Moreover, they must have the option to accept or refuse the treatment.

To this day, participants in this global experiment have NOT been told of the potential risks. They receive no adequate disclosure form before they’re given the shot, and Big Tech in collusion with government has censored any and all discussion and disclosure of adverse effects.

Even those who are reporting their personal experiences are censored and/or deplatformed. For a taste of what those injured by the COVID jabs have had to endure, see Del Bigtree’s interview with three such victims.7

How Liability Is Being Skirted

Nass then goes on to explain why — seeing how the FDA has approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID shot called Comirnaty — this product is not actually being used in the U.S.

In short, it comes down to liability. The two products are not interchangeable (as confirmed in federal court8) because they are not identical in terms of liability under U.S. law. (The liability issue differs from country to country, which is likely why Comirnaty is available in Europe but not the U.S. Everything discussed here applies only to the U.S.)

Indeed, a federal district court judge in November 2021 rejected the U.S. Department of Defense’s claim that Pfizer’s EUA shot, BNT162b2, is interchangeable with the licensed Comirnaty.9 Why would Pfizer give up blanket immunity by withdrawing the remaining EUA lots and replacing them with a product they can be sued for by people who are injured?

The Pfizer-BioNTech EUA product, BNT162b2,10 has very limited financial liability for injuries and deaths, thanks to it being under EUA. This liability shield extends to the manufacturer, distributors, administrators, program planners and just about everyone else involved in the making, distribution and administering of this product.

Comirnaty, on the other hand, as a fully licensed product, does not enjoy this broad liability shield. It is subject to ordinary liability claims. Strangely enough, the FDA extended the EUA for BNT162b2 on the very same day it granted full license to Comirnaty, and Pfizer has no plan to make Comirnaty available in the United States as long as BNT162b2 doses are still available.11

Why didn’t the FDA pull the EUA for BNT162b2 once it licensed Comirnaty? They’re supposed to be identical products, so why the two wildly diverging and contradictory lines of approval?

“FDA appears to have been acceding to the White House demand that the vaccine be licensed, in order for it to be mandated for large sectors of the U.S. population. Under an EUA, which specifies that potential recipients have the right to refuse, mandates cannot be imposed.” ~ Dr. Meryl Nass

By law, an EUA can only be granted when there are no other drugs available, so once a COVID shot was licensed, all EUA “vaccines” should actually have been pulled. As stated by the Children’s Health Defense in its lawsuit against the FDA and acting commissioner Janet Woodcock:12

“The black letter law is clear. There can be no biologic license approved to a medical product for diagnosing, preventing or treating COVID-19 if there is also still an Emergency Use Authorization for the same medical product serving the same purpose.”

I recently discussed this issue with Alix Mayer from Children’s Health Defense. If you are interested in more details please review the video below.

MIT Scientist's Paper Shows COVID Injections Cause “Alpha Interferon" Suppression which Weakens Your Immune System [EU regulators now warn that repeat COVID shots can weaken overall immunity]

/

From [MERCOLA] In a non-peer-reviewed research paper just this week published, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., describes a mechanism of the COVID shots that results in the suppression of your innate immune system. It does this by inhibiting the type-1 interferon pathway

  • The COVID jab can cause neurons in your brain to produce toxic spike protein, or take up circulating spike protein, and the neurons try to eliminate the spike protein by transmitting them through exosomes. The exosomes are picked up by microglia, immune cells in your brain, which activate an inflammatory response, which can contribute to degenerative brain disorders

  • Two microRNAs, miR-148a and miR-590, are central in this process. These microRNAs — excreted in the exosomes along with the spike protein — significantly disrupt the type-1 interferon response in any cell, including immune cells

  • On average, there are twice as many reports of cancer following the COVID shots compared to all other vaccines combined over the last 31 years

  • The fact that the signal is that strong is even more remarkable when you consider that most people don’t think the COVID shot could be a variable in their cancer emergence, so they never report it

In this interview, return guest Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT who has been at MIT for over five decades, discusses her latest paper, "Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations. The Role of G-quadruplexes, Exosomes and MicroRNAs," co-written with Dr. Peter McCullough, along with two other authors, Dr. Greg Nigh and Dr. Anthony Kyriakopoulos.

Previously, Nigh and Seneff co-wrote an entire paper detailing the differences between the spike protein and the COVID jab spike protein. In a non-peer-reviewed research paper just this week published on the pre-print service authorea, they and their other co-authors delve deeply into the mechanisms of the COVID shots, showing how they absolutely, in no way, shape or form, are safe or effective. The shots actually suppress your innate immune system.

"I think McCullough is fantastic and I'm so happy to have him collaborate with me," Seneff says. "I really hope we will be able to find a journal that is willing to publish it. We may have to seek some kind of alternative media to get it published.

It's really incredible the amount of censorship that's going on right now. I'm in a state of shock all the time. I just keep thinking it's not going to get any worse, and it's truly going to get better, and it just seems to keep on getting worse and worse.

I don't know where the end is. It's very discouraging ... Pharma has so much money behind [them] and they've got it all set up to make sure that nothing gets past them ...

We're hoping to put it up as a preprint, but ... remarkably, they can reject it at the level of preprint as well. We're working on that angle, but it's not easy. When you're writing something this radical, they really fight hard to keep it off the web."

On January 16, 2022, the pre-print service Authorea published this paper on its web site, assigning it a DOI, thus making it official.

Exceptionally Strong Safety Signals

As noted by Seneff, when you look at the various databases for adverse effects, you can see an exceptionally strong safety signal — and the COVID shot developers know that. "The numbers are out of sight," Seneff says, and this goes for all levels of side effects, from mild to catastrophic.

Seneff has been looking at the cancer data, for example, and on average, there are twice as many reports of cancer following the COVID shots compared to all other vaccines combined over the last 31 years.

"It's just amazing, because it's overall two times [higher]. Breast cancer, for example, is three times [higher] for these vaccines in one year, as they are for all the other vaccines for 31 years. It's a hugely strong signal," Seneff says.

"Lymphoma is also showing up much more frequently with these [COVID shots]. There's just an amazing signal there in VAERS [the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System]."

The fact that the signal is that strong is even more remarkable when you consider that most people don't think the COVID shot could be a variable in their cancer emergence, so they never report it. "It puzzles me that they're willing to do such damage to the health of the whole population of the world. I don't understand that degree of evilness," Seneff says.

Type-1 Interferon Disruption

The shots suppress your innate immune system by inhibiting type-1 interferon. One of the first studies to tip off Seneff and McCullough to this was an Indian study, in which human cells grown in a culture were exposed to the DNA nanoparticles that instruct them to make SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, much like the COVID shots do.1

The cell strain is called HEK-293. These are cells that were taken from the kidneys of an aborted fetus in the 1980s and are frequently used in research. While taken from the kidneys, these cells have neuron-like properties. When programmed to make spike protein, these cells release that spike protein inside exosomes — lipid nanoparticles inside which the spike protein is packaged.

Exosomes act as a communication network for cells. When a cell is under stress, it releases exosomes containing some of the molecules that are stressing it. So, in the case of the COVID shots, the exosomes contain spike protein and microRNA. MicroRNAs are signaling molecules that are able to influence cell function. They cause the cell to change its behavior or metabolism. Typically, they do this by suppressing certain enzymes.

The Indian study found two specific microRNAs inside the exosomes released by these neuron-like cells: miR-148a and miR-590. The researchers then exposed microglia (immune cells in your brain) to these exosomes. So, as explained by Seneff, you've got neurons in your brain producing spike protein, or taking up spike protein that is in circulation, and reacting to it by releasing exosomes.

The exosomes are then picked up by microglia, the immune cells in your brain. When the immune cells receive those exosomes, they turn on an inflammatory response. This is primarily a response to those microRNAs, the miR-148a and miR-590. Of course, you also have the toxic spike protein there.

Combined, they cause inflammation in the brain, which damages neurons. This inflammation, in turn, can contribute to a number of degenerative brain disorders. The lipid particles in the COVID shot, which contain the mRNA, are similar to exosomes, but not identical. They're also very similar to low-density lipid (LDL) particles.

"I think the exosomes are probably quite a bit smaller. The vaccine particles are bigger. They're more like an LDL particle. The vaccine particles have cholesterol in their membrane, and they have lipoprotein. So, they're made to look like an LDL particle.

But then they throw in this cationic lipid, which is really, really toxic — a synthetic cationic lipid that makes it positively charged. Experimentally, they've found that this lipid, when the particle is taken up by the cell, is released into the cytoplasm, [where] that mRNA then makes spike protein.

[The COVID shots] are very cleverly designed, both in terms of protecting the RNA from getting broken down, and in terms of making the RNA be very efficient at making spike protein. It's very different from the mRNA that the virus makes, even though it codes for the same protein."

Seneff wrote an entire paper2 detailing the differences between the viral spike protein and the COVID jab spike protein, together with Greg Nigh, which was published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in May 2021. It basically serves as a primer for understanding what we discuss here.

Two microRNAs, miR-148a and miR-590 — excreted in the exosomes along with the spike protein — significantly disrupt the type-1 interferon response in any cell, including immune cells.

Getting back to the Indian paper cited above, they found that the microglia ended up producing inflammation in the brain, and the two microRNAs were central in this process. The miR-148a and miR-590 were put into those exosomes with the spike protein, and these two microRNAs are able to significantly disrupt the type-1 interferon response in any cell, including immune cells.

Type-1 interferon also keeps latent viruses like herpes and varicella (which causes shingles) viruses in check, so if your interferon pathway is suppressed, these latent viruses can also start to emerge. The VAERS database reveals many who have been jabbed do report these kinds of infections. Suppressed interferon also raises your risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Type-1 Interferon Response Is Crucial in Viral Infections

As explained by Seneff, the type-1 interferon response is absolutely crucial as the first-stage response to a viral infection. When a cell is invaded by a virus, it releases type-1 interferon alpha and type-1 interferon beta. They act as signaling molecules that tell the cell that it's been infected.

That, in turn, launches the immune response and gets it going early in the viral infection. It's been shown that people who end up with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection have a compromised type-1 interferon response. As noted by Seneff:

"It's ironic that the vaccines are being given to protect you from COVID, yet, they produce a situation where your immune cells are ill-equipped to fight SARS-CoV-2 if it gets into the cell. The trick is, the vaccine produces a tremendous antibody response, and that's typical of severe disease.

So, the [COVID shot] fools your immune system into thinking that you've had a severe case of COVID. It's really interesting that way, because it's gotten past the mucosal barrier of the lungs, it's gotten past the vascular barrier of the blood, into the muscle. Also, it's been disguised. 

The RNA doesn't look like a virus RNA, it looks like a human RNA molecule. Part of the modifications [made to the mRNA in the jab] was to make it very sturdy, so it can't be broken down. It's also very good at making [spike] protein fast, which also has a problem because it leads to a lot of errors, which is another issue ...

The immune cells take up the nanoparticles and carry them through the lymph system into the spleen. Multiple studies have shown that it ends up in the spleen ... the ovaries, the liver, the bone marrow ... The spleen, of course, is very important for producing antibodies."

Importantly, the antibody response you get from the COVID shot is exponentially higher than what you get from natural infection, and research has shown that the level of antibody response rises with disease severity. So, the shot basically mimics severe infection. In mild infection, you may not produce any antibodies at all, because the innate immune cells are strong enough to fight off the infection without them.

It's when your innate immune system is weak that you get into trouble, and part of that weakness is a suppressed type-1 interferon response. If your type-1 interferon response is deficient, your immune cells are not very capable of stopping the spread of the virus in your body.

According to Seneff, the reason type-1 interferon supplementation has not been recommended thus far is because you have to time it perfectly in order for the immune cascade to function properly. Type-1 interferon plays a definitive role only at the very earliest stage of the infection. Once you've entered a moderate or severe infection stage, it's too late to use it.

COVID Shots Confuse Your Immune System

As noted by Seneff, the COVID shots are so unnatural that your immune system doesn't quite know what to do anymore.

"My impression is that the immune cells don't know what the hell's going on. There's this toxic protein being produced in massive amounts by the immune cells. That's extremely unusual. There's no sign of any kind of viral infection because these RNAs look like human RNAs.

It's as if the human immune cells suddenly decided to make a really toxic protein, and make lots of it — which is exactly what they're doing — and the immune system is completely baffled by this. The immune cells have no clue what to do with it.

Of course, these immune cells that are overloaded with all this spike protein, they say, 'I've got to get rid of this stuff,' so they ship it out as these exosomes. The microRNAs [in the exosomes] think that the recipient cells are going to need those particular signaling molecules to help it do whatever it needs to do to cope with this toxic load.

So, you're spreading the spike protein around to the rest of the body, just to dissipate the toxicity you're coping with in the spleen, I think. Those exosomes are also very good for training antibodies. There was a nice paper that showed the exosomes being released [have] spike protein in their membrane, the exterior of the exosome.

It's quite cool that the spike protein is displayed there, because this allows the immune cells — the B-cells and the T-cells that need to get up close and personal to it — to figure out how to shape their antibodies. The antibodies get shaped to match the toxic protein that's exposed on the surface of the exosomes.

After something like 14 days of the second [jab], the exosomes induced an antibody response. [The researchers] felt the exosomes played a critical role in this extreme antibody response that was produced by the B-cells and the T-cells, the adaptive immune system.

But I think the way the vaccine works is that there's no game that you can choose other than to make antibodies. It's the only way you can fight this. It's a toxic protein that's being produced and released by these immune cells, and the only thing you can do to stop it is to make antibodies. 

They try to make lots and lots of antibodies that will glue onto those toxic spike proteins and block them from being able to get in through the ACE2 receptor. That's the job of the antibodies. They do a good job of it, initially ... It's true that they do protect you from disease. Unfortunately, the antibody levels drop pretty dramatically, pretty quickly."

There are also antibodies that enhance disease rather than fight it, and the level of these antibodies declines at a slower pace than the protective antibodies. So, after a number of months you end up with a NEGATIVE immune response. In other words, you're now more prone to infection than ever before. As explained by Seneff:

"There's a crossover point at which the enhancing antibodies can be stronger than the protective antibodies, and that's when you can get this antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) that people have seen in the past with [other] coronavirus vaccines. We're still trying to see if that's the case with [the COVID jabs]. There is some evidence here and there, but it's not [conclusive yet]."

The Importance of Cytotoxic T-Cells

After the India study tipped off Seneff and McCullough to the interferon problem, they came across a Chinese study3 that tracked the effect of the COVID jab on the immune system over time. Here, they discovered that the infection caused an increase in CD8+ T-cells, important cytotoxic T-cells that actually remove infected cells.

As noted by Seneff, the CD8+ cells are an important part of the defense against SARS-CoV-2. Importantly, CD8+ T-cells were enhanced in response to natural infection, but not in response to the COVID shot. They too found type-1 interferon suppression post-jab. So, in the aftermath of the jab, not only is your first-line response depressed — the type-1 interferon response — but you're also missing the part of the immune response that cleans away infected cells.

The microRNA That Influences Myocarditis Risk

A third microRNA (mRNA) created by natural SARS-CoV-2 infection is miR-155, and it plays an important role in heart health. Early on in the pandemic, there were reports of COVID-19 causing heart problems.

Seneff suspects the miR-155-containing exosomes may also be present post-jab, and may play a role in the heart damage that's being reported. Specifically, miR-155 is associated with myocarditis. As mentioned earlier, microRNA suppresses certain proteins that then cause a complicated cascade response. When a particular protein that is a critical player gets suppressed by a microRNA, then a whole different cascade takes place.

Why Autoimmune Problems May Arise Post-Jab

The antibodies produced by the jab also have several short peptide sequences in them that have previously been found in several human cells that are related to autoimmune disease. Seneff explains:

"Kanduc has written a lot about this. She's an expert on these antibodies ... The [SARS-CoV-2] spike protein is very overlapped with human protein. That means when you build a really strong antibody response to the spike protein, those antibodies can get confused and they can attack a human protein that has a similar sequence.

That's a classic form of autoimmune disease. It's called molecular mimicry. There were many different proteins that matched. It was quite surprising ... It seems to be very well designed to induce autoimmune disease, if you produce antibodies to those sequences in the spike protein."

Neurological Problems in Women

The shots are also tightly associated with neurological problems such as uncontrollable tremors and shaking. Curiously, this side effect disproportionally affects women. The mechanism here again involves the exosomes. Seneff explains:

"I feel there's a very strong signal for the idea, which I'm pushing, that you have those immune cells in the spleen making spike protein and releasing it in exosomes. It's been shown in studies on Parkinson's disease that those exosomes travel along nerve fibers.

They'll go along the splanchnic nerve, they'll hook up with the vagus nerve, they'll go up to the brain and get into all these different nerves in the brain. When you look at the VAERS database, you see tremendous signals for all kinds of things that suggest different nerves are being inflamed.

For example, there are 12,000 cases of tinnitus associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, and that's only what's reported. Tinnitus is a strong signal. Tinnitus is going to be inflammation of the auditory nerve. This means you have to go all the way from the spleen, up the vagus nerve, and then connect to the auditory nerve to cause tinnitus.

Then you have Bell's palsy, which is inflammation of the facial nerve. You have migraine headache. There are over 8,000 cases of migraine headache, which is linked to an inflammation of the trigeminal nerve.

It probably also goes, I suspect, along the nerve fibers of the spinal column, which may be causing some of these cases where they're finding paralysis. People have a lot of mobility issues connected with these vaccines.

I see the possibility of causing a lot of disturbances to the myelin sheath, and we talk about that in the paper. It involves, again, complex signaling. You can get to the myelin sheath problem through the type-1 interferon disruption.

That, again, involves something called interferon response factor 9 IRF9. This protein triggers the production of sulfatide in the liver, and this protein gets suppressed by these microRNAs that I mentioned earlier."

Sulfatide, an important lipid carrier, is the only sulfonated lipid in the human body. Your liver makes most of the sulfatide, which is then carried by your platelets (blood cells) to other areas in your body. The myelin sheath contains high amounts of sulfatide. It's part of what protects the myelin sheath. In demyelinating diseases, that sulfatide erodes, ultimately allowing the myelin to be attacked.4

Seneff believes the COVID jab results in significant myelin damage, thanks to these inflammatory exosomes. This damage does not necessarily show up right away, although some jab recipients experience acutely devastating effects. It could take 10 years or more before a demyelinating disease sets in.

"I think we're going to see people getting these neurodegenerative diseases earlier and earlier in life than they used to," Seneff says, "and I think anybody who already has any of these diseases is going to have accelerated progression."

We May Soon See an Explosion of Parkinson's Cases

Disturbingly, loss of smell and dysphagia, the inability to swallow, are both signs of Parkinson's disease, and both of these conditions are being reported post-jab by the thousands. So, in years to come, we could be looking at an explosion of Parkinson's.

"Parkinson's studies have shown that you can get pathogens in the gut that produce a prion-like protein, which is what the spike protein is. The immune cells then take it up and take it to the spleen. This, of course, causes stress.

A stressed immune cell in the spleen upregulates and produces more alpha-synuclein. Alpha-synuclein is a molecule that fights infection, and that's the molecule that misfolds in association with Parkinson's disease.

I'm fascinated with all of these molecules that are prion-like. There's the prion protein itself, which is associated with CJD, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, but then there's the alpha-synuclein and amyloid beta, there's TDP-43, which is associated with ALS.

All of those diseases are overrepresented in the VAERS database for the COVID shots, compared to all the other vaccines combined over 31 years. It's just completely out of line.

There are 58 cases of Alzheimer's in association with the COVID vaccines, and 13 in association with all the other vaccines over 31 years. That's several times more — 58 versus 13.

CJD is also much more common. It's almost seven times as common in the COVID vaccine cases. CJD is a terrible disease. You get very crippled and die after a few years. That's the classic prion protein [disease]. It's extremely rare. Only 1 in 1 million gets CJD.

There was a person who contacted me from France whose wife got CJD just a few weeks after the second vaccine. He was absolutely convinced the vaccine caused it. There are actually 27 cases [of CJD] reported in VAERS for the COVID-19 vaccines, against only four cases over the entire history of all other vaccines combined."

Health Problems We Can Expect to See More Of

In time, Seneff predicts we'll see a dramatic increase in infections and cancers of all types, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases and reproductive issues. As mentioned, research has demonstrated that the spike protein accumulates in the spleen and women's ovaries.

Without doubt, inflammation in the ovaries is not a good thing. Men also report swollen testes, and that could be indicative of inflammation as well. Preliminary data show women who get the jab within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy have a miscarriage rate of 82% to 91%.5 There are also VAERS reports describing fetal damage. Of course, it could also impair future fertility.

As described earlier, some antibodies produced by the jab can react to human proteins. One protein that is similar to the spike protein that the antibodies attack is syncytin, which is essential for the fertilization of the egg. The concern is that the antibodies might attack and destroy syncytin, thereby disrupting and preventing implantation in the placenta.

Omicron — A Blessing in Disguise?

The jabs also perpetuate COVID, with ever-new variants of the virus.

"In the first paper that Greg and I wrote, we predicted the vaccines would cause an increased emergence of variants of spike protein, altered versions of the virus, under the pressure of the vaccine," Seneff says.

"Indeed, it looks to me like that's what's happening. But I'm really hopeful with Omicron, because Omicron looks like it's a milder virus, but incredibly infectious. It'll flash through the population and give everybody, essentially, a vaccine. It's kind of like a natural vaccine, I think.

[Research] showed that ... having had Omicron, you were protected, to some extent, from Delta. Delta's disappearing anyway, because Omicron is chasing it out. It's really great. I think Omicron is God's gift from heaven."

That blessing may be canceled out in those who have received multiple COVID jabs, however. Each dose erodes your immune response, such that it becomes increasingly compromised with each jab. Again, this has to do with the suppression of type-1 interferon, discussed earlier.

What Catalyzes Damage in Athletes?

More than 400 cases of serious heart problems and death have also been reported among professional athletes,6 who are some of the healthiest people on the planet. What mechanism can account for this phenomenon? How is it that the COVID jabs can cause enough damage to take out young people with optimized biology?

Seneff suspects that being fit might cause you to have more ACE2 receptors in the heart, and the S1 portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor. She believes the spike protein is being delivered to the heart via exosomes, by way of the vagus nerve, and, again, the miR-155 exosome is associated with heart problems.7

Additionally, when the S1 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor,8 it disables the receptor. When you disable ACE2, you get an increase in ACE, which causes high blood pressure and elevates angiotensin 2. When angiotensin 2 is overexpressed, you can get intense inflammation in the heart. If you're engaging in intense exertion and your heart is inflamed, you can trigger cardiac arrest, which is what we see in many of these athlete cases. They're collapsing on the field.

G-Quadruplexes

Another focus of Seneff's and McCullough's paper is something called G4 or G-quadruplexes.

"G-quadruplexes are really fascinating, and I don't have a handle on them at all," Seneff says. "It's hard biology, even harder than a lot of the other stuff that I've been reading ...

G4s are basically an arrangement of [guanines]. Guanines are one of the four nucleotides that make up DNA or RNA. Guanine is the G in the G4. What happens is that a sequence of nucleotides on a DNA or an RNA string can fold in on itself and form G-quadruplexes. It's four guanines, at different places on the protein, winding back around and sticking together.

There's a metal in the middle — often potassium or calcium — that helps to stabilize these G4s. The interesting thing about them is that they make the water around them structured. They make gelled water [aka exclusion zone (EZ) water] ...

Those G4s can form in the DNA, and that actually keeps it from becoming active. [The DNA] doesn't get converted into RNA, and it doesn't make protein if it has those G4s. Probably, the EZ water doesn't allow anything to get close. Think of it as being stuck in a gel.

There are a lot of G4s in the promoter regions of these DNA sequences, and there are lots of proteins that have these G4s in their promoter region. Interestingly, there are certain proteins that can unravel them. There are proteins that can bind to them and cause the G4 to undo, and that activates or allows the protein to be expressed.

It's a regulatory element that controls which proteins get to be expressed from the DNA. Many of the proteins that have these G4s in their promoter are cancer oncogenes. As long as they stay gelled, they're inactive, but if they become ungelled, they become active.

It turns out that prion proteins ... [are] made from RNA, and the RNA has these G4s. The protein can bind to the G4s in the RNA and both of them react. The theory is that the protein becomes prion-like. These prion proteins have two ways to be, one is safe and one is not safe, and the G4s increase the risk for prion protein misfolding.

The presence of those G4s, and the meeting with those G4s, increases the risk of misfolding in the prion-like configuration.9 The interesting thing about that is that spike protein is a prion-like protein. The RNA they built for the [COVID jab], they did something called codon optimization, which involved putting a lot more guanines into the RNA than [found] in the original [virus]. They enhanced the guanine.

Enhancing the guanine means increasing the number of G4s, which means increasing the risk of the spike protein misfolding into a prion like protein. I think that the G4s increase the risk, the danger of spike protein [acting] as a prion-like protein.

But we don't really know what the consequence of having all these G4 RNAs in the cytoplasm will be. We have massive numbers of these RNAs sitting there with their G4s. What is that going to do to the rest of the G4 regulatory process? We do not know. Nobody knows. Nobody has a clue."

Summary

To summarize the central point of Seneff's latest paper, the COVID jab causes alpha interferon suppression, which weakens your immune system. Indeed, regulators in the European Union are now warning that repeat COVID shots can weaken overall immunity.10

The primary mechanism is the impairment of alpha interferon response, which is essential for the proper activation of your innate immune system, your cellular immunity, mostly your T-cells and killer cells. When functioning properly, the cell launches the type-1 interferon response as soon as it's infected with a virus.

It triggers the immune cells to come in, kill the virus and remove the debris. This activates the humoral component of your immune system, the antibody production, which takes longer. (That's why they say you are not protected until 14 days after the injection.)

How is type-1 interferon suppressed by the jab? It's suppressed because type-1 interferon responds to viral RNA, and viral RNA is not present in the COVID shot. The RNA is modified to look like human RNA molecule, so the interferon pathway is not triggered. Worse, the interferon pathway is actively suppressed by the large number of spike proteins produced from the mRNA in the shot, and by the microRNAs in the exosomes released by the stressed immune cells.

Sources and References

RICHCRAFT: $1 Billion a Day - That’s How Much Top 10 U.S. Billionaires Added to Their Fortunes During COVID Plandemic

/

From [CHD] The 10 wealthiest billionaires in the U.S. have added roughly $1 billion to their collective fortune every day — or around $12,600 per second — since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed millions of people across the globe and thrown countless lives into chaos.

The billionaire wealth update comes courtesy of the progressive advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF), which released an analysis Wednesday estimating that the combined net worth of the 10 richest people in the U.S. has more than doubled since March 2020, reaching $1.35 trillion this week.

“The pandemic has been very good to American billionaires, especially the top 10,” said ATF executive director Frank Clemente, who noted that billionaires’ pandemic profits will likely not be taxed because they consist largely of unrealized capital gains.

Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Ore.) proposal to subject the unrealized capital gains of the mega-wealthy to taxation has gone nowhere in Congress.

“Their obscene rise in wealth — all of it potentially untaxed — stands in stark contrast to the lot of America’s working families, who’ve struggled through almost two years of a health crisis and economic uncertainty including most recently, rising prices,” Clemente said. “Chairman Wyden’s Billionaires Income Tax would better align the fortunes of America’s richest of the rich with the needs of average Americans.” [MORE]

Study of 145 countries finds sharp rise in virus transmission and death AFTER introduction of COVID Inections

/

From [HERE] Despite growing awareness of the risks of COVID-19 vaccines, many people are willing to take their chances in hopes of slashing their odds of getting severely ill or dying from COVID-19. However, those who are calculating the risk versus reward might want to keep a recent study in mind that indicates an association between the vaccines and a higher rate of COVID-19 infections and deaths.

The study, Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A Big Data Analysis of 145 Countries, essentially found that vaccines are doing precisely the opposite of what everyone hoped they would accomplish.

As the title indicates, this was not a small study; it involved analyzing data from 145 counties, and the conclusions are mind-blowing: The vaccines were associated with a 38 percent rise in the number of Covid cases per million in the U.S. and a 31 percent rise in the number of deaths per million associated with Covid. And it’s not the only one to reach this conclusion; many other studies have shown that the overall situation seems to get worse, not better, with more vaccination.

Overall, the study found that 89.94 percent of the 145 countries studied experienced a rise in total deaths per million associated with Covid as a direct result of the causal impact of vaccines, while 86.78 percent of countries noted a rise in total cases per million of the virus as a direct result of the causal impact of vaccines.

The study reports: “Results indicate that the treatment (vaccine administration) has a strong and statistically significant propensity to causally increase the values in either y1 [variable chosen for deaths per million] or y2 [variable chosen for cases per million] over and above what would have been expected with no treatment.” [MORE]

Research Shows COVID Shots Cease to Provide Any Protection against Omicron 30 days’ post-injection, and at 90 days Offers Negative Protection, actually Making Persons More Prone to Omicron Infection

/

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Omicron is rapidly overtaking other SARS-CoV-2 variants and currently accounts for 95% of all COVID cases in the U.S.

  • Research shows current COVID shots cease to provide any protection against Omicron 30 days’ post-injection, and at 90 days offers negative protection, actually making you more prone to Omicron infection

  • This effectively makes COVID jab mandates obsolete, yet government and health authorities are still pushing Americans to get jabbed, and if already jabbed, to get a third booster

  • Phizer is now saying it will have an Omicron-specific shot ready in March 2022, at which point Americans will undoubtedly be told to line up for a fourth injection

From [MERCOLA] Professor Andrew Pollard, head of the U.K.’s Committee on Vaccination and Immunization who helped create the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot, said in a January 3, 2022, Daily Telegraph interview: “We can’t vaccinate the planet every four or six months. It’s not sustainable or affordable”

While a third COVID booster shot started rolling out in late September 2021,1 and people have been bullied into getting it, that booster is no different from the first two doses. It's not specific against Omicron, which is rapidly overtaking other variants and currently accounts for 95% of all COVID cases in the U.S.2

A number of studies have already shown that the COVID shots offer very limited protection against the Omicron variant,3,4 yet the guidance doesn't change. "Get the booster," is the universal recommendation, but that's like telling everyone to use a u vaccine from one or even two seasons ago. Why take another dose of something that is significantly mismatched to the strains in circulation?

Omicron Makes Vaccine Mandates Obsolete

As noted by Dr. Luc Montagnier and Jed Rubenfeld, a lawyer, in a January 9, 2022, Wall Street Journal opinion piece,5 "Omicron Makes Biden's Vaccine Mandates Obsolete," there's no evidence the COVID shots reduce infections from this rapidly spreading variant.

"It would be irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen they target," Montagnier and Rubenfeld write, "Yet that's exactly what's happening here ...

As of Jan. 1, Omicron represented more than 95% of U.S. COVID cases, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Because some of Omicron's 50 mutations are known to evade antibody protection, because more than 30 of those mutations are to the spike protein used as an immunogen by the existing vaccines, and because there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, scientists are highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading ...

The Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that the right to refuse medical treatment could be overcome when society needs to curb the spread of a contagious epidemic. At Friday's oral argument, all the [Supreme Court] justices acknowledged that the federal mandates rest on this rationale.

But mandating a vaccine to stop the spread of a disease requires evidence that the vaccines will prevent infection or transmission (rather than efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization or death).

As the World Health Organization puts it, 'if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.'6 For Omicron, there is as yet no such evidence. The little data we have suggest the opposite."

COVID Shots Increase Omicron Infection Risk

The pair go on to cite Danish research7 showing the Moderna and Phizer mRNA shots have no statistically positive effect against Omicron infection after just 30 days. Worse, 90 days' post-injection their effectiveness goes negative, making those who have received the jab more susceptible to Omicron infection than the unvaccinated.

"Confirming this negative efficacy finding, data from Denmark and the Canadian province of Ontario indicate that vaccinated people have higher rates of Omicron infection than unvaccinated people," Montagnier and Rubenfeld write.

An additional problem is that those who have received the jab are just as contagious as the unvaccinated, once they get infected. "Preliminary data from all over the world indicate that this is true of Omicron as well," Montagnier and Rubenfeld note. In a January 10, 2022, CNN interview, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky actually admitted that "what [the COVID shots] can't do anymore is prevent transmission."8

That ought to close the book on the COVID jab mandates, but no. Government is still insisting people inject themselves with a risky product that has no hope of controlling, let alone ending, the pandemic. Montagnier and Rubenfeld continue:9

"According to the CDC, the overwhelming majority of symptomatic U.S. Omicron cases have been mild. The best policy might be to let Omicron run its course while protecting the most vulnerable, naturally immunizing the vast majority against COVID through infection by a relatively benign strain."

Phizer to Introduce Omicron-Specific COVID Shot

Vaccine makers are not going to give up their golden goose without a ght, though. Phizer is now saying it will have an Omicron-specific shot ready in March 2022,10 at which point Americans will undoubtedly be told to line up for a fourth injection.

“We can't vaccinate the planet every four or six months. It's not sustainable or affordable. “ Professor Andrew Pollard

Depending on where you live, it might actually be your fth dose. Israel, for example, rolled out a fourth dose of the Phizer shot for certain vulnerable groups at the end of December 2021.11

Think about this for a moment. There are people now who have received four mRNA gene transfer shots within the span of a single year! Let's be clear: That is not a vaccine. Vaccines are not something you need to keep injecting on a quarterly basis.

And, as professor Andrew Pollard, head of the U.K.'s Committee on Vaccination and Immunization who helped create the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot, said in a January 3, 2022, Daily Telegraph interview, "We can't vaccinate the planet every four or six months. It's not sustainable or affordable."12

Deltacron Variant May Be a Lab Contaminant

The idea that Omicron will remain the prevailing variant by the time Phizer gets its updated injection done seems doubtful. The virus is rapidly mutating, so chances are they're always going to be one or more variants behind. Aside from limiting the protection you might get from the shots, that mismatch is also likely to keep driving mutations. In short, trying to "vaccinate" our way out of this pandemic is a fool's errand.

Already, several different variants have made headlines, including the Ihu variant,13 detected in France, which has 46 genetic mutations and 36 deletions from the original virus, the "urona"14 — a combination of the u and COVID-19 — initially identied in Israel, and Deltacron, a Delta variant with an Omicron signature in its genome, detected in Cyprus.15

So far, none of these mutations has stirred up any signicant concern. According to the World Health Organization, Ihu is nothing to worry about, and some experts believe the Deltacron variant may be the result of a lab processing error. As reported by CNBC:16

"WHO COVID expert Dr. Krutika Kuppalli said on Twitter that, in this case, there was likely to have been a 'lab contamination of Omicron fragments in a Delta specimen.'"

Kuppalli also insists there's no such thing as Flurona. CNBC continues:

"Other scientists have agreed that the ndings could be the result of a lab error, with virologist Dr. Tom Peacock from Imperial College London also tweeting that 'the Cypriot 'Deltacron' sequences reported by several large media outlets look to be quite clearly contamination.'

In another tweet, he noted that 'quite a few of us have had a look at the sequences and come to the same conclusion it doesn't look like a real recombinant,' referring to a possible rearrangement of genetic material."

Others are less willing to write off Deltacron altogether. Dr. Boghuma Kabisen Titanji, an infectious disease expert at Emory University in Atlanta, has noted that the mixing of genetic material between the two widely circulating strains — Delta and Omicron — is possible. Recombination can occur, and with both of these strains in circulation, "dual infection with both variants increases this concern," she tweeted.17

The scientist who discovered Deltacron, Leontios Kostrikis, professor of biological sciences at the University of Cyprus, also defends its existence, saying it is not the result of a technical error. In an emailed statement to CNBC, Kostrikis stated that the 25

cases of the mutation that he found "indicate an evolutionary pressure to an ancestral strain to acquire these mutations and not a result of a single recombination event."

He also said that samples were processed in different labs in more than one country, and that a genetic sequence deposited by Israeli scientists into a global database has the same genetic characteristics. Still, Cyprus' health minister, Michael Hadjipantela told a local media outlet that they have no concerns about Deltacron at the moment, as both strains are already in circulation.18

Are Combination Infections on the Rise?

With the emergence of urona and Deltacron, we seem to be entering a phase in which dual infections are emerging. In other words, people are coming down with two viral infections at the same time. NBC Chicago reports:19

"Yes, it's possible for someone to be diagnosed with both u and COVID at the same time, doctors say. Cases of people who have tested positive for both viruses, in what has now been coined 'urona,' have been reported recently. But despite some false portrayals online, the viruses have not merged to create a new illness.

They remain separate infections. 'Flurona is a thoughtfully-named experience that can in fact occur. The u virus and the COVID-19 virus are different enough that they're different variants and they both can occur at the same time,' said Dr. Mark Loafman, chair of family and community medicine for Cook County Health."

The question is, will a co-infection result in more severe illness? Experts say it's possible, but not a given. It's also difficult to discern whether you're ghting one or two viruses simultaneously to begin with. At present, there's no simple way to discern whether you're infected with just one or two viruses.

Symptoms of Cold, Flu and COVID Overlap

The core symptoms are near-indistinguishable between u and COVID:

Fever (which tends to be a little higher Muscle or body aches when you have the u, compared to
COVID infection) or chills

Cough Shortness of breath

Congestion Headache

"Those are all very, very common for both u and COVID and I think for most of us, we wouldn't really be able to tell the difference," Loafman told NBC Chicago.20 Other symptoms commonly reported with SARS-CoV-2 infection (up to and including Delta), but less frequently with inuenza, include:

Loss of taste or smell
Stomach/gastrointestinal pain (which in some cases could be a sign of microclots in the intestines21) Nausea or vomiting Diarrhea

The common cold, caused by other coronaviruses, can also mimic COVID, especially infection with the Omicron variant. With Omicron infection, prominent symptoms include cough, congestion, runny nose and fatigue.

A key difference in symptomology between Delta and Omicron is that Omicron does not appear to cause the loss of taste and smell, which often occurs with Delta infection (as with previous strains). Fortunately, Omicron also does not seem to be associated with blood clots, like previous strains (especially the initial ones), and it's also far less likely to cause severe lung infection and damage.22,23

Treat Symptoms Early

Considering the uncertainties around diagnosis, it's best to treat any cold or u-like symptoms early. Unfortunately, mainstream media and federal health authorities still recommend doing nothing. As reported by NBC Chicago:24

"Unless you feel sick enough to seek medical help, Loafman said the guidance doesn't change ... 'Stay home, stay away from others, and if you're sick enough, if you meet criteria to need help, then, you know, the clinical setting will sort out which testing to do' ...

The CDC urges those who have or may have COVID-19 to watch for emergency warning signs and seek medical care immediately if they experience symptoms including:

Trouble breathing
Persistent pain or pressure in the chest
New confusion
Inability to wake or stay awake
Pale, gray, or blue-colored skin, lips, or nail beds, depending on skin tone"

This is beyond terrible advice. At rst signs of symptoms, you need to start treatment. Perhaps it's the common cold or a regular influenza, but since it's hard to tell, your best bet is to treat symptoms as you would COVID. To this day, many who get sick don't have a single remedy in their medicine cabinet. Why?

Considering how contagious Omicron is, chances are you're going to get it, so buy what you'll need now, so you have it on hand if/when symptoms arise. And, remember, this applies for those who have gotten the jab as well, since you're just as likely to get infected — and perhaps even more so. Early treatment protocols with demonstrated effectiveness include but are not limited to the following:

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance's (FLCCC's) prevention and early at- home treatment protocol. They also have an in-hospital protocol and long-term management guidance for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome. You can nd a listing of

doctors who can prescribe ivermectin and other necessary medicines on the FLCCC website

The AAPS protocol
Tess Laurie's World Council for Health protocol America's Frontline Doctors

I reviewed all of these protocols and believe the FLCCC's is the easiest and most effective. I've posted a summary of it below, with a handful of tweaks. Specically, I recommend:

Sources and References

1 CDC.gov September 24, 2021
2 Bloomberg January 4, 2022
3 Desert News December 26, 2021
4 The New York Times December 19, 2021
5, 9 Wall Street Journal January 9, 2022
6 WHO.int COVID-19 and Mandatory Vaccination: Ethical Considerations and Caveats (Archived) 7 medRxiv December 23, 2021 DOI: 10.1102/2021.20.21267966 (Archived)
8 KMOX January 10, 2022
10, 15, 16, 17 CNBC January 10, 2022
11 CNBC December 31, 2021
12 The Telegraph January 3, 2022
13 CBS News January 6, 2022
14 News Nation Now January 7, 2022
18 In-Cyprus January 9, 2022
19, 20, 24 NBC Chicago January 7, 2022

21 Advisory.com June 9, 2021
22 The New York Times December 31, 2021 23 The Guardian January 2, 2022