The Cure is Worse than the Disease: An Israeli Analysis of the Side Effects from the 3rd Dose of COVID Injections Shows the Injections are worse than COVID Itself

Expert statistician Joel Smalley states;

My friend, Galileo has very kindly shared a Translated Israeli MOH survey of reported adverse events after the third Pfizer vaccine shot for Covid-19 and asked us to judge if the results demonstrate that the vaccine is safe and effective.

Here is my “judgement”.

I’ll start with a preface from Prof. Chris Whitty (back in May 2020 when he used to tell the truth).

  1. A significant portion of people will not get this virus at all.

  2. Of those that do, some of them will get it without even knowing.

  3. Of those that do get it, 80% will have mild to moderate to disease, possibly have to stay in bed for a couple of days but won’t even have to see the doctor.

  4. A minority will go to hospital but will just need some oxygen and then leave.

  5. A minority of that minority will go to critical care and some will die. 

  6. Even the vast majority of people in the very highest risk groups will not die if they catch this virus.

So, there’s the context. Actually, not quite because obviously back then dear Chris was talking about the original Wuhan strain which to an esteemed epidemiologist like him would obviously have been more severe than any subsequent variants. 

Unnatural variant selection is just one of the appalling outcomes of mass vaccination with this suboptimal product which has slowed the attenuation process of COVID but finally a new common cold didemerge as Omicron. 

Adverse events from the vaccine (including this analysis of dose 3) should be measured against Omicron.

  1. Within 21 to 30 days, 58% of men and 75% of women reported at least one side effect. This was 71% of those aged 18 to 39, 70% of those aged 40 to 59 and 57% of those aged over 60. [Already, it’s looking like the vaccine has a greater adverse effect rate than the virus, especially for the young.]

  2. Of those who reported a side effect, 35% of men and 51% of women had difficulty performing daily activities as a result. [A really bad cold has never seriously affected my ability to perform daily activities].

  3. Specifically, 32% of men and 53% of women reported weakness/tiredness, 18% of men and 35% of women reported headache, and a similar ratio for muscle/joint pain, 11% and 24% respectively for shaking and similar for high temperature. Other common complaints included dizziness, feeling faint, nausea and vomiting. [My colds bung my nose up and make my throat sore for a couple of days].

  4. Almost 5% of respondents reported neurological complaints including tingling/itching sensation, Bell’s Palsy, vision problems, memory damage, hearing issues, convulsions and fainting. [Even my worst ever man flu doesn’t come close].

  5. 10% of the women under the age of 54 reported menstrual changes (abnormal bleeding), of which 31% sought medical treatment. [Can’t comment!]

  6. In all types of adverse reaction, there were more reports of increased severity than less with around 1/4 seeking medical attention. However, overall, there was little difference in severity. [N/A].

In summary, the majority of side effects were local or general and only lasted a few days (but re-occurred with subsequent vaccination). However, the more serious neurological adverse events persisted.

My judgement? 

One dose of the virus for me, thanks. 

Fewer/shorter adverse effects, greater protective immunity, and no contribution to the destruction of humanity.

It’s a no-brainer really, so not sure how to describe those who are still lining up for repeat doses?

Put it On, Take it Off, Wear it Here but Not There for Science-Free Reasons: The Purpose of Masks is Obedience to Authority and to Remind Sheeple of the Plandemic. Another Study Finds Masks Useless

Dr Stephen Hammer explains, Mask mandates in high-school age children were continued in Scotland in the Autumn 2021 school term. At the same time in England, masks were made optional. We can compare the difference in case counts in both countries and see the effect of this difference in policy. He concluded “The enhanced restrictions and secondary school mask mandate seems to have had a negative effect overall on weekly cases in primary and secondary school age groups in Scotland. Test positivity is higher there and increases in cases and testing at the start of the autumn term were higher than in England. If masks and more restrictions reduce transmission, why did Scottish young people have greater increases in weekly cases and higher test positivity than English young people in autumn 2021?”

From [NN] Asking people to wear masks was a visual sign that the world is in a pandemic, and many are supposed to be afraid and panicked at all times. Mask-wearing showed that the government can tell everyone what to do and force them to do something without really explaining the reasons why.

During the February 16 episode of “The American Journal,” Ian Miller talked about how masking narratives are affecting the way people think. Miller is the author of the book “Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates.”

“The American Journal” host Harrison Smith pointed out that the masks from the very beginning “have been totally not based on science, totally baseless” and that “all of the published works before showed the masks were ineffective.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself sent an email to one of the employees at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), saying that he reviewed all the randomized controlled trials on masking, and there had been no benefit to it. Then three or four days later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Fauci himself came to say that everyone should wear a mask. It is not possible for science to change in three or four days in that way.

Still, masks remain mandatory. People can wear whatever kind of mask, even a handkerchief or a bandana, or even a used mask, and it counts because the masks are merely symbolic, and it’s not actually being used as protection. [MORE]

From [HART] In the summer of 2020, mandates were introduced to compel healthy people to wear masks in the community, purportedly to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Prior to this time, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UK politicians alike did not support face coverings for the healthy but U-turned, apparently in response to political lobbying.1

In the early stages of the novel coronavirus in the United Kingdom, public health advice remained that masks for the general public were of little benefit, and could even be harmful.2 There is emerging evidence that cloth masks can amplify the spread of COVID-19 particles by acting as a ‘microniser’, transforming large droplets, which would ordinarily fall swiftly to the ground close to the person, into smaller, truly airborne & respirable droplets.3

As has been established in the preceding article on asymptomatic spread, for a person to be ‘clinically relevant’ in public health terms, they must have symptoms. The mandating of mask-wearing for the majority of the population who are perfectly healthy is not an effective public health measure to contain the spread of COVID-19. Prior to 2020 this was not a controversial position. Whilst masks have undoubtedly been a successful psychological tool to remind the public to remain alert, they have not achieved their primary objective, that is, to act as a safe and effective measure to curb the spread of disease.

Masks don’t reduce community transmission
Contrary to the Government message that it ‘follows the science’, the sudden change in advice by the WHO was not based on any new, high-quality scientific studies. By summer 2020, there was substantial evidence that non-medical masks for the general public did not reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses. A review of 14 controlled studies had concluded that masks did not significantly lessen the spread of seasonal ‘flu in the community.4 A Norwegian Institute for Public Health review found that non-medical masks achieve no benefit for healthy individuals, particularly when viral prevalence is low.5 From a common sense angle, scientists had argued that cloth masks contain perforations that are far too big to act as a viral barrier and therefore ‘offer zero protection against COVID-19’.6

Inevitably, the public often wear masks incorrectly, or improperly handle them when putting them on, or removing them, constituting an additional infection hazard. There has been recognition of this contamination risk in the scientific literature7 and other researchers have cautioned against the use of cloth face coverings.8 Potential harms to the wearer include exhaustion, headaches, fatigue and dehydration.9 Some doctors have suggested an increased risk of pneumonia.10 Furthermore, the widely varying physical characteristics of the face coverings used by people in the community, that are not standardised for material, fit, length of wearing, changes after washing and drying, and disposal, means that laboratory research on mask efficacy cannot be generalised to real-world situations.

With particular reference to COVID-19, the only large randomised controlled trial exploring the benefits of adopting face coverings in the community found that masks (even the surgical variety) did not result in a significant reduction in infection risk for the wearer.11A detailed analysis12 of all research investigations, including those purported to suggest that masks might achieve some benefits, led to the view that there is ‘little to no evidence’ that cloth masks in the general population are effective.

Masks cause psychological harm
Masks impair verbal communication, render lip-reading impossible for the deaf, and stymie emotional expression, the latter effect potentially constituting a gross impediment to children’s social development. Acting as a crude, highly visible reminder that danger is all around, face coverings are fuelling widespread, irrational fear. 

Wearing a mask will heighten the distress of many people with existing mental health problems and may trigger ‘flashbacks’ for those historically traumatised by physical and/or sexual abuse. Sadly, going without a mask (even as a means of avoiding psychological distress) can often attract harassment and further victimisation. In response to this, ‘exemption lanyards’ have been developed, which further stigmatise those who cannot wear face coverings due to health conditions or previous trauma. 

Mandates in schools
Beginning March 8, 2021, secondary-school pupils are now required to wear masks in indoor areas for the entire day. In addition to the lack of demonstrable benefits as described above, it is most concerning that no comprehensive risk assessment of potential harms has been carried out before making these demands. Prior to imposing this requirement for masks, a full assessment should have been conducted, incorporating the following areas:

● Assessment of oxygen levels in mask wearer at the beginning and end of the day13
● Assessment of impairments to concentration and ability to learn14
● Assessment of impairment to children with hearing difficulties and special educational needs15,16,17,18
● Assessment of impairment to psychological wellbeing19
● Assessment of possible damages from inhalation of micro-fibres20
● Assessment of potential harms of repeated use of dirty cloth masks21,22
● Assessment of impairment to non-verbal communication23

Many of the potential harms may only become apparent in the long-term, thereby casting yet more doubt on the assumption that, for children, the benefits outweigh the risks. What is even more puzzling is that the masking requirement has been introduced at the time of year when there is almost no circulating COVID-19 in the community due to its seasonality. There is no justification for this move from the Department for Education. It should be rapidly retracted for the safety and well-being of all children. 

Conclusion
Wearing a mask is not a benign intervention. Making masks mandatory would only be justified if science had shown they achieved a marked reduction in viral transmission. The evidence is simply not there. On the contrary, it is clear that face coverings for healthy people do more harm than good. Additionally, evidence demonstrating that asymptomatic, healthy members of society are unlikely to spread the virus strengthens the conclusion that mask mandates are unnecessary.

Endnotes

1. Daily Mail, Tuesday 14 July, 2020: Fines for not wearing masks
2. Face masks could increase risk of getting coronavirus, medical chief warns
3. Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech
4. Non pharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Non healthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
5. Should individuals in the community without respiratory symptoms wear face masks to reduce the spread of COVID-19?
6. Cloth face masks offer zero shield against virus, a study shows
7. Advice on the use of masks1 in the community setting in Influenza A (H1N1) outbreaks
8. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
9. 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
10. Medical Doctor Warns that “Bacterial Pneumonias Are on the Rise” from Mask Wearing
11. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial
12. Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence
13. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery
14. Corona children studies “Co-Ki”: First results of a Germany-wide registry on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children
15. The challenges of facemasks for people with hearing loss
16. Lip Reading, Facial Expressions: How Masks Make Life Harder for People with Hearing Difficulties
17. Face masks and communication – coronavirus info for families of deaf children
18. The Challenges of Face Masks: Organisation of Autism Research
19. Corona children studies “Co-Ki”: First results of a Germany-wide registry on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children
20. Need for Assessing the Inhalation of Micro(nano)plastic Debris Shed from Masks, Respirators, and Home-Made Face Coverings During the COVID-19 Pandemic
21. Can You Get a Sore Throat From Wearing a Dirty Mask?
22. Face mask hygiene: how dirty is yours?
23. Masked education? The benefits and burdens of wearing face masks in schools during the current Corona pandemic

21 yr Old Med Student Severely Injured by COVID Shot. No One Can Be Held Liable. Gov Injury Program Doesn't Compensate for Injury or Future Harms but may Cover Out of Pocket Costs, Many Years from now

GOVT AND MEDIA LIE-ABILITY IS HIGH. IF INJURY IS SO “RARE”, THEN WHY NOT PAY FOR THE HARM CAUSED? From [CHD] A family whose 21-year-old son developed a life-threatening reaction to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine has been waiting six months to learn if the U.S. government’s Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) will help cover their son’s medical bills, but nothing else.

The federal government has given complete immunity to Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J for any injury caused by their Covid-19 vaccines.  That’s right: you cannot sue them if you are injured by their Covid-19 vaccine.  (See Note 1 to read the law yourself.)  So, while their product may not give you immunity, Pfizer and Moderna are guaranteed immunity.  Said immunity also shields doctors, hospitals and any other persons who administer or coerce people to take deadly COVID injections.

And it gets even worse.  These companies are even immune for – hold your breath – willful misconduct.  That may sound crazy, but it is shockingly true.  You can only sue them for willful misconduct if the federal government first sues them for such conduct.  (See Note 2 below to read the law yourself.)  And what are the odds the federal government will do so after wildly promoting the vaccine?  About as likely as the FDA ever admitting they promoted a vaccine that caused widespread harm. [MORE]

The CICP program, which operates under the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, provides payment for serious injuries or death caused by certain medications, medical devices and vaccines, including COVID vaccines.

The family of Kartik Bhakta in August 2021 submitted a claim on behalf of their son. So far, the claim has been ignored.

Bhakta, a second-year pre-med student described as a “genius” by his father, was severely injured after his first Pfizer shot. According to hospital records, Bhakta suffered from an extremely rare life-threatening adverse reaction to the vaccine.

Within two hours of his first dose, Bhakta experienced nausea and vomiting. He then developed back pain, a severe rash, tinnitus, eye problems, kidney failure, deafness and neuropathy. He spent three months in the hospital.

The day before getting vaccinated, Bhakta was healthy and had no medical conditions, his father said. The doctors said the neuropathy could be caused by steroids given to him for treatment, but they attribute the other conditions to the vaccine.

“We need some kind of help and direction from somewhere so that way he can get medical assistance or whatever he needs,” Bhakta’s father said.

In addition to a lengthy hospitalization, Bhakta underwent numerous surgeries, can’t walk without a walker and had to put his schooling on hold.

His family relocated to Texas in 2021 to be closer to the medical services their son needed, as the school’s insurance program stopped covering Bhakta’s medical bills in August.

His family does not have coverage for the additional eye surgeries their son needs and cannot work due to his medical appointments and need for care.

Instead, they’re relying on the government’s CICP to compensate him for his injuries.

The failures of the CICP to compensate the vaccine injured 

The Bhakta family submitted a claim to the CICP in August and received an email that a staffer would follow up, but never received a response.

Over the next several months, family members contacted the CICP by phone and email multiple times. They unsuccessfully tried to obtain assistance from U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela’s (D-Texas) office.

Asked what the family would do if denied assistance, Bhakta’s father replied, “I don’t know. Then why is the government forcing us to take a vaccine if they’re not taking responsibility?”

Since the CICP launched in 2010, 7,033 claims have been filed, but only 29 claims have been compensated.

There are about 300 claims pending with the CICP for injuries or deaths due to COVID vaccines. As of Feb. 1, the CICP had approved only one claim, but that claim has not been paid out.

To be compensated by the CICP for a COVID vaccine injury, it must be established,  based on “compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence,” that the injury or death was directly caused by the vaccine.

The CICP provides compensation only for out-of-pocket medical costs, lost wages or a death benefit. It does not provide any compensatory damages, which make an individual harmed “whole”; paying for all damages and necessary future harms and loss from the injury. The claim must be filed within one year of the injury.

According to Sean Greenwood, a vaccine injury attorney in Texas, even if the family does get an approved claim, they could wait “many many years” to receive compensation.

Once the government approves the vaccine for children under 5 years old and pregnant women, compensation requests will move over to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), Greenwood said. The NVICP allows up to $250,000 for pain and suffering.

The best option for people seeking recourse from COVID vaccine injuries is to file a CICP claim within one year of receiving the vaccine — and hope COVID vaccines will be added to the NVICP, Greenwood added.

“The best thing to do just to preserve your rights is to file in the CICP,” Greenwood said. “I just don’t have a lot of confidence that these people are going to get a good result.”

It is unknown whether CICP claimants will also be able to file in the NVICP if the COVID vaccine is added to the program.

Countries like Japan and France have already added COVID vaccines to their equivalent courts, and those injured receive compensation “pretty quickly,” according to Greenwood.

Italy plans to set aside 150 million euros ($169.91 million) to compensate those injured by COVID vaccines, according to a draft decree shown to Reuters. About 50 million euros in 2022 and an additional 100 million in 2023 will be reserved for those permanently disabled by the COVID vaccines recommended by Italy’s health authority.

Note 1. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d the federal government “Declaration pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to provide liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19” provides that “manufacturers” of “any vaccine, used to treat, … prevent or mitigate COVID-19” shall enjoy “[l]iablity immunity ,” including, “from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a [COVID-19 vaccine].”

Note 2.  Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(5) “If an act or omission by a manufacturer or distributor with respect to a covered countermeasure, which act or omission is alleged under subsection (e)(3)(A) to constitute willful misconduct, … such act or omission shall not constitute ‘willful misconduct’ … if—(i)neither the Secretary nor the Attorney General has initiated an enforcement action with respect to such act or omission; or (ii)such an enforcement action has been initiated an

COVID Injections Have Caused Nearly 24,000 Deaths According to VAERS, the CDC's Underreported, Govt Manipulated Reporting System

From [CHD] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,119,063 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 11, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 23,990 reports of deaths — an increase of 375 over the previous week — and 192,517 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 4,382 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 760,102 adverse events, including 10,909 deaths and 79,111 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 11, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 10,909 U.S. deaths reported as of Feb. 11, 18% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 23% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 60% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 546 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Feb. 11, including 321 million doses of Pfizer, 206 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 7-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1975356) from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when she was found unresponsive by her mother. An autopsy is pending.

  • 16 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).

  • 29 reports of blood clotting disorders.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

The most recent deaths involve a 13-year-old male (VAERS I.D. 2042005) from an unidentified state who died from a sudden heart attack seven months after receiving his second dose of Moderna, and a 17-year-old female from an unidentified state (VAERS I.D. 2039111) who died after receiving her first dose of Moderna. Medical information was limited and it is unknown if an autopsy was performed in either case.

  • 68 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

  • 639 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 627 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

  • 158 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

Insurance Company: Govts are Undercounting COVID Shot Injuries/Deaths. Estimates 3 Million Germans Got Medical Treatment for COVID Injuries. Claims Show 31,254 Vax Deaths but Govt Data Show only 2,255

From [CHD] and [MORE] A German health insurance company this week said an analysis of data collected from more than 10 million people suggests COVID vaccine side effects are “significantly” underreported.

The company, BKK ProVita (BKK), said its analysis revealed a “significant alarm signal” and that “a risk to human life cannot be ruled out.”

Based on the data collected, BKK said the number of vaccine side effects is many times higher than the number officially announced by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), Germany’s federal health agency that monitors the safety of vaccines and biomedicines.

The PEI announced in a press release there were 244,576 suspected cases of vaccine side effectsreported in 2021 following COVID vaccination, but BKK said its analysis revealed more than 400,000 cases.

BKK board member Andreas Schöfbeck told WELT, a German news publication, “The numbers determined are significant and urgently need to be checked for plausibility.”

In a letter, Schöfbeck said BKK analyzed doctors’ billing data from 10.9 million insured people and found 217,000 people received medical treatment due to vaccine side effects.

“In our opinion, there is a significant underreporting of the side effects of the vaccination,” said Schöfbeck. “According to our calculations, we consider 400,000 visits to the doctor by our insured persons due to vaccination complications to be realistic to date.”

Schöfbeck said if figures are extrapolated over a year for the entire German population of 83 million people, it is likely 2.5 – 3 million people in Germany received medical treatment for COVID vaccine adverse events.

“The data available to our company gives us reason to believe that there is a very considerable under-recording of suspected cases of vaccination side-effects after they received the [COVID-19] vaccine,” Schöfbeck wrote.

Schöfbeck sent the letter to PEI President Dr. Klaus Cichutek, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds, the German Medical Association, National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, the Standing Vaccination Commission and BKK’s umbrella organization.

In another letter, the company suggested vaccine side effects across Germany are at least 10 times more common than what was reported by the PEI, the German newspaper Nordkurier reported Wednesday.

The letters did not disclose symptoms, the severity of adverse events or which vaccines caused the side effects.

Germany’s drug regulator approved COVID vaccines from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & JohnsonNovavax and Moderna.

Federal health officials in the U.S. and Germany have emphasized the benefits of COVID vaccines outweigh the potential risks, and side effects are rare.

In the U.S. last month, an executive at an Indiana life insurance company reported a “stunning” 40% increase in the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old adults compared to pre-pandemic levels, The Defender reported.

During the same call, OneAmerica’s CEO J. Scott Davison also described a major uptick in both short- and long-term disability claims.

The insurance executive rated the extraordinarily high death rate as “the highest … we have seen in the history of this business,” adding the trend is “consistent across every player in that business.”

To further underscore the import of his statements, Davison said, “Just to give you an idea of how bad [40%] is, a … one-in-200 catastrophe would be a 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of.”

Contrary to what the public might assume — given the media’s unremitting coverage of COVID-19— Davison reported most of the death claims listed causes of death other than COVID.

Commenting on the news, Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundationwrote, “It would take something REALLY BIG to have an effect this big.”

Moreover, Kirsch said, the culprit would have to be something first introduced in 2021 — “something new … that a huge number of people would be exposed to” — such as COVID shots.

Vaccine scientist Dr. Robert Malone and statistician Jessica Rose, Ph.D., agreed that experimentalCOVID injections should be considered prime suspects.

Govt Manipulating Data: Hospitals are Instructed to Count All Persons as Unvaxed if there is No Immediate Confirmation of Vax Status, thereby Inflating the No of Unvaxed Hospitalizations and Deaths

From [HIRSHORN] There has been recent attention to CDC hiding considerable data on COVID health impacts.  What has not been focused on, however, is an even greater fraud.  In its goal of coercing the whole population to get COVID shots, CDC has manipulated data to make it look like it is the unvaccinated who have suffered the worst impacts, like hospitalization and death.  They wanted the public to believe there has been a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

For months there have been frightening statements along the lines that unvaccinated Americans are XXX times more likely to be hospitalized or die.  All such statements, including one made by President Biden, are lies, intentionally created by over-counting the number of unvaccinated people.

On February 5 President Biden said: “Here’s the deal: Unvaccinated individuals are 97 times more likely to die compared to those who are boosted.  Protect yourself and those around you by getting vaccinated and boosted today.”

This is what the data fraud is all about.

How has CDC and the public health system created this fiction?

Simply put, it comes down to hospitals categorizing many people as unvaccinated when, in fact, they likely had received the jab.

The fraud by hospitals and CDC is really so simple.  When a COVID patient enters the hospital system there is an immediate check within that system to see if the person had gotten the jab.  Just one very big problem.

A large number of people who enter any hospital very likely got the jab at any one of countless places giving free vaccinations.  That group includes chain pharmacies and ones in supermarkets, community places run by various public health agencies, and physician offices.

What happens when a COVID patient enters a hospital and there is no immediate confirmation that the person got the jab?  That person is classified as UNVACCINATED.

This procedure guarantees an inflated number of unvaccinated COVID hospitalizations and deaths!

The goal is to instill fear among the population that COVID shots are critically needed for public health and safety.

So, data are created for the nation by CDC that there is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.  In truth, the continuing explosion of COVID infections, hospitalizations and deaths in recent months has been a pandemic of the vaccinated.  So many people who have been fully vaccinated, including many who got booster jabs, got infected, got hospitalized, and all too often died.

Another aspect of this fraud is that many vaccine related adverse events are not getting into the CDC VAERS data system because people who are not officially recognized as vaccinated but are suffering a multitude of health problems or death are not counted by CDC.  They are being counted as unvaccinated and, therefore, their conditions do not always fit into the CDC data system counting impacts of vaccines.

Another aspect of this fraud is the use of incorrect population data.

CDC easily uses outdated population numbers that leads to artificially inflated estimates of COVID-19 case, hospitalization and death rates among the ever-shrinking unvaccinated population.  They use population numbers that are lower than the most recent numbers from census studies.  Simply put, they use a denominator that is too low to make their calculation of pandemic impacts seem higher than they really are.

All of this fraud not only casts blame on the unvaccinated, it also is designed to make use of COVID vaccines more effective than they really are.  A pandemic of the vaccinated does not motivate people to get the jab or booster shots.

Withholding data, as recently reported, is terrible.  But how CDC has manipulated data is even worse; it is a big lie compared to a lie of omission.

As the COVID Tyrant Paradigm Unravels [assent to false memes such as ‘covid case,' ‘covid death,’ ‘positive test’ or ‘vax Stops the Spread’] CrimethInc Redirects Sheeples’ Minds to a War Paradigm

According to FUNKTIONARY:

tyrant-paradigm - the assertion or assent to certain concepts, idea, memes, words, patterns of thinking, attitudes, beliefs, and convictions that give rise to coercive political systems. It includes the notion that the tyrants (territorial gangsters) are so omniscient and omnipotent that they can prevent natural persons from living free. The words that constitute the tyrant paradigm are enemy outposts in your mind. Tyrants "own" the minds of their oppressed victims to the extent that victims hold contents of the tyrant-paradigm in the minds. The tyrant-paradigm consists of the "construction of systematic thought" and "the systematic pattems of thought" that give rise to coercive political systems. (See: The OCTOCON, Territorial Gangsters & Reactions)

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

From [HERE] “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

War is the enemy of freedom.

As long as America’s politicians continue to involve us in wars that bankrupt the nation, jeopardize our servicemen and women, increase the chances of terrorism and blowback domestically, and push the nation that much closer to eventual collapse, “we the people” will find ourselves in a perpetual state of tyranny.

It’s time for the U.S. government to stop policing the globe.

This latest crisis—America’s part in the showdown between Russia and the Ukraine—has conveniently followed on the heels of a long line of other crises, manufactured or otherwise, which have occurred like clockwork in order to keep Americans distracted, deluded, amused, and insulated from the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms.

And so it continues in its Orwellian fashion.

Two years after COVID-19 shifted the world into a state of global authoritarianism, just as the people’s tolerance for heavy-handed mandates seems to have finally worn thin, we are being prepped for the next distraction and the next drain on our economy.

Yet policing the globe and waging endless wars abroad isn’t making America—or the rest of the world—any safer, it’s certainly not making America great again, and it’s undeniably digging the U.S. deeper into debt.

Indeed, even if we were to put an end to all of the government’s military meddling and bring all of the troops home today, it would take decades to pay down the price of these wars and get the government’s creditors off our backs.

War has become a huge money-making venture, and the U.S. government, with its vast military empire, is one of its best buyers and sellers.

What most Americans—brainwashed into believing that patriotism means supporting the war machine—fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with propping up a military industrial complex that continues to dominate, dictate and shape almost every aspect of our lives.

Consider: We are a military culture engaged in continuous warfare. We have been a nation at war for most of our existence. We are a nation that makes a living from killing through defense contracts, weapons manufacturing and endless wars.

We are also being fed a steady diet of violence through our entertainment, news and politics.

All of the military equipment featured in blockbuster movies is provided—at taxpayer expense—in exchange for carefully placed promotional spots.

Back when I was a boy growing up in the 1950s, almost every classic sci fi movie ended with the heroic American military saving the day, whether it was battle tanks in Invaders from Mars (1953) or military roadblocks in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).

What I didn’t know then as a schoolboy was the extent to which the Pentagon was paying to be cast as America’s savior. By the time my own kids were growing up, it was Jerry Bruckheimer’s blockbuster film Top Guncreated with Pentagon assistance and equipment—that boosted civic pride in the military.

Now it’s my grandkids’ turn to be awed and overwhelmed by child-focused military propaganda. Don’t even get me started on the war propaganda churned out by the toymakers. Even reality TV shows have gotten in on the gig, with the Pentagon’s entertainment office helping to sell war to the American public.

It’s estimated that U.S. military intelligence agencies (including the NSA) have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows.

And then there are the growing number of video games, a number of which are engineered by or created for the military, which have accustomed players to interactive war play through military simulations and first-person shooter scenarios.

This is how you acclimate a population to war.

This is how you cultivate loyalty to a war machine.

This is how, to borrow from the subtitle to the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, you teach a nation to “stop worrying and love the bomb.”

As journalist David Sirota writes for Salon, “[C]ollusion between the military and Hollywood – including allowing Pentagon officials to line edit scripts—is once again on the rise, with new television programs and movies slated to celebrate the Navy SEALs….major Hollywood directors remain more than happy to ideologically slant their films in precisely the pro-war, pro-militarist direction that the Pentagon demands in exchange for taxpayer-subsidized access to military hardware.”

Why is the Pentagon (and the CIA and the government at large) so focused on using Hollywood as a propaganda machine?

To those who profit from war, it is—as Sirota recognizes—“a ‘product’ to be sold via pop culture products that sanitize war and, in the process, boost recruitment numbers….At a time when more and more Americans are questioning the fundamental tenets of militarism (i.e., budget-busting defense expenditures, never-ending wars/occupations, etc.), military officials are desperate to turn the public opinion tide back in a pro-militarist direction — and they know pop culture is the most effective tool to achieve that goal.”

The media, eager to score higher ratings, has been equally complicit in making (real) war more palatable to the public by packaging it as TV friendly.

This is what professor Roger Stahl refers to as the representation of a “clean war”: a war “without victims, without bodies, and without suffering”:

“‘Dehumanize destruction’ by extracting all human imagery from target areas … The language used to describe the clean war is as antiseptic as the pictures. Bombings are ‘air strikes.’ A future bombsite is a ‘target of opportunity.’ Unarmed areas are ‘soft targets.’ Civilians are ‘collateral damage.’ Destruction is always ‘surgical.’ By and large, the clean war wiped the humanity of civilians from the screen … Create conditions by which war appears short, abstract, sanitized and even aesthetically beautiful. Minimize any sense of death: of soldiers or civilians.”

This is how you sell war to a populace that may have grown weary of endless wars: sanitize the war coverage of anything graphic or discomfiting (present a clean war), gloss over the actual numbers of soldiers and civilians killed (human cost), cast the business of killing humans in a more abstract, palatable fashion (such as a hunt), demonize one’s opponents, and make the weapons of war a source of wonder and delight.

“This obsession with weapons of war has a name: technofetishism,” explains Stahl. “Weapons appear to take on a magical aura. They become centerpieces in a cult of worship.”

“Apart from gazing at the majesty of these bombs, we were also invited to step inside these high-tech machines and take them for a spin,” said Stahl. “Or if we have the means, we can purchase one of the military vehicles on the consumer market. Not only are we invited to fantasize about being in the driver’s seat, we are routinely invited to peer through the crosshairs too. These repeated modes of imaging war cultivate new modes of perception, new relationships to the tools of state violence. In other words, we become accustomed to ‘seeing’ through the machines of war.”

In order to sell war, you have to feed the public’s appetite for entertainment.

Not satisfied with peddling its war propaganda through Hollywood, reality TV shows and embedded journalists whose reports came across as glorified promotional ads for the military, the Pentagon has also turned to sports to further advance its agenda, “tying the symbols of sports with the symbols of war.”

The military has been firmly entrenched in the nation’s sports spectacles ever since, having co-opted football, basketball, even NASCAR.

This is how you sustain the nation’s appetite for war.

No wonder entertainment violence is the hottest selling ticket at the box office. As professor Henry Giroux points out, “Popular culture not only trades in violence as entertainment, but also it delivers violence to a society addicted to a pleasure principle steeped in graphic and extreme images of human suffering, mayhem and torture.”

No wonder the government continues to whet the nation’s appetite for violence and war through paid propaganda programs (seeded throughout sports entertainment, Hollywood blockbusters and video games)—what Stahl refers to as “militainment“—that glorify the military and serve as recruiting tools for America’s expanding military empire.

No wonder Americans from a very young age are being groomed to enlist as foot soldiers—even virtual ones—in America’s Army (coincidentally, that’s also the name of a first person shooter video game produced by the military). Explorer Scouts, for example, are one of the most popular recruiting tools for the military and its civilian counterparts (law enforcement, Border Patrol, and the FBI).

No wonder the United States is the number one consumer, exporter and perpetrator of violence and violent weapons in the world. Seriously, America spends more money on war than the combined military budgets of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil. America polices the globe, with 800 military bases and troops stationed in 160 countries. Moreover, the war hawks have turned the American homeland into a quasi-battlefield with military gear, weapons and tactics. In turn, domestic police forces have become roving extensions of the military—a standing army.

We are dealing with a sophisticated, far-reaching war machine that has woven itself into the very fabric of this nation.

Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an overhaul.

Eventually, all military empires fall and fail by spreading themselves too thin and spending themselves to death.

It happened in Rome: at the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise.

It’s happening again.

The American Empire—with its endless wars waged by U.S. military servicepeople who have been reduced to little more than guns for hire: outsourced, stretched too thin, and deployed to far-flung places to police the globe—is approaching a breaking point.

The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.

This is exactly the scenario President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against when he cautioned the citizenry not to let the profit-driven war machine endanger our liberties or democratic processes. Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, was alarmed by the rise of the profit-driven war machine that, in order to perpetuate itself, would have to keep waging war.

Yet as Eisenhower recognized, the consequences of allowing the military-industrial complex to wage war, exhaust our resources and dictate our national priorities are beyond grave:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

We failed to heed Eisenhower’s warning.

The illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government that Eisenhower warned against has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation today.

What we have is a confluence of factors and influences that go beyond mere comparisons to Rome. It is a union of Orwell’s 1984 with its shadowy, totalitarian government—i.e., fascism, the union of government and corporate powers—and a total surveillance state with a military empire extended throughout the world.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

The growth of and reliance on militarism as the solution for our problems both domestically and abroad bodes ill for the constitutional principles which form the basis of the American experiment in freedom.

As author Aldous Huxley warned: “Liberty cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near-war footing. Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government.”

Dr David Martin: There was No COVID Emergency. Fauci/Others Weaponized a Man-Made Virus and Hyped the Public into a Science-Free Hysteria, in a Conspiracy to Create Human Dependency on Deadly Vaccines

The following is an excerpt from the Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier by Dr. David Martin

While not covered under 35 U.S.C. §101, Dr. Fauci’s abuse of the patent law is detailed below. Of note, however, is his willful and deceptive use of the term “vaccine” in patents and public pronouncements to pervert the meaning of the term for the manipulation of the public.

In the 1905 Jacobson v. Mass case, the court was clear that a PUBLIC BENEFIT was required for a vaccine to be mandated. Neither Pfizer nor Moderna have proved a disruption of transmission. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the court held that the context for their opinion rested on the following principle:

“This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that ‘persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state…”

The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of a synthetic mRNA sequence. Therefore, the basis for the Massachusetts statute and the Supreme Court’s determination is moot in this case.

Further, the USPTO, in its REJECTION of Anthony Fauci’s HIV vaccine made the following statement supporting their rejection of his bogus “invention”

By no later than April 11, 2005, Dr. Anthony Fauci was publicly acknowledging the association of SARS with bioterror potential. Leveraging the fear of the anthrax bioterrorism of 2001, he publicly celebrated the economic boon that domestic terror had directed towards his budget. He specifically stated that NIAID was actively funding research on a “SARS Chip” DNA microarray to rapidly detect SARS (something that was not made available during the current “pandemic”) and two candidate vaccines focused on the SARS CoV spike protein.7 Led by three Chinese researchers under his employment – Zhi-yong Yang, Wing-pui Kong, and Yue Huang – Fauci had at least one DNA vaccine in animal trials by 2004.8 This team, part of the Vaccine Research Center at NIAID, was primarily focused on HIV vaccine development but was tasked to identify SARS vaccine candidates as well. Working in collaboration with Sanofi, Scripps Institute, Harvard, MIT and NIH, Dr. Fauci’s decision to unilaterally promote vaccines as a primary intervention for several designated “infectious diseases” precluded proven therapies from being applied to the sick and dying.9

The CDC and NIAID led by Anthony Fauci entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with EcoHealth Alliance Inc.) and with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences) through the 2014 et seq National Institutes of Health Grant R01AI110964 to exploit their patent rights. This research was known to involve surface proteins in coronavirus that had the capacity to directly infect human respiratory systems. In flagrant violation of the NIH moratorium on gain of function research, NIAID and Ralph Baric persisted in working with chimeric coronavirus components specifically to amplify the pathogenicity of the biologic material.

By October 2013, the Wuhan Institute of Virology 1 coronavirus S1 spike protein was described in NIAID’s funded work in China. This work involved NIAID, USAID, and Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance. This work, funded under R01AI079231, was pivotal in isolating and manipulating viral fragments selected from sites across China which contained high risk for severe human response.10

By March 2015, both the virulence of the S1 spike protein and the ACE II receptor was known to present a considerable risk to human health. NIAID, EcoHealth Alliance and numerous researchers lamented the fact that the public was not sufficiently concerned about coronavirus to adequately fund their desired research.11

Dr. Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance offered the following assessment:

“Daszak reiterated that, until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, he said, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process, Daszak stated.”12

Economics will follow the hype.

The CDC and NIAID entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences represented by Zheng-Li Shi) through U19AI109761 (Ralph S. Baric), U19AI107810 (Ralph S. Baric), and National Natural Science Foundation of China Award 81290341 (Zheng-Li Shi) et al. 2015-2016. These projects took place during a time when the work being performed was prohibited by the United States National Institutes of Health.

The public was clearly advised of the dangers being presented by NIAID-funded research by 2015 and 2016 when the Wuhan Institute of Virology material was being manipulated at UNC in Ralph Baric’s lab.

“The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” agrees Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Both Ebright and Wain-Hobson are long-standing critics of gain-of-function research.

In their paper, the study authors also concede that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future. "Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue," they write, adding that discussion is needed as to "whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved”.

But Baric and others say the research did have benefits. The study findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger”, says Peter Daszak, who co-authored the 2013 paper. Daszak is president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an international network of scientists, headquartered in New York City, that samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe.

Studies testing hybrid viruses in human cell culture and animal models are limited in what they can say about the threat posed by a wild virus, Daszak agrees. But he argues that they can help indicate which pathogens should be prioritized for further research attention.”13

Knowing that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (through CDC, NIH, NIAID, and their funded laboratories and commercial partners) had patents on each proposed element of medical counter measures and their funding, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Gao (China CDC), and Dr. Elias (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) conspired to commit acts of terror on the global population – including the citizens of the United States – when, in September 2019, they published the following mandate:

“Countries, donors and multilateral institutions must be prepared for the worst. A rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements. Donors and multilateral institutions must ensure adequate investment in developing innovative vaccines and therapeutics, surge manufacturing capacity, broad-spectrum antivirals and appropriate non- pharmaceutical interventions. All countries must develop a system for immediately sharing genome sequences of any new pathogen for public health purposes along with the means to share limited medical countermeasures across countries.

Progress indicator(s) by September 2020

• Donors and countries commit and identify timelines for: financing and development of a universal influenza vaccine, broad spectrum antivirals, and targeted therapeutics. WHO and its Member States develop options for standard procedures and timelines for sharing of sequence data, specimens, and medical countermeasures for pathogens other than influenza.

• Donors, countries and multilateral institutions develop a multi-year plan and approach for strengthening R&D research capacity, in advance of and during an epidemic.

• WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, academic and other partners identify strategies for increasing capacity and integration of social science approaches and researchers across the entire preparedness/response continuum.”14

As if to confirm the utility of the September 2019 demand for “financing and development of” vaccine and the fortuitous SARS CoV-2 alleged outbreak in December of 2019, Dr. Fauci began gloating that his fortunes for additional funding were likely changing for the better. In a February 2020 interview in STAT, he was quoted as follows:

““The emergence of the new virus is going to change that figure, likely considerably, Fauci said. “I don’t know how much it’s going to be. But I think it’s going to generate more sustained interest in coronaviruses because it’s very clear that coronaviruses can do really interesting things.””15

18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death of American Citizens

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover "domestic," as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

Dr. Anthony Fauci has intimidated and coerced a civilian population and sought to influence the policy of a government by intimidation and coercion.

With no corroboration, Dr. Anthony Fauci promoted16 Professor Neil Ferguson’s computer simulation derived claims that,

“The world is facing the most serious public health crisis in generations. Here we provide concrete estimates of the scale of the threat countries now face.

“We use the latest estimates of severity to show that policy strategies which aim to mitigate the epidemic might halve deaths and reduce peak healthcare demand by two-thirds, but that this will not be enough to prevent health systems being overwhelmed. More intensive, and socially disruptive interventions will therefore be required to suppress transmission to low levels. It is likely such measures – most notably, large scale social distancing – will need to be in place for many months, perhaps until a vaccine becomes available.” 17

Reporting to the President that as many as 2.2 million deaths may result from a pathogen that had not yet been isolated and could not be measured with any accuracy, Dr. Fauci intimidated and coerced the population and the government into reckless, untested, and harmful acts creating irreparable harm to lives and livelihoods.18 Neither the Imperial College nor the “independent” Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (principally funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation)19 had any evidence of success in estimating previous burdens from coronavirus but, without consultation or peer-review, Dr. Fauci adopted their terrifying estimates as the basis for interventions that are explicitly against medical advice.

  •   The imposition of social distancing was based on computer simulation and environmental models with NO disease transmission evidence whatsoever.

  •   The imposition of face mask wearing was directly against controlled clinical trial evidence and against the written policy in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

    “Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”20

  •   In both the Imperial College and the IHME simulations, quarantines were modeled for the sick, not the healthy.

Insisting on vaccines while blockading the emergency use of proven pharmaceutical interventions may have contributed to the death of many patients and otherwise healthy individuals.21

Using the power of NIAID during the alleged pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci actively suppressed proven medical countermeasures used by, and validated in scientific proceedings, that offered alternatives to the products funded by his conspiring entities for which he had provided direct funding and for whom he would receive tangible and intangible benefit. [MORE]

New Study: All Persons Under 50 are at Greater Risk of Death after Getting a COVID Shot than an Unvaccinated Person is at Risk of a COVID Death. COVID Shot Found to Have No Benefit for Anyone Under 80

DOWNLOAD PAPER [PDF]

From {HIRSHORN] Below are excerpts from a new analysis by two great people; the title is “COVID-19 and All-Cause Mortality Data by Age Group Reveals Risk of COVID Vaccine-Induced Fatality is Equal to or Greater than the Risk of a COVID death for all Age Groups Under 80 Years Old as of 6 February 2022.”

From the abstract:

As of 6 February 2022, based on publicly available official UK and US data, all age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID-19 death. All age groups under 80 years old have virtually no benefit from receiving a COVID-19 inoculation, and the younger ages incur significant risk.

From the conclusions:

The benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 have not lived up to expectations. There has been a rapid drop in vaccine-induced antibody levels over time and the rapid emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants that are resistant to the vaccinal antibodies to the spike protein. When COVID-19 death data by vaccination status from early 2022 are analyzed to estimate the degree of protection from mortality afforded to the vaccinated population, the protection from COVID-19 death falls far short of the risk of dying from the vaccine, for anyone below 50 years old.

With Omicron now the dominant strain, the vaccinated population are still catching the disease in large numbers and spreading it. The mRNA vaccines were designed to target the original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and the arrival of variants like Delta and Omicron have changed the risk/benefit ratio. With such a large percentage of the population catching omicron and recovering, we now have a much larger base of 11 a naturally resistant population, whose immunity is much longer lasting and robust than that achieved with the vaccine. With Omicron being both less deadly and more resistant to vaccine antibodies, the benefits of vaccination are further weakened, while the risks of dying from the vaccine remain unaltered.

Even if we roll out new versions of the vaccines, the virus will continue to mutate in a futile cat-and-mouse game. According to the data analysis presented in this paper, all age cohorts under 50 years old are at greater risk (from 5 to 51 times higher) of vaccine-induced fatality within the same or subsequent month of receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than they are at risk of a COVID-19 death within 60 days of a positive test if unvaccinated. All age cohorts have less than ¼ of 1% benefit of absolute risk reduction of a COVID-19 death from receiving a COVID-19 inoculation. Children under age 18 years have 51 times higher chance of fatality after a COVID inoculation than risk of dying from COVID if unvaccinated.

Vaccinations in the under 18 age group are more likely to increase the number of COVID deaths in this age group rather than prevent any. Young adults age 18 to 29 have an 8 times higher risk of fatality from the inoculation than from COVID if not inoculated. This analysis is conservative because it ignores the inoculation-induced risk increases of later fatalities and shortened life spans from thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, and other known vaccine-induced injuries and ignores the 90% or more decreases in risk of COVID-19 death if early, effective treatments were provided to all symptomatic high-risk persons. Mandates of COVID inoculations are ill-advised because the alleged vaccines result in higher death rates than COVID itself.

Dr. Josef Thoma Discusses the Inflammation of the Heart Caused by COVID Injections. Even if Myocarditis Heals, there is a Lifelong Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death, Diminished Stamina and Quality of Life

From [HERE] By now, everyone has heard that the COVID vaccines cause myocarditis, particularly in the young; however, the significance is downplayed in the media and even in officious medical publications. In the 11-minute video posted below, Josef Thoma MD/PhD, a general practitioner from Berlin, explains what a diagnosis of myocarditis really means: even if it has apparently healed, the patient is left with a lifelong risk of sudden cardiac death, and often also with diminished stamina and quality of life. Thoma presents some recent observations on autopsy materials from vaccine victims, made by professors of pathology Burkhardt and Lange, which drive home he serious nature of vaccine-induced myocarditis. He ends with an appeal to us to protect our children. Please take a look at this important video and share it.

CDC Refuses to publish data it has collected on booster effectiveness for 33 Million Americans aged 18-49 over fears it might show the Injections as ineffective

From [HERE] Two weeks ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published data about the effectiveness of boosters against COVID-19

The CDC failed to publish a tranche of their data, however – omitting the impact on those aged 18-49, who are least likely to benefit from boosters

The CDC are also being criticized for failing to publish their information about child hospitalization rates and comorbidities

A spokeswoman for the CDC said they were concerned that the data would be misinterpreted, pointing out that it was incomplete and not verified

Critics said that it was always better to publish the information rather than withhold, and allow scientists to analyze and explain what they could 

Oklahoma AG declares medical boards cannot punish doctors for prescribing ivermectin

From [NN] Even though federal bureaucrats have arbitrarily decided that Americans should not have access to it, Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor says that doctors in his state, at least, are well within their professional rights to prescribe ivermectin to Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) patients.

The same goes for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), another blacklisted drug that the federal overlords have decreed should never go into an American’s body because it might actually help to prevent a serious infection.

“The Attorney General’s office finds no legal basis for a state medical licensure board to discipline a licensed physician for exercising sound judgment and safely prescribing an FDA-approved drug – like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine – for the off-label purpose of treating a patient with COVID-19,” O’Connor’s office said in a February 8 statement.

“Healthcare professionals should have every tool available to combat COVID-19,” the statement goes on to read. “The Attorney General’s office neither condones nor condemns a specific course of treatment for COVID-19. Our office maintains that proper healthcare decisions are to be made between a patient and his or her physician, and the government should not interfere with their relationship.”

Both ivermectin and HCQ have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for many decades, by the way. Only recently have they been maligned by the government as “horse dewormer” and “aquarium cleaner,” respectively.

Boston Puppetician Mayor Ends Deadly Indoor COVID Injection Mandate but Has Uncontrollable Authority to Reinstate It Whenever She Wants

From [HERE] Boston Mayor Michelle Wu just lifted the city’s proof-of-COVID-19 vaccine mandate for indoor businesses, effective immediately. The city’s February 18 announcement was based on public health data, citing a recent drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalization rates and improved hospital capacity.The mandate’s end means Boston businesses are no longer required to verify the vaccination status of people — patrons, employees, contractors, and all other individuals — before they enter indoor spaces.

Early End to Vaccine Mandate

The mandate, which took effect January 15, required proof of COVID-19 vaccination for entry into indoor dining, entertainment, recreation, and fitness establishments (we discussed the phases and requirements of the mandate in this December insight). It was intended to be a long-term strategy, rolled out in phases through May, to combat high rates of COVID-19 cases while preserving indoor gatherings. But fast-moving developments over the past month have altered those plans and relieved businesses of their compliance obligations when it comes to vaccination status.

Notably, the repeal follows news that the Massachusetts Appeals Court temporarily blocked Boston’s vaccine requirement for city employees on February 15. Several unions, including the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, the Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society, and the Boston Firefighters Union Local 718, challenged the policy in December as violating the city’s contract obligations and state collective bargaining law. In light of this decision, Boston cannot enforce the municipal employee vaccine mandate until the final resolution of the dispute. Mayor Wu’s administration expressed disappointment in the decision and stated it intends to review it carefully.

Mask Mandate Remains in Place…For Now

Boston’s indoor mask rule remains in place. However, Mayor Wu has indicated the Boston Public Health Commission will review this in the upcoming days.

History of Racist Violence against African Americans: Disarming the Black Masses Secured the Failure of Reconstruction

From [HERE] During the period of the enslavement of African people by Britain and the United States, violence was a key instrument in the maintenance of the exploitative and oppressive system.

African people between the 17th and 19th centuries prior to the eruption of the Civil War (1861-1865), were largely prohibited from owning and carrying firearms.

Of course, there were exceptions during the war of separation from Britain during the 1770s and 1780s, when Africans fought on both sides of the conflict over who would control the 13 colonies located in the eastern region of what would become the U.S. Also, the War of 1812, when the British attempted to retake their colonies in North America, Africans participated again in both the U.S. and English military campaigns.

However, within these contexts, the enslaved and free Africans were objectively fighting on behalf of European colonial regimes and not for their own freedom. Although the British and the Americans told the Africans that their service in the war of independence and 1812 would lead to emancipation, slavery and national oppression continued leading up to the beginning of the Civil War.

Approximately 200,000 African men and women served in the army and navy during the war between the states. There was extreme resistance among the ruling class to the enlistment of African soldiers in the Union army. Nonetheless, the failure of the administration of then President Abraham Lincoln to quell the rebellion during the first year-and-a-half of the war, by late 1862, a decision had been made to arm Blacks to fight the Confederacy. [MORE]

Solving the Electorate's Problems in a Representative Demockery or Reinforcing Slave Relations? SC bill Requires Servants [citizens] to be 12 Ft away from Public Masters [Police] when Filming Arrest

From [HERE] South Carolina lawmakers are weighing legislation to place restrictions on where people can film the police before being charged with obstruction of justice.

Called the “HALO Act,” the bill would create a 12-foot perimeter around law enforcement where bystanders would be prevented from filming officer interactions with the public when conducting an arrest. 

The bill’s sponsor, former chaplain for the Columbia Police Department and Democratic state Rep. Ivory Torrey Thigpen, told lawmakers he has been at incidents where questions arose over whether individuals were putting themselves or officers in danger.

“We do know that this technology is not going away, and incidents of it are increasing,” he said. “I think it’s an opportunity for us to be proactive and address what I believe is a concern not only for law enforcement and their safety but also concern for individuals and their First Amendment right to record.”

The measure has bipartisan support, counting two Republican sponsors and the chair of the S.C. Legislative Black Caucus among its list of mainly Democratic backers. 

But critics, including Democrats in Thigpen’s own party, say the bill likely impedes on the public’s First Amendment rights and could provide law enforcement additional tools to not only cover up misconduct but also imprison those who document it. 

During a Feb. 23 hearing on the bill, Rep. Cezar McKnight, D-Kingstree, played cellphone video of two infamous killings of Black men by police: the 2020 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the fatal 2015 shooting of Walter Scott by a North Charleston police officer.

If the bill were enacted, he said, law enforcement would not only have the legal ability to charge the individual who recorded Floyd’s death — which was filmed at close range — but have avenues to potentially abuse the law by charging individuals who filmed from farther away, like Scott videographer Feidin Santana.

“A 12-foot halo allows this man to die screaming for his mother the way he did and no one would know,” McKnight said of Floyd. “A 12-foot halo allows (police officer) Derek Chauvin to be on the streets of Minneapolis abusing people.”

“I am not at all going to suggest that law enforcement purposefully does this,” he added. “These are rogue actors. Most of law enforcement in this country and in the state are fine people. Good folks. But we don’t need another tool that will allow rogue elements to do what it is they want to do.”

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Children with Long Prison Sentences are Entitled to Get Review After Being Incarcerated for 20 Years

From [EJI] The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that imposing a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years on a child is unconstitutional. People sentenced when they were children are now entitled to have their sentences reviewed after 20 years.

The court’s decision, issued in January, combined two cases in which children were sentenced under a New Jersey statute that required them to serve a minimum of 30 years without any chance for parole.

James Comer was 17 when he was involved in a robbery with another person who fatally shot a robbery victim. He was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 30 years without parole for felony murder.

James Zarate was convicted of participating in a murder with his older brother in 2005, when he was just 14 years old, and was sentenced to 50 years in prison, with no parole for 42.5 years.

They asked the court to find that a mandatory sentence of 30 years without parole is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles.

The court agreed that the mandatory scheme violates the state constitution, pointing to two areas of constitutional concern.

First, both U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the state court’s own caselaw require sentencing courts to consider “what we all know from life experience—that children are different from adults. Children lack maturity, can be impetuous, are more susceptible to pressure from others, and often fail to appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions. They are also more capable of change than adults.”

But under the mandatory sentencing scheme, sentencing judges had no discretion to assess a child’s individual circumstances or to consider how a particular child differs from adults before imposing a sentence of three decades in prison without parole.

Second, “courts cannot determine at the outset that a juvenile will never be fit to reenter society”—in fact, the court observed, “it is difficult even for experts to assess whether a juvenile’s criminal behavior is a sign of transient immaturity or irreparable corruption.”

Because “we cannot predict, at a juvenile’s young age, whether a person can be rehabilitated and when an individual might be fit to reenter society,” the court found that the sentencing judge’s inability to review the original sentence later to assess whether the person has matured or shown proof of rehabilitation also rendered the sentencing statute unconstitutional.

Rather than strike down the statute, the court decided to permit juvenile offenders to petition for a review of their sentences after they have served 20 years in prison.

In reaching that timing, the court observed that New Jersey lawmakers set a 20-year maximum sentence for murder for a child tried in juvenile court, and set the maximum for felony murder at 10 years, which “reflect[s] the Legislature’s view that a juvenile who has deliberately taken someone’s life should not serve more than two decades in prison.”

It also noted that 13 states and Washington, D.C., now have statutes that allow people convicted when they were children to be considered for release before 30 years have passed. Two other state supreme courts—in Iowa and Washington—have banned mandatory minimum sentences for children.

At the sentencing review hearing, the petitioners will have had two decades to demonstrate how they have matured or rehabilitated, the court wrote. The trial court will be in a position to assess maturity and rehabilitation and determine “whether the adult before them is or will be able to reenter society.”

The court will have discretion to affirm or reduce the original base sentence within the statutory range and to reduce the period of parole ineligibility to less than 30 years.

Alexander Shalom, director of Supreme Court advocacy at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, represents James Comer.

“This ruling means that juvenile offenders have hope,” he told the New Jersey Monitor. “It means that juvenile offenders can demonstrate that the person they were at 14 is not the person they are anymore.”

He said the ruling could impact about 200 people sentenced to long sentences for offenses when they were children.

[You Only Have Rights if an Authoritarian Agrees That You Do] KC Cops Unlawfully Stopped a 17 Yr Old Black Teen on His Way Home and Detained Him for 3 Weeks on False Charge. Police Agree to pay $900k

From [HERE] The Kansas City Police Department has agreed to pay $900,000 and apologize to a Black teenager who was arrested and detained for three weeks for a crime he didn’t commit.

The settlement would resolve a civil rights lawsuit brought by the family of Tyree Bell in 2017. The settlement needs to be approved by a federal judge, but that’s expected to be a formality.

Kansas City lawyer Arthur Benson, who represented Bell, said the case was not just one of mistaken identity or "walking while Black."

"It was a part of a national disgrace that has been allowed to persist among white police for forty years: cross-race identifications of Black males by white officers are often wrong," Benson said. "And they are often wrong because too many police departments do not train their officers that all Blacks do not look alike and how to make an eyewitness identification that is not tainted by racial stereotypes. Tyree Bell was a victim of the Kansas City Police Department’s failure to address this national outrage."

Police Department spokesman Sgt. Jake Becchina said in an email that the department "always sought a successful resolution for all parties."

"Regarding the settlement of the lawsuit in this matter, the Board of Police Commissioners have agreed to a settlement amount of $900,000 made payable to Mr. Bell and his attorney Arthur Benson representing $458,000 for attorney’s fees and costs and $442,000 for compensatory damages," Becchina said. "We are glad we reached a mutual resolution and we wish Mr. Bell and his family all the best."

Bell, then 15, was walking home from a relative’s house on June 8, 2016, when he was stopped by police. Earlier, someone had called 911 and reported three Black males playing on the corner with guns.

When Kansas City police officers Peter Neukrich and Jonathan Munyan arrived, one of the males began running in the opposite direction. While running, he pulled a gun from his shorts and tossed it over a fence.

One of the officers gave chase but lost sight of the suspect. About seven minutes later, another policeman saw Bell walking about a mile away and talking on his cell phone. Although he was considerably taller than the suspect, wore his hair differently, wore shorts, shoes and socks that were different from those of the suspect and was not out of breath, Bell was placed on a 24-hour “investigative hold.”

He was held in jail for three weeks without charge and released only after a detective watched the patrol car videos from his arrest and concluded that his clothing and appearance did not match those of the suspect.

Bell originally sued Neukrich and Munyan as well as the officer who detained him, the members of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners and then-Kansas City Police Chief Darryl Forte. But a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit after finding the officers were entitled to qualified immunity – the legal doctrine that shields government officials from being sued for actions taken in their official capacity unless those actions violate a “clearly established” legal or constitutional right.

In October 2020, however, a federal appeals court reinstated the lawsuit after finding that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Bell. The case went to trial in October. However, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, and the judge declared a mistrial.

The case was set to go to trial again on Feb. 28. The court canceled the trial on Tuesday after the parties notified it of the pending settlement.

Philly DA Sees "a disturbing pattern of criminal cases against police officers getting thrown out by judges." Vows Justice after White Republican Judge dismissed Case of Cops’ Assault on Autistic Man

From [HERE] and [HERE] Charges have been dismissed against a pair of Philadelphia police officers who allegedly assaulted a man with Asperger's syndrome while off-duty in August 2020.

Municipal Court Judge William Austin Meehan Jr. threw out the case against James Smith and Patrick Smith, who are brothers, due to a lack of evidence that a crime was committed.

In the wake of Tuesday's ruling, District Attorney Larry Krasner said his office "will consider all possible avenues for seeking justice in this matter."

"We are seeing a disturbing pattern of criminal cases against police officers getting charges against them thrown out by judges during the preliminary hearing phase, only to be reinstated on appeal," Krasner said. "The law applies equally to everyone. Philadelphians should ask why some judges are finding no accountability at a preliminary hearing for police when they commit the same crimes that get everyone else held over for trial." 

Shortly after midnight Aug. 19, 2020, the Smiths, who were off duty and in a car, chased the victim, who was on foot, from their neighborhood to the parking lot of a shopping center near Fairdale and Knights Roads, according to an account from Krasner’s office.

After getting out of the car, the brothers caught up to the man and slammed him repeatedly against a wall and threw him to the ground, causing injuries including a black eye and scrapes on the back of his head, elbows, and knees, authorities said.

The Smiths falsely told the victim they were members of a neighborhood town watch and repeated that lie when the victim’s father — who tracked his son by a phone app — showed up at the scene, Krasner said.

“It is truly disturbing that the victim, who has Asperger syndrome, may have struggled to communicate his distress and fear,” Krasner said when charging the Smiths. “Additionally, the defendants’ claims at the time that they were members of a ‘town watch,’ that the victim was involved in thefts from vehicles in the area, or that the victim’s injuries were caused by a trip and fall were not corroborated by investigation.”

In in recent years, Judge Meehan also dismissed all charges against three other police officers charged by Krasner’s office.

In May of last year, he dismissed all charges against former Philadelphia SWAT Officer Richard P. Nicoletti, ruling that Nicoletti did not commit a crime when he pepper-sprayed protesters on the Vine Street Expressway during 2020 demonstrations over the police killing of George Floyd.

A Common Pleas Court judge later reinstated all the charges against Nicoletti.

In 2020, he threw out the case against a former homicide detective, Nathaniel Williams, who was charged with falsifying statements and tampering with evidence. Prosecutors said he lied to police commanders about looking up information on a law enforcement database about a woman for his cousin.

In another 2020 case, Meehan dismissed the case against Charles Myers, who was charged with perjury and tampering with evidence. Prosecutors had alleged Myers lied at an evidence-suppression hearing about the circumstances of a 2017 gun arrest.

Under Krasner, the office has brought charges in about 50 cases involving at least 59 law enforcement officers, most from the city Police Department, said Jane Roh, a spokesperson for the DA’s Office.

At least 10 of the cases have been disposed with convictions — mostly guilty pleas — or through some form of diversion program, she said.

Two ex-officers charged by Krasner are awaiting murder trials for killings committed while on duty. Eric Ruch and Ryan Pownall both fatally shot unarmed Black men.

Racist suspect John McNesby, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, applauded the judge's decision.

"Once again this was a rush to judgment by our incompetent district attorney in Philadelphia," McNesby told 6ABC. "D.A. Krasner is only interested in carrying out his anti-police agenda and arresting innocent Philadelphia police officers with baseless allegations. We will now work to make these officers whole following all their losses."