2 Minneapolis Cops Fatally Shot a Black Man (Tekle Sundberg) from the Roof of an Apartment but Fail to Articulate what Prompted Them to Do So. Bodycam Not Released, Ben Crump Retained

From [HERE] Two Minneapolis police snipers fatally shot a Black man from the roof of an apartment building across the street from where he had been holed up in an overnight standoff, according to documents filed Friday.

But authorities have not yet said what prompted officers to shoot 20-year-old Andrew Tekle Sundberg early Thursday after around six hours of efforts to persuade him to surrender. The officers were identified as Aaron Pearson and Zachary Seraphin. A gun was recovered from Sundberg’s third-floor apartment, according to the state agency leading the investigation.

Officers activated their body cameras, according to a police report, but the video has not been released. [MORE]

The parents of 20-year-old Andrew Tekle Sundberg say they are still waiting for a detailed account from police, but it appears their son was suffering a mental health crisis in the hours before two Minneapolis police snipers shot and killed him early Thursday.

Speaking publicly Friday for the first time since the fatal encounter, Mark and Cindy Sundberg, who were called to the scene during the six-hour standoff with police, said family and friends are "beyond shocked and grieving" by the news of their son's death.

"Like millions in America and worldwide, Tekle struggled with his mental health," the Sundbergs said in a statement. "We send our deepest sympathies to anyone in his building impacted by his crisis, and we thank the community members who have come forward in loving memory of Tekle."

In an accompanying statement, civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Jeff Storms said the Sundbergs were "highly restricted" in their ability to communicate with their son.

The lawyers, whom the family have retained as legal counsel, said Sundberg's parents were "not allowed to do everything they could to save their son's life" and rejected reports that police had worked in close collaboration with them.

Police spokesman Howie Padilla said police "took many steps in order to peacefully resolve the situation," and worked with Sundberg's parents to send phone calls and text and video messages to their son. "It would have been irresponsible of MPD to introduce any civilian physically into a dangerous and unpredictable situation in which many gunshots had already been fired through apartment walls," Padilla said.

Crump and Storms charged that the Police Department offered a vague explanation of the decision to shoot Sundberg after the prolonged stalemate.

"No information has been provided as to why Tekle, who officers had isolated for hours, suddenly needed to be executed," they said.

"We call on the Minneapolis Police Department to immediately provide the family with the video evidence and other information necessary to answer this question."

Police said they went to the apartment in the 900 block of 21st Ave. S. late Wednesday after a neighbor called 911 to report a gunshot had been fired into her unit, where she lived with two young children.

Police reported more gunfire when officers entered the building.

"Officers saw debris exploding from walls as shots were fired," according to a police report. "Officers called for backup and worked to rescue the mother and her children from the building in this active shooter situation. Officers also worked to move others to safety who were believed to be in danger."

According to search warrant affidavits filed by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) on Friday in Hennepin County District Court, officers in the hallway near Sundberg's apartment "started taking fire" as they evacuated other tenants.

"Minneapolis police officers exited the building and requested Minneapolis SWAT Team to respond," the affidavits said. About 4:30 a.m., two police snipers fired from the roof of an apartment building across the street, the affidavits said.

The BCA, which is leading the investigation, did not say whether one or both officers — Aaron Pearson and Zachary Seraphine — fatally wounded Sundberg.

BCA investigators collected a .38-caliber handgun with an extended magazine on a bed and live .45-caliber cartridges in a closet and in a bowl in the living room from Sundberg's third-floor apartment, the affidavits said.

At least seven spent bullets were recovered during the search of a separate unit on the same floor as Sundberg's.

The filings also listed numerous "less lethal" rounds found inside and outside the apartment building. When the BCA collected the snipers' rifles, their magazines still held rounds, the affidavits said.

Officers on the scene activated their body cameras, according to a police report, but authorities have not released the video.

Mental health professionals from Minneapolis' lauded behavioral crisis response team were not dispatched to the call because it involved a deadly weapon, city officials confirmed. The pilot program, launched in December, sends civilians to de-escalate nonviolent mental health situations traditionally handled by police.

"They don't go out on calls with firearms," said officer Garrett Parten, another police spokesman. "It's against their protocol."

Report Shows Pfizer Ignored Deaths that Occurred During Its COVID Shot Clinical Trial, Failed to Fully Investigate in order to Provide a Misleading Picture of Safety

From [HERE] and [MORE] Three participants in the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial died shortly after vaccination and their deaths were not fully investigated, it has been revealed. 

The revelations come in a report from Pfizer released on July 1st by court order as part of the documents which the U.S. FDA relied on to grant emergency use authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine in December 2020. They add to worries that adverse effects of the vaccine in the clinical trials were not properly documented, giving a potentially misleading picture of the drug's safety. 

One of the deceased participants, a 56-year-old woman known as subject #10071101, was given two doses of the vaccine on July 30th and August 20th 2020 and died from a cardiac arrest two months later. In Pfizer's report on the participant it says: 

In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the cardiac arrest was related to the study intervention of clinical trial procedures, as the death occurred two months after receiving Dose 2. Pfizer concurred with the investigator's causality assessment. 

However, it's not clear how the investigator and Pfizer can be so sure the death was unrelated to the vaccine when there was no autopsy and no thorough medical assessment. As Sonia Elijah, who has analysed the report and summarised parts of it for Trial Site News, comments: 

The conclusion that "there was no reasonable possibility" the vaccine could have caused the fatal cardiac arrest because "death occurred two months after receiving Dose 2" is not only presumptuous but also lacks a robust medical assessment. This is evident by the further comment that "it was unknown if an autopsy was performed". Why was there no follow up or inquiry into whether an autopsy was performed?

A second deceased participant was a 60 year-old man known as subject #11621327, who died three days after his first dose of vaccine, given on September 10th 2020. The report says that the "probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease". However, the subject had no known history of the condition (though was reported as obese). While the investigator deemed there to be "no reasonable possibility" of a link with the vaccine, seeing that it happened three days after the injection and "autopsy results were not available at the time" of the report, again, it's hard to see what that conclusion is based on.

A third deceased participant was a 72 year-old man known as subject #11521497, who received the first vaccine dose on October 7th and 19 days later, on October 26th, was admitted to hospital because "he fainted in the middle of the night". Reported as a syncope (temporary loss of consciousness usually related to insufficient blood flow to the brain), 16 days later, on November 11th, he died. The investigator claimed there was "no reasonable possibility that the syncope was related to the study intervention" and Pfizer said the syncope was "most likely coincidental". But again, it's unclear what this assessment is based on as the cause of death was reported as "unknown" and neither the investigator nor Pfizer attempted to investigate.

There were also a number of serious but non-fatal adverse events among trial vaccine recipients, but oddly, in every case where the trial investigator deemed it to be possibly related to the vaccine, Pfizer "did not concur", according to Sonia Elijah.

For example, a 71-year-old woman known as subject #11421247 developed severe ventricular arrhythmias in the evening following her second dose on October 14th 2020. The trial investigator wrote that "there was reasonable possibility that the ventricular arrhythmia was related to the study intervention [vaccine]". However, Pfizer stated there was "not enough evidence to establish causal relationship". This was despite arrhythmia being one of the adverse events of special interest (AESI) listed by Pfizer in its analysis of post-authorisation adverse event reports. [MORE]

Former Big Pharma Executive says FDA Colluded with Moderna to Bypass Vaccine Safety Standards. 'FDA Whitewashed Serious Signs of Health Damage and Lied to the Public on Behalf of the Manufacturers'

From [CHD] According to an ex-pharmaceutical industry and biotech executive, documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine suggest the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Moderna colluded to bypass regulatory and scientific standards used to ensure products are safe.

Alexandra Latypova has spent 25 years in pharmaceutical research and development working with more than 60 companies worldwide to submit data to the FDA on hundreds of clinical trials.

After analyzing 699 pages of studies and test results “supposedly used by the FDA to clear Moderna’s mRNA platform-based mRNA-1273, or Spikevax,” Latypova told The Defender she believes U.S. health agencies are lying to the public on behalf of vaccine manufacturers.

“It is evident that the FDA and NIH [National Institutes of Health] colluded with Moderna to subvert the regulatory and scientific standards of drug safety testing,” Latypova said.

“They accepted fraudulent test designs, substitutions of test articles, glaring omissions and whitewashing of serious signs of health damage by the product, then lied to the public on behalf of the manufacturers.”

In an op-ed on Trial Site News, Latypova disclosed the following findings:

1. Moderna’s nonclinical summary contains mostly irrelevant materials.

2. Moderna claims the active substance — mRNA in Spikevax — does not need to be studied for toxicity and can be replaced with any other mRNA without further testing.

3. Moderna’s nonclinical program consisted of irrelevant studies of unapproved mRNAs and only one non-GLP [Good Laboratory Practice] toxicology study of mRNA-1273 — the active substance in Spikevax.

4. There are two separate investigational new drug numbers for mRNA-1273. One is held by Moderna, the other by the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases within the NIH, representing a “serious conflict of interest.”

5. The FDA failed to question Moderna’s “scientifically dishonest studies” dismissing an “extremely significant risk” of vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease.

6. The FDA and Moderna lied about reproductive toxicology studies in public disclosures and product labeling.

“Moderna’s documents are poorly and often incompetently written — with numerous hypothetical statements unsupported by any data, proposed theories, and admission of using unvalidated assays and repetitive paragraphs throughout,” Latypova wrote.

“Quite shockingly, this represents the entire safety toxicology assessment for an extremely novel product that has gotten injected into millions of arms worldwide.”

Finding 1: Moderna’s non-clinical summary contains mostly irrelevant materials.

According to Latypova, about 80% of the materials disclosed by HHS that FDA considered in approving Moderna’s Spikevax pertain to other mRNA products unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.

“Approximately 400 pages of the materials belong to a single biodistribution study in rats conducted at the Charles River facility in Canada for an irrelevant test article, mRNA-1674,” Latypova said. “This product is a construct of 6 different mRNAs studied for cytomegalovirus in 2017 and never approved for market.”

Latypova said the study showed lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) distribute throughout the entire body to all major organ systems.

Latypova found it odd the study protocol, report and amendments related to the study were copied numerous times throughout the HHS documents, suggesting Moderna may have been trying to meet a minimum word count.

In between the repetitive copies of the “same irrelevant study,” Latypova found “ModernaTX, Inc. 2.4 Nonclinical Overview” for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine with the investigational new drug application reference IND #19745.

Module 2.4, she said, is a standard part of the new drug application and is supposed to contain summaries of nonclinical studies.

Latypova wrote:

“There are three separate versions of Module 2.4 included and many sections appear to be missing. It is not clear why multiple versions are included and there is no explanation provided as to which version specifically was used for the approval of Spikevax by the FDA.”

Latypova noted all three copies of Module 2.4 appear to have the same overview but reference a different set of statements and studies.

Latypova said the description of the finished supplied product differs between the two versions:

“Version 1 (p. 0001466) [says] mRNA-1273 is provided as a sterile liquid for injection at a concentration of 5 mg/mL in 20 mM trometamol (Tris) buffer containing 87 mg/mL sucrose and 10.7 mM sodium acetate, at pH 7.5.

“Version 2 (p. 0001499) [says] the mRNA-1273 Drug Product is provided as a sterile suspension for injection at a concentration of 20 mg/mL in 20 mM Tris buffer containing 87 g/L sucrose and 4.3 mM acetate, at pH 7.5.”

“It appears from reading section 2.4.1.2 Test Material (p.0001499) that Version 2 of the drug product had been used for manufacturing the Lot AMPDP-200005 which was used for nonclinical studies,” Latypova said. But “there is no explanation given for why the drug product in version 1 is different, and no comparability testing studies between the two product specifications are provided.”

Latypova pointed out that the package insert for FDA-approved Spikevax does not contain any information regarding the concentration of the product supplied in its vials.

Finding 2: Moderna said Spikevax mRNA does not need to be studied for toxicity and can be replaced with any other mRNA without further testing.

Latypova alleges Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen — manufacturer of the Johnson & Johnson shot — along with the FDA, have been deceptive in their assertions claiming the risks of COVID-19 vaccines are associated with the LNP delivery platform, and therefore, the mRNA “payload” does not need to undergo standard safety toxicological tests.

The documents state:

“The distribution, toxicity, and genotoxicity associated with mRNA vaccines formulated in LNPs are driven primarily by the composition of the LNPs and, to a lesser extent, by the biologic activity of the antigen(s) encoded by the mRNA. Therefore, the distribution study, Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant toxicology studies, and in vivo GLP-compliant genotoxicity study conducted with mRNA vaccines that encode various antigens developed with the Sponsor’s mRNA-based platform using SM 102-containing LNPs are considered supportive and BLA-enabling for mRNA-1273.”

Moderna is “claiming that the active drug substance of a novel medicine does not need to be tested for toxicity,” Latypova said. “This is analogous to claiming that a truck carrying food and a truck carrying explosives are the same thing. Ignore the cargo, focus on the vehicle.”

Latypova called the claim “preposterous,” as mRNAs and LNPs separately and together are “entirely novel chemical entities” that each require their own IND application and data dossier filed with regulators.

“Studies with one mRNA are no substitute for all others,” she added.

According to the European Medicines Agency, this chemical entity is entirely novel:

“The modified mRNA in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is a chemical active substance that has not been previously authorized in medicinal products in the European Union. From a chemical structure point of view, the modified mRNA is not related to any other authorized substances. It is not structurally related as a salt, ester, ether, isomer, mixture of isomers, complex or derivative of an already approved active substance in the European Union.

“The modified mRNA is not an active metabolite of any active substance(s) approved in the European Union. The modified mRNA is not a pro-drug for any existing agent. The administration of the applied active substance does not expose patients to the same therapeutic moiety as already authorized active substance(s) in the European Union.

“A justification for these claims is provided in accordance with the ‘Reflection paper on the chemical structure and properties criteria to be considered for the evaluation of new active substance (NAS) status of chemical substances’ (EMA/CHMP/QWP/104223/2015), COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is therefore classified as a New Active Substance and considered to be new in itself.”

“The reviewers specifically stated ‘modified RNA’ and not just the lipid envelope constitute the new chemical entity,” Latypova said. “All new chemical entities must undergo rigorous safety testing before they are approved as medicinal products in the United States, European Union and the rest of the world.”

Latypova said Moderna failed to cite any studies showing “all toxicity of the product resides with the lipid envelope and none with the payload” of the type and sequence of mRNA delivered to various tissues and organs.

“It is also not a matter of a mistake or rushing new technology to market under crisis conditions,” she added. “This scientifically fraudulent strategy was not only premeditated, it was also never really concealed.”

Latypova gave the example of a 2018 PowerPoint presentation by Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel at a JP Morgan conference where he stated: “If mRNA works once, it will work many times.”

“This describes the deception practiced by the manufacturers, FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NIH and every government health authority or mainstream media talking head who participated in it,” Latypova said.

She continued:

“Imagine Ford Motor Company claiming that its crash testing program should be contained to the vehicle’s tires and that one test is sufficient for all vehicle models.

“After all both F150 and Taurus have tires, what’s in between the tires ‘worked once and will work again,’ and therefore it is inconsequential to safety, does not need to be separately tested and can be replaced at the manufacturer’s will with any new variation.

“This is the claim that Moderna, Pfizer, Janssen and other manufacturers of the gene therapy ‘platforms’ have utilized. Unlike Ford’s products, theirs have never worked as none of their mRNA-based gene therapy products have ever been approved for any indication. The fact that the regulators did not object to this argument raises an even greater alarm.”

“There is no question of incompetence or mistake,” Latypova said. “If this represents the current ‘gold standard’ of regulatory pharmaceutical science, I have very bad news regarding the safety of the entire supply or new medicines in the U.S. and the world.”

Finding 3: Moderna’s nonclinical program included only one non-GLP toxicology study of the active substance in Spikevax. 

According to Latypova, a non-clinical program for a novel product usually includes information on pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety pharmacology, toxicology and other studies to determine the carcinogenicity or genotoxicity of a drug and its effects on reproduction.

The more novel the product, the more extensive the safety and toxicity evaluations need to be, she said.

In Module 2.4 described above, Latypova was able to identify 29 unique studies but only 10 were done with the correct mRNA-1273 test particle. The other studies were conducted using a “variety of unapproved experimental mRNAs unrelated to Spikevax or COVID illness.”

For example, the in-vivo genotoxicity studies included an irrelevant mRNA-1706 and a luciferasemRNA that is not in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“Of the 10 studies using mRNA-1273, nine were pharmacology (‘efficacy’) studies and only one was a toxicology (‘safety’) study,” Latypova said. “All of these were non-GLP studies, i.e., research experiments conducted without validation standards acceptable for regulatory approval.”

There was only one toxicology study included in Moderna’s package related to the correct test particle mRNA-1273, but the study was non-GLP compliant, was conducted in rats and was not completed at the time the documents were submitted to the FDA for approval.

The results of the study were indicative of possible tissue damage, systemic inflammation and potential severe safety issues — and they are also dose-dependent, Latypova said. Moderna noted its findings but “simply moved on, deciding to forgo any further evaluation of these effects.”

Regarding reproductive toxicology, the only assessment was conducted on rats.

Pharmacokinetics — or the biodistribution, absorption, metabolism and excretion of a compound — were not studied with Moderna’s Spikevax mRNA-1273.

“Instead, Moderna included a set of studies with another, unrelated mRNA-1647 — a construct of six different mRNAs which was in development for cytomegalovirus in 2017 in a non-GLP compliant study,” Latypova said. “This product has not been approved for market and its current development status is unknown.”

Moderna claimed the LNP formulation of mRNA-1647 was the same as in Spikevax, so the study using this particle was “supportive of” the development of Spikevax.

“This claim is dishonest,” Latypova said. “While the kinetics of the product may be studied this way, the toxicities may not!”

She explained:

“We do not know what happens with the organs and tissues when the delivered mRNA starts expressing spike proteins in those cells. This is a crucial safety-related issue, and both the manufacturer and the regulator were aware of it, yet chose to ignore it.

“The study demonstrated that the LNPs did not remain in the vaccination site exclusively, but were distributed in all organs analyzed, except the kidney. High concentrations were observed in lymph nodes and spleen and persisted in those organs at three days after the injection.

“The study was stopped before full clearance could be observed, therefore no knowledge exists on the full time-course of the biodistribution. Other organs where vaccine product was detected included bone marrow, brain, eye, heart, small intestine, liver, lung, stomach and testes.”

Given that LNPs of the mRNA-1647 were detected in these tissues, it’s reasonable to assume the same occurs with mRNA-1273 and “likewise would distribute in the same way,” Latypova said. “Therefore the spike protein would be expressed by the cells in those critical organ systems with unpredictable and possibly catastrophic effects.”

“Neither Moderna nor FDA wanted to evaluate this matter any further,” she added. “No metabolism, excretion, pharmacokinetic drug interactions or any other pharmacokinetic studies for mRNA-1273 were conducted,” nor were safety pharmacology assessments for any organ classes.

Finding 4: ‘Serious conflict of interest’ exists between Moderna and NIH.

According to Latypova, Moderna’s documents contain a letter from the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases authorizing the FDA to refer to IND #19635 to support the review of Moderna’s own IND #19745 provided in “Module 1.4.”

Although Module 1.4 was not included in the documents provided by HHS, the FDA on Jan. 30 revealed the following timeline for Moderna’s Spikevax.

According to the FDA, Spikevax has two sponsors of its IND application package, including the NIH division that reports to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to President Biden.

The date of the pre-IND meeting for Spikevax was on Feb. 19, 2020. The IND submission for the NIH’s IND was on Feb. 20, 2020, while Moderna’s own IND was submitted on April 27, 2020.

According to the CDC, as of Jan. 11, 2020, Chinese health authorities had identified more than 40 human infections as part of the COVID-19 outbreak first reported on Dec. 31, 2020.

The World Health Organization on Jan. 9, 2020, announced the preliminary identification of the novel coronavirus. The record of Wuhan-Hu-1 includes sequence data, annotation and metadata from the virus isolated from a patient approximately two weeks prior.

Latypova said this raises several questions warranting further investigation:

• Preparation for a pre-IND meeting is a process that typically takes several months, and is expensive and labor-consuming. How was it possible for the NIH and Moderna to have a pre-IND meeting for a Phase 1 human clinical trial scheduled with the FDA for a vaccine product a month before the COVID-19 pandemic was declared?

• “How was it possible to have all materials prepared and the entire non-clinical testing process completed for this specific product related to a very specific virus which was only isolated and sequenced (so we were told) by Jan. 9, 2020?”

• Ownership of the IND is both a legal and commercial matter, which in the case of a public-private partnership, must be transparently disclosed. “What is the precise commercial and legal arrangement between Moderna and NIH regarding Spikevax?”

• “Does NIH financially benefit from sales of Moderna’s product? Who at NIH specifically?”

• “Does forcing vaccination with the Moderna product via mandates, government-funded media campaigns and perverse government financial incentives to schools, healthcare system and employers represent a significant conflict of interest for the NIH as a financial beneficiary of these actions?”

• “Does concealing important safety information by a financially interested party (NIH and Moderna) represent a conspiracy by the pharma-government cartel to defraud the public?”

Latypova further noted that immediately after the pre-IND meeting with the FDA, an “extremely heavy volume of orders for Moderna stock” began to be placed in the public markets.

This warrants an “additional investigation into the investors that were able to predict the spectacular future of the previously poorly performing stock with such timely precision,” she said.

Finding 5: FDA failed to question Moderna’s ‘scientifically dishonest studies’ dismissing an ‘extremely significant risk’ of vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease.

Moderna, prior to 2020, had never brought an approved drug to market.

“Its entire product development history was marked by numerous failures despite millions of dollars and lengthy time spent in development,” Latypova said. “Notably, its mRNA-based vaccines were associated with the antibody-dependent-enhancement phenomenon.”

For example, Moderna’s preclinical study of its mRNA-based Zika vaccine in mice showed all mice “uniformly [suffered from] lethal infection and severe disease due to antibody enhancement.”

The scientists were able to develop a type of vaccine that generated protection against Zika that “resulted in significantly less morbidity and mortality,” but all versions of the vaccine unequivocally led to some level of antibody-dependent-enhancement.

The Primary Pharmacology section for Spikevax includes nine studies evaluating immunogenicity, protection from viral replication and potential for vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease.

“These studies included the correct test article (mRNA-1273), however, all were non-GLP compliant,” Latypova said. The results of these studies are briefly summarized in the text of the document package, yet the study reports are not provided.

In the disclosed documents, Moderna claims “there were no established animal models” for SARS-CoV-2 virus due to its extreme novelty.

Yet, in the next sentence, “despite the extreme novelty of the virus,” Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina possessed an already mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 virus strain and provided it for some of Moderna’s studies, Latypova said.

According to Latypova’s assessment, there were other numerous contradictions in Moderna’s documents, and when enhanced disease risk was revealed in assays, the company waived off its own results with a statement regarding the invalidity of the assays and methods they used.

“As SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays are, to this point, still highly variable and in the process of being further developed, optimized and validated, study measurements should not be considered a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, especially in the absence of results from a positive control that has demonstrated disease enhancement,” Moderna said.

“Clearly, both Moderna and FDA knew about disease enhancement and were aware of numerous examples of this dangerous phenomenon, including Moderna’s own Zika vaccine product of the same type,” Latypova said. “Yet, the FDA did not question Moderna’s scientifically dishonest ‘studies’ that dismissed this extremely significant risk without a proper study design.”

Finding 6: FDA and Moderna lied about reproductive toxicology studies in public disclosures and product labeling.

Although the FDA recommends Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant and lactating women, Moderna conducted only one reproductive toxicology study in pregnant and lactating rats using a human dose of 100 mcg of mRNA-1273.

Although the full study was excluded, a narrative summary of Moderna’s findings state, “high IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 S-2P were also observed in GD 21 F1 fetuses and LD 21 F1 pups, indicating strong transfer of antibodies from dam to fetus and from dam to pup.”

Latypova said safety assessments in the study are very limited, but the following findings are described by Moderna:

“The mothers lost fur after vaccine administration, and it persisted for several days. No information on when it was fully resolved since the study was terminated before this could be assessed.”

In the rat pups, the following skeletal malformations were observed:

“In the F1 generation [rat pups], there were no mRNA-1273-related effects or changes in the following parameters: mortality, body weight, clinical observations, macroscopic observations, gross pathology, external or visceral malformations or variations, skeletal malformations, and mean number of ossification sites per fetus per litter.

“mRNA-1273-related variations in skeletal examination included statistically significant increases in the number of F1 rats with 1 or more wavy ribs and 1 or more rib nodules.

“Wavy ribs appeared in 6 fetuses and 4 litters with a fetal prevalence of 4.03% and a litter prevalence of 18.2%. Rib nodules appeared in 5 of those 6 fetuses.”

Moderna related the skeletal malformations to days when toxicity was observed in the mothers but waived away the finding as “unrelated to the vaccine,” Latypova said.

The FDA then “lied on Moderna’s behalf” in its Basis for Regulatory Action Summary document(p.14) stating “no skeletal malformations” occurred in the non-clinical study in rat pups despite the opposite reported by Moderna.

“No vaccine-related fetal malformations or variations and no adverse effect on postnatal development were observed in the study. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses to the pre-fusion stabilized spike protein antigen following immunization were observed in maternal samples and F1 generation rats indicating transfer of antibodies from mother to fetus and from mother to nursing pups.”

“In summary, the vaccine-derived antibodies transfer from mother to child,” Latypova said. “It was never assessed by Moderna whether the LNPs, mRNA and spike proteins transfer as well, but it is reasonable to assume that they do due to the mechanism of action of these products.”

Latypova said studies should have been done to assess the risks to the child by vaccinating pregnant or lactating women before recommending these groups receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

“We should ask the question why are they concealing the critical safety-related information from public, and making the product look better than the manufacturer has admitted,” Latypova said.

“The FDA did not have any objective scientific evidence excluding the skeletal malformations being related to the vaccine,” she added. “Thus, the information should have been disclosed fully in the label of this experimental and poorly tested product — not hidden from the public for over a year and then disclosed only under a court order.”

Latypova said FDA reviewers should have “easily seen through the blatant fraud, omissions, use of inadequate study designs and general lack of scientific rigor.”

The fact that more than half of the document package contains non-GLP studies for irrelevant, unapproved and previously failed chemical entities alone should have been sufficient reason to not approve this product, she added.

It would appear the FDA based its decision that the product is safe to administer to thousands of otherwise healthy humans on two studies in rats, Latypova said. The rest of the 700-page package was deemed to consist of “other supportive studies.”

The FDA noted studies were conducted in “five vaccines formulated in SM-102 lipid particles containing mRNAs encoding various viral glycoprotein antigens” but “failed to mention that these were five unapproved and previously failed products,” she said.

The regulators then concluded that using novel unapproved mRNAs in support of another unapproved novel mRNA was acceptable.

“The circular logic is astonishing,” Latypova said. Regulators allowed and personally promoted the use of failed experiments in support of a different and new experiment directly on the unsuspecting public.

Latypova called for the FDA, pharmaceutical manufacturers and “all other perpetrators of this fraud to be urgently stopped and investigated.”

David Martin, PhD., Presents Evidence that COVID Shots are Not Vaccines, but are an 'mRNA Spike Protein Instruction' that Tell the Body to Produce a Toxic Bioweapon, for Genocide and Depopulation

From [MERCOLA] In this revealing interview with Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com, David Martin, Ph.D., presents evidence that COVID-19 injections are not vaccines but bioweapons that are being used as a form of genocide across the global population.1

In March 2022, Martin filed a federal lawsuit against President Biden, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services alleging that COVID-19 shots turn the body into a biological weapons factory, manufacturing spike protein. Not only is the term "vaccination" misleading when referring to COVID-19 shots, it's inaccurate since they are actually a form of gene therapy.2

"And we are not only not going to be sued for, you know, any libel or misinformation, we are actually holding people criminally accountable for their domestic terrorism, their crimes against humanity and the story of the coronavirus weaponization that goes back to 1998," Martin says.3

SARS-CoV-2 Has Been in the Works for Decades

Martin has been in the business of tracking patent applications and approvals since 1998. His company, M-Cam International Innovation Risk Management, is the world's largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. M-Cam has also monitored biological and chemical weapons treaty violations on behalf of the U.S. government, following the anthrax scare in September 2001.4

According to Martin, there are more than 4,000 patents relating to the SARS coronavirus. His company has also done a comprehensive review of the financing of research involving the manipulation of coronaviruses that gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family.

Much of the research was funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci.5 Martin explained:6

"I think it's important for your listeners and viewers to remember that it was 1999 when Anthony Fauci and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill decided to start weaponizing coronavirus they patented in 2002 — and you heard that date correctly, that's a year before the SARS outbreak in China.

The first time they patented what they called an 'infectious replication defective chimera' of coronavirus. And let's unpack what that means. 

Infectious means that it actually is more lethal to the target. Replication defective means its damage is primarily to the target and not to the target's family or friends or community or anything else. And in 2002, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented the replication defective infectious coronavirus chimera, which then became the first instance of SARS. 

And it was perfected in 2013 to 2016 during the gain of function moratorium, where the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill was given an exemption from the gain of function moratorium so they could continue to weaponize the virus to the point where in 2016, Ralph Baric published a paper in which he said the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one, coronavirus, was 'poised for human emergence,' so they knew this all along. 

You know, they knew it was a bioweapon since 2005. They knew it was effective at taking out populations, harming populations, intimidating and coercing populations. And they did that all very intentionally for the purpose of destroying humanity."

COVID-19 Shots Are an 'Act of Bioterrorism'

According to Martin, the spike protein that the COVID-19 shots manufacture is a computer simulation of a chimera of the spike protein of coronavirus. "It is, in fact, not a coronavirus vaccine. It is a spike protein instruction to make the human body produce a toxin, and that toxin has been scheduled as a known biologic agent of concern with respect to biological weapons for the last now decade and a half," he said.7

Rather than being a public health measure as they were widely campaigned to be, COVID-19 shots are an act of bioweapons and bioterrorism. Martin shared that in 2015, Dr. Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance that funneled research dollars from the NIAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for coronavirus research, stated:8

"We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will 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 the process."

Daszak, who Martin refers to as "the money launderer in chief," "actually stated that this entire exercise was a campaign of domestic terror to get the public to accept the universal vaccine platform using a known biological weapon. And that is their own words, not my interpretation," Martin said.9

Martin: 100 Million May Die Due to COVID Shots

Both Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 shots contain nucleic acid sequences that are not part of nature and have not been previously introduced to the human body. This amounts to a genetic engineering experiment that did not go through animal studies or clinical trials.

However, already people are dying from the shots and, Martin states, "many more will" due to issues such as blood clots, damage to the cardiovascular system and problems with liver, kidney and pulmonary function.10

An onslaught of reproductive and cancer cases related to the shots are also anticipated. "The fact of the matter is an enormous number of people who are injected are already carrying the seeds of their own demise," Martin said.11 As for how many may die, Martin believes the numbers may have been revealed back in 2011, when the World Health Organization announced their "decade of vaccination":12

"Based on their own 2011 estimate, and … this is a chilling estimate, but we just have to put it out there … When the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chinese CDC, the Jeremy Farrar Wellcome Trust and others published The Decade of Vaccination for the World Health Organization back in 2011 their stated objective was a population reduction of 15% of the world's population. 

Put that in perspective, that's about 700 million people dead … and that would put the U.S. participation in that certainly as a pro rata of injected population somewhere between 75 and 100 million people."

When asked what timeframe these people may die in, Martin suggested "there's a lot of economic reasons why people hope that it's between now and 2028."13 This is because of "a tiny little glitch on the horizon" — the projected illiquidity of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs by 2028.

"So the fewer people who are recipients of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the better," Martin said. "Not surprisingly, it's probably one of the motivations that led to the recommendation that people over the age of 65 were the first ones getting injected."14 Other populations at risk are caregivers, including health care providers, and others in the workforce who were forced to be injected, such as pilots.

"Why is it that we're suddenly having 700 flights a day being canceled because, allegedly, airlines don't have pilots? … the dirty secret … is there a lot of pilots who are having microvascular problems and clotting problems, and that keeps them out of the cockpit, which is a good place to not have them if they're going to throw a clot for a stroke or a heart attack," Martin said.

"But the problem is we're going to start seeing that exact same phenomenon in the health care industry and at a much larger scale, which means we now have, in addition to the problem of the actual morbidity and mortality, meaning people getting sick and people dying.

We actually have that targeting the health care industry writ large, which means we are going to have doctors and nurses who are going to be among the sick and the dead. And that means that the sick and the dying also do not get care."15

Why COVID Shots May Change Your DNA

It's been stressed by the media and public health officials that COVID-19 shots do not alter DNA. However, Martin brings attention to a little-known grant from the National Science Foundation, known as Darwinian chemical systems,16 which involved research to incorporate mRNA into targeted genomes. According to Martin:17

"Moderna was started … on the back of a 10-year National Science Foundation grant. And that grant was called Darwinian chemical systems … the project that gave rise to the Moderna company itself was a project where they were specifically figuring out how to get mRNA to write itself into the genome of whatever target they were going after. 

That could be a single-celled organism, it could be a multi-celled organism or it could be a human. And the fact of the matter is Moderna was started on the back of having proven that mRNA can be transfected and write itself into the human genome." 

It is completely unknown what the short- or long-term effects of the spike protein analog that's inside people who received COVID-19 injections will be. But with respect to alteration of the genome, Martin states that data show mRNA has the capacity to write into the DNA of humans, and "as such, the long-term effects are not going to merely be symptomatic. The long-term effects are going to be the human genome of injected individuals is going to be altered."18

Fraud Removes Big Pharma's Liability Shield

The 2001 anthrax attack, which came out of medical and defense research, led to the passage of the PREP Act, which removed liability for manufacturers of emergency medical countermeasures.

This means that as long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like COVID-19 "vaccines" are allowed under emergency use authorization. And as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially liable for any harm that comes from their use.

That is, provided they're "vaccines." If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the liability shield falls away, because there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy. Further, lawsuits that can prove the companies engaged in fraud will also negate the liability shield. Martin states:19

"One of the convenient things about the PREP Act is the immunity shield from liability actually is only as good as the absence of fraud. Because if there was fraud in the promulgation of the events, leading to an emergency use authorization, then all of the immunity shield gets wiped out. 

So the reason why it is so important for conversations like the one we're having to actually be promoted and be advanced is because the pharmaceutical companies — and this includes Pfizer and Moderna and J&J — know they are perpetuating a fraud. The great thing about this is when that fraud is established, 100% of the liability flows back to them.

… when a fraud was the basis for a fraud, then we actually have a number of other legal remedies that allow you to pierce that veil. So in the end, there's no question … and it's quite evident based on the current mortality and morbidity data that given the fact that when it comes to biological weapons and bioterror each count comes with $100 million penalty. That's what the federal statute gives us. 

The penalty for corporate domestic terrorism, when you have per count $100 million a pop liabilities — that is an existential threat that takes a company like Pfizer or takes a company like Moderna out of existence. And that is what we're working for every day."

If you'd like to follow the progress of the ongoing legal cases seeking to expose the truth — that a criminal organization is seeking to obtain control over the global population via the creation of patented bioweapons marketed as novel viruses and injections — you can find all the details at ProsecuteNow.io, a website compiled by Martin and colleagues.20

- Sources and References

• 1 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022

• 2 Europe Reloaded March 23, 2022

• 3 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 1:21

• 4, 5 Substack July 24, 2021

• 6 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 9:52

• 7, 8, 9 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 3:26

• 10, 11 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 6:22

• 12 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 7:58

• 13, 14 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 12:40

• 15 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 13:38

• 16 National Science Foundation, Darwinian Chemical Systems

• 17, 18 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 17:21

• 19 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 52:01

• 20 Prosecute Now

Inflation Hits a New 4 Decade High while Democrat Conspiracy Theorists Carry-On Entertaining Sheople with Theater about the HonkeyKong Unarmed "Insurrection" in Support of a Posture Already Taken

From [HERE] U.S. consumer inflation accelerated to 9.1% in June, a pace not seen in more than four decades, adding pressure on the Federal Reserve to act more aggressively to slow rapid price increases throughout the economy. 

The consumer-price index’s advance for the 12 months ended in June was the fastest pace since November 1981, the Labor Department said on Wednesday. A big jump in gasoline prices—up 11.2% from the previous month and nearly 60% from a year earlier—drove much of the increase, while shelter and food prices were also major contributors.

The June inflation reading exceeded May’s 8.6% rate, prompting investors and analysts to debate whether the Fed would consider a one-percentage-point rate increase, rather than a 0.75-point rise, later this month. Slowing demand is key to the Fed’s goal of restoring price stability in an economy that is still struggling with supply issues, but raising interest rates also elevates the risk of a recession.

Core prices, which exclude volatile food and energy components, increased by 5.9% in June from a year earlier, slightly less than May’s 6.0% gain, the Labor Department said. [MORE]

Authorities Force So-Called "COVID Positive” Citizens to Wear Ankle Bracelet Trackers to Monitor Their Movements in Hong Kong (a more secure free-range prison) Along with their "Cell Phones"

From [HERE] The Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) apparently still exists in Hong Kong, where residents who are deemed to be “infected” are now being forced to wear an electronic ankle bracelet and “quarantine” at home like a criminal.

Health authorities announced that the measures, scheduled to commence on July 15, are absolutely necessary to stop the spread, flatten the curve, and achieve a “zero COVID” policy of no more “cases” of the disease.

Communist China has a “zero COVID” policy as well, which is why the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) imposed an indefinite lockdown in Shanghai after a few people tested “positive” using the fraudulent PCR test.

“Zero-COVID’s premise is to track down every single infection and thus achieve control and maximum suppression,” reports Reclaim the Net. “In doing so, the authorities deploy a variety of tracing and tracking technology, border closures, and quarantine, as well as strict lockdowns.”

Living with the virus works much better than trying to achieve the impossibility of covid zero

For more than two years now, China and Hong Kong have had a covid zero policy in place, but the measures have done nothing to stop people from testing positive.

A recent “spike” of the disease in Hong Kong, where new cases reached 2,000 per day, prompted the added measure of ankle bracelets, which we are told will stop the virus in its tracks.

“The policy – the opposite of which is ‘living with the virus’ has come under criticism as ultimately failing to deliver on its goal, and being harmful to the economy and people’s health outside of coronavirus concerns,” Reclaim the Net adds.

Unfortunately for Hong Kong, Lo Chung-mau, the country’s health secretary, is a full-fledged covid zero cultist who claimed in the past that “living with the virus will get us all killed.”

How the new bracelets will function and how long people will have to wear them remains unknown. Those details are sure to come once Lo and his fellow covid believers come up with a strategy.

Back in 2020, Hong Kong forced people to wear tracking wristbands as well as quarantine for two weeks. Since that imposition clearly failed, now they are trying ankle bracelets instead, and probably many more weeks of quarantine than just two.

“The wristbands contained a QR code and were paired with a phone app, and were designed to track people’s movements,” reports explain. “Some Hong Kong residents who test positive are directed to quarantine in special facilities, while others are allowed to do this at home.”

Fortunately for the West, there are no such measures being imposed, especially this late in the game when covid is clearly over and done. Perhaps China and Hong Kong will eventually come to the realization that trying to eliminate covid entirely is a fool’s game and stop tyrannizing their people? [MORE] [the answer is the statist’s question]

Pew Survey says that Blacks are less likely than Whites or Latinos to believe "the widespread use of facial recognition technology will make policing fairer." The Real Question is Why are They Asking?

From [HERE] Black Americans are broadly critical of several key aspects of policing and the criminal justice system in the United States. But their views on an emerging tool in U.S. law enforcement – the use of face recognition technology – are more nuanced, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults, conducted in November 2021. In some cases, Black Americans stand out for their skepticism around the use of such technology by police, but in other cases, their views are largely in line with other racial and ethnic groups analyzed in this survey.

Here are the key findings about Black Americans’ views toward the use of this technology by police, based on the Center’s November 2021 survey. The findings come as other studies have found that face recognition technology may be accurate for identifying White men but is less accurate when it comes to identifying others.

Black Americans are less likely than White or Hispanic Americans to believe that the widespread use of facial recognition technology will make policing fairer. Only 22% of Black adults say it will make policing fairer, while 29% say it will make policing less fair and about half say it will make no difference. Hispanic and White Americans are more likely than Black Americans to say the widespread use of this technology will make policing fairer (40% and 36% say this, respectively).

Like Americans overall, most Black Americans are skeptical about whether face recognition technology should be used as evidence to arrest people. A majority of Americans, including 74% of Black adults, say that if a facial recognition program said that someone was involved in a crime, it should not be good enough evidence for police to arrest them. Roughly a third or fewer of adults in each major racial or ethnic group say the technology should be good enough evidence, even if there was a small chance the program was wrong.

Black Americans are more likely than other Americans to see certain negative outcomes from the widespread use of face recognition technology by police. For example, nearly half of Black adults (48%) think police definitely would use facial recognition technology to monitor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods much more often than other neighborhoods. That is higher than the shares of Hispanic (37%) and White (18%) adults who say the same.

Similarly, Black adults are more likely than people of other races and ethnicities to think police would make more false arrests if the use of facial recognition technology became widespread. Some 28% of Black adults say they think this would definitely happen, compared with 19% of Hispanics and 11% of White adults.

Black Americans are more skeptical than White or Hispanic Americans about whether certain measures might make the use of face recognition technology by police more acceptable. Black adults are less likely than Hispanic and White adults to think each of three separate measures asked about in the survey would make face recognition technology use by police more acceptable. For example, only around a third of Black adults (35%) say that allowing people without criminal records to opt out of facial recognition databases would make the use of this technology more acceptable. Hispanic and White adults are more likely to say this (47% and 45%, respectively). [MORE]

Employers in the UK Not Promoting and Retaining Black Employees. Survey says Almost Half of UK Black Professionals Plan to Leave Their Jobs in the Near Future

From [HERE] Almost half of Black employees are planning to leave their jobs in the near future, resenting the lack of fairness in their company’s management, according to new research. 

A total of 46% of Black employees at UK firms intend to quit their current place of work in the next two years or sooner, compared to 34% of White professionals, the research from New York-based think tank Coqual published on Wednesday shows. 

For Black women, the figure is even higher, at 52%. 

“Just from a human perspective it’s a sign that you’re not supporting all employees equally,” said Julia Taylor Kennedy, executive Vice President for Coqual in an interview with Bloomberg News. “From a business perspective it shows that you’re not actually retaining and promoting the most talented employees -- because you’re disproportionately excluding employees of certain backgrounds.”

Firms are bolstering efforts to increase the representation of ethnic minorities at senior levels and pressure is growing to show progress two years after the Black Lives Matter movement. But the report suggests that working environments are pushing Black employees to move on early in their careers, with 68% of Black people and 58% of mixed race people saying they’ve encountered racial prejudice. 

Black professionals experience micro-aggressions more often than their White and Asian counterparts, according to the research, which surveyed 1,035 people this year. These include assumptions that Black Britons weren’t born in the U.K. or are from disadvantaged backgrounds, and expectations for employees to be representative of their entire race or ethnicity. 

Black people were also 81% more likely than White people to say processes such as hiring and promotions were unfair or only slightly fair, adding to their likeliness to leave their jobs. 

Frustrations from Black women in the workplace ranged from the lack of representation past junior management level, to Black issues becoming a ‘box-ticking’ exercise after the momentum from the Black Lives Matter movement ebbed, leaving behind organizations that are still predominantly White. 

“I’m not interested in being ‘the first,’” said one Black female professional, who was unnamed in the report. “If I can’t see it in your organization, I’m not willing to make that fight because there are other companies I can go to.” 

In April, the Financial Conduct Authority set UK-listed companies three targets to boost diversity in their upper ranks, including having at least one member of their board from an ethnic minority. Coqual’s report recommends initiatives such as holding leaders accountable on diversity and inclusion goals through performance evaluations and sponsoring people from underrepresented groups. 

“You have Black talent in the UK surrounded by peers, managers and others who don’t believe that they have to work harder to advance,” said Lanaya Irvin, Coqual’s chief executive officer. “It’s all connected to the myth of meritocracy.”

Government and The Dependent Media Focus on ‘Mistakes Made by All Agencies’ to Help Make the False Flag in Uvalde Appear More Real

White Judge Finds No Intent to Murder: A White Cop Said “I'm going to fucking choke you out" and Applied Chokehold for 40 Seconds After Antonio Valenzuela Started to Snore, Crushing his Adam's Apple

“A major strategy in the war against the Black collective is the killing of Black males. Black males are being killed daily, in ever-increasing numbers, across the country. Other as non-white males also are being killed in ever-increasing numbers. These Black and other non-white males are being killed by white males in uniforms who have been authorized to carry guns. This particular form of murder and slaughter is called justifiable homicide.”

From [HERE] A racist suspect trial judge in New Mexico on Thursday cleared a former police officer who was accused of killing a man by using a chokehold technique, a practice that has come under intense scrutiny in recent years amid calls for police reform.

The former officer, Christopher Smelser of the Las Cruces Police Department, had faced a charge of second-degree murder in the death of Antonio Valenzuela, 40, after the father of four fled from officers in February 2020 during a traffic stop in Las Cruces, a city about 45 miles west of El Paso.

Officers gave chase and fired their stun guns twice. However, the tasers did not connect. Smelser deployed it again, and misses again, in the early part of the chase.

Valenzuela runs to a chain-link fence and climbs over it. Smelser tries to grab Valenzuela on the fence but is unable to pull him down. Smelser, who loses his Taser at this point, also climbs over the fence.

On the other side of the fence, about 24 seconds after the chase began, Valenzuela begins fighting with Smelser and Tuton. The fight goes to the ground.

About a minute into the fight, Smelser gets control and tries to apply a vascular neck restraint and says: "Alright, you know what? I'm going to f***ing choke you out, bro." 

About 35 seconds later, Smelser seems to get a better hold. Forty seconds after that, Valenzuela can be heard snoring. Another 40 seconds elapse before Smelser lets go.

Valenzuela never regains consciousness. Valenzuela’s Adam's apple was crushed, he had swelling in the brain, fractured ribs and damaged blood vessels in his eyes consistent with strangulation. [MORE]

After hearing arguments from the defense and prosecutors on Thursday in a trial that began on Monday, Judge Douglas Driggers of Third Judicial District Court dismissed the charge against Mr. Smelser, 29, who could have faced up to 15 years in prison had he been convicted.

“The issue before the court is whether or not substantial evidence has been presented to this jury to show that this defendant intended to commit a crime,” Judge Driggers said in court after hearing arguments, according to The Las Cruces Sun News. “That intent was to cause the death or great bodily injury of the victim.”

Judge Driggers said there was insufficient evidence and dismissed the case, the newspaper reported.

Hector Balderas, New Mexico’s attorney general, whose office prosecuted the case, said in a statement that Judge Driggers “got it wrong by not allowing the jury to rule on the evidence of the illegal chokehold.”

“The judge’s decision today essentially acquits Smelser without the opportunity for the empaneled jury of Smelser’s peers to consider the evidence against him,” he said.

The Symbolism, Logic and Meaning of "Justifiable Homicide" in the system of racism white supremacy

The Las Cruces Police Department declined to comment on Mr. Smelser’s acquittal, but said previously in a statement that the neck restraint used on Mr. Valenzuela was prohibited immediately after the episode.

At Smelser's preliminary hearing convenes with nearly four hours of testimony, including from one of LCPD's defensive tactics trainers, who claims the circumstances regarding Smelser's run-in with Valenzuela did not warrant him being placed in a vascular neck restraint and that Smelser placed him in the chokehold incorrectly. [MORE]

The City of Las Cruces settled with Mr. Valenzuela’s family in late 2020, agreeing to pay $6.5 million and make numerous policy changes for the Police Department, including banning chokeholds and immediately firing any officer who violates the policy.

Mr. Smelser, who was with the department for four years, was fired from the force in June 2020 after Mr. Valenzuela’s autopsy report was released, the department said. Fuck the police.

Mizael Corrales was Not a Threat or Under Arrest When White San Diego Cops Murdered Him. Latino Man Fatally Shot 15X as He Backed Away from Cops in Car. Lawsuit Filed, Family Wants Charges

From [HERE] 31-year old Mizael Corrales was pulled over in a strip mall in San Ysidro under suspicion of driving a stolen Mercedes.  The Sheriff’s Department says two passengers complied with a deputy’s orders to step out of the vehicle, but Corrales did not.

Edited body camera video from the sheriff’s department shows officers at the driver’s side of the vehicle attempting to get Corrales out. The video shows the car backing away as the deputies are tossed to the ground. 

One of the deputies got back on his feet and began firing his gun at Corrales as he put the car into drive. Thirteen shots were fired. Corrales was killed.

Corrales was the father of three. He was an Uber driver, according to his family and the car he was driving belonged to a friend. They claim it was not stolen. He was also a musician who played piano every Sunday at the Apostolic church Casa de Dios in Chula Vista, where his father is a pastor.

Nearly five months to the day after his death, Corrales’ parents stood outside headquarters for the San Diego County Sheriff to announce the hiring of some high-powered lawyers to sue the department and secure justice for their family.

“He was pulling away from officers,” said Bakari Sellers, who is part of a team of attorneys handling this case. “When we looked at the video one of the things we saw was that Mr. Corrales was no threat to anyone. He was beyond the officers. The officer could not have been in any type of fear for his life, for safety.”

Sellers said Deputy Anthony Garcia, who fired the shots, should be held accountable. “This officer of 16 years does not need to be on the streets right now. We are asking for a thorough investigation into the matter," said Sellers, who also wants a thorough investigation into the department’s policies and procedures which he called “draconian."

Civil rights lawyer John Burris, who has represented Rodney King and Tupac Shakur, said, “The officer basically gave a death warrant to a man who they suspected may have been involved in a stolen car. A stolen car is not a basis upon which to kill someone.”

Burris added that he believes a criminal investigation should be launched into the deputies’ actions.

Corrales’ mother wiped away tears, saying in Spanish that her son was treated like an animal. Her husband Jose Corrales said he suffers from nightmares since his son’s death. Jose Corrales works for the city of San Diego at a cemetery. He claims he had to dig the grave of his son. “Me. The father. I shouldn’t be through that, but I have been going through pain and suffering, and I just want answers.” 

Jose Corrales says the Sheriff’s Department is “lying to him” and no longer returns his phone calls.

NBC 7 reached out to the San Diego County Sheriff to get their take on the accusations, but they declined to comment due to pending litigation.

San Diego Police conducted the initial investigation into the shooting. They have now turned the case over to the San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan. A spokesperson for the DA said the case is still under review.

The modern US Border Patrol is a national police force with dangerous capabilities, author warns

From [HERE] In Nobody is Protected: How the Border Patrol Became the Most Dangerous Police Force in the United States, geographer Reece Jones argues that Supreme Court precedent, a growing workforce and mission creep have made the U.S. Border Patrol a national police force that operates without appropriate accountability.

In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Jones and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss the creation of the U.S. Border Patrol in 1924 in the wake of racist immigration laws. Jones shares how a “Wild West” mentality thrived within the service in its early years; how language restricting the Border Patrol’s actions to within a “reasonable” distance resulted in a 100-mile border zone; and how two California public defenders in the 1970s brought four critical cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that dealt a heavy blow to Fourth Amendment rights in the border zone.

Jones describes how the original mission of the Border Patrol to curtail illegal immigration expanded to include drug searches and anti-terrorism missions. That mission creep resulted in Border Patrol agents snatching protestors off the streets of Portland, Oregon, during protests after the killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020.

They also discuss how Border Patrol checkpoints could potentially be used in states that criminalize abortions to control and monitor the travel of pregnant people within the 100-mile border zone. [MORE]

$7.5M Settlement in Jemel Roberson's Case, Murdered by Police After He Stopped a Real Mass Shooting at a Bar. White Cop Pretended He Didn't Know Black Man was a Security Guard, Shot Him in the Back 4X

From [HERE] The Village of Midlothian has arrived at a $7.5 million payout to settle a wrongful death lawsuit in the shooting of Jemel Roberson, a Black security guard outside a Robbins nightclub in 2018, the Chicago Tribune reports. 

On Nov. 11, 2018 racist suspect Midlothian police officer, Ian Covey, shot the black security guard as he was detaining a suspected gunman who opened fire at the bar where he worked. The security guard, 26-year-old Roberson, stopped a mass shooting at the bar and was killed after the incident was over. Four people were shot and wounded by the gunman before Roberson stopped him. [MORE]

The shooting outside Manny's Blue Room Lounge has drawn national headlines, outrage and questions about whether race factored into the officer’s decision to open fire. Roberson was black. The officer is white.

Roberson was armed and licensed to carry a gun. He apprehended the gunman outside the bar, pinned him down and was waiting for police help when a responding officer from Midlothian arrived. 

Police say the officer ordered Roberson to drop his gun. Witnesses say they shouted at Covey that Roberson was a security guard. Roberson was wearing a hat emblazoned with the word “security” when he was shot. Mr. Roberson, who was licensed to carry a firearm, was holding the man at gunpoint.

The person Roberson apprehended had allegedly fired a weapon inside the bar moments earlier, wounding multiple people and drawing Covey and police officers from surrounding jurisdictions to rush to the establishment.

“I hear some people say he was shot,” Ms. Roberson said. “My son was not shot. My son was murdered.”

In October 2020, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx, a Black rolebotic servant of white supremacy, declined to press charges against the officer.

Roberson's family filed a federal lawsuit against the Village and the then-unnamed officer, accusing the officer of using excessive force, and claiming the officer's decision to shoot Roberson was unreasonable, unprovoked, and unjustified. In October 2020, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx declined to press charges against the officer.

IsrAlien Authorities Caught Hiding Children's COVID Injection Injuries. Leaked documents show government keeping data from public while approving children’s boosters

From [HERE] Children aged 5-11 are suffering vaccine injuries, including neurological adverse events, at about 6 times the rate of 12-17 year old children. 

Raw data - 2x the injury rate of teens

Israel’s Ministry of Health commissioned a study analyzing reports of adverse events from Pfizer's COVID vaccine to the nation’s vaccine database, known as the Nahlieli system, between December 2021 and May 2022. The research team was headed by Professor Matti Berkowitz, director of the Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Unit at Assaf Harofeh Hospital (Shamir).

In raw numbers, Berkowitz found that children in the 5-11 age group had twice as many adverse events following the Pfizer shot as children in the 12-17 age group. That doubling of vaccine injuries is, in itself, extremely disturbing, and should have been immediately brought to the attention of the nation’s parents.

Worse - 6x the injury rate of teens

Unfortunately, the doubling of adverse events is only the beginning of the bad news. Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz, a health and risk communication researcher at the University of Haifa and at Reichman University (IDC Herzliya), notes that the 2-dose immunization rate for 5-11 year olds is less than 18%, while older children have rates of 55-72% (3-4 times higher).

All things being equal, the young children would thus be expected to have ⅓-¼ of the number of adverse events experienced by the older children, not twice as many. This means that the adverse event rate for young children is actually 6-8 times that of the older children, i.e., at 600-800% of the baseline injury rate!

While there are slightly more children in the 5-11 year old group than in the 12-17 age group, it does not come close to accounting for the mind blowing rate increase in the younger group.

New vaccine injuries not included in Pfizer's leaflet

The findings by Professor Berkowitz were presented to the Ministry of Health’s Department of Epidemiology about three weeks ago, in early June 2022, together with graphs depicting the severity of the data, broken down by injury types, as well as additional alarming information: 

. . . the team identified and characterized neurological symptoms that were not previously known and are not mentioned in the physician's leaflet of Pfizer's Comirnaty vaccine, including Hypoesthesia (partial or complete decrease in skin sensitivity), Paraesthesia (abnormal skin sensation such as numbness, tingling, stinging or burning), tinnitus, dizziness and more. [Emphasis added].

Changes to menstrual cycle are long-lasting

Dr. Shir-Raz reports that Pfizer representatives have claimed to have “no knowledge of long-term adverse events.” The research team found, however, that many side-effects of the vaccine are indeed long-term. In the case of changes to the menstrual cycle, 90% of the women reported the change to be long-lasting. Thus,

the research team made it clear to the Department of Epidemiology that Pfizer needed to be notified regarding the long-term adverse events identified. [Emphasis added].

Pfizer should be informed, but not the public?

What you don’t know can hurt you

When some three weeks passed without the Health Ministry making these findings public, those privy to the information became concerned that parents were not being given the information necessary to act with “informed consent” in determining whether to inject their own children. 

Leaked documents

The concerned individuals then leaked the data and graphs, which eventually came into the hands of the Professional Ethics Front, an independent Israeli group of physicians, lawyers, scientists, and researchers, who “aim to address the ethical issues related to the COVID-19 crisis in Israeli society.” This watchdog group addressed a letter and follow up correspondence to the official State Comptroller of Israel, Matanyahu Englman, a Knesset appointee charged with overseeing the legality and ethical conduct of public sector institutions:

The findings have been brought to our attention, and they are serious and indicate a risk to children, and in particular to young children aged 5-11 … 

The group argued that the information should be disclosed, even if the data is still expected to go through additional analysis,

Out of fear that there is a blatant violation of parents' right to informed consent, and because it constitutes gross negligence, and puts children and infants at risk”. 

Too busy to respond?

Despite Israeli law making it clear that the State Comptroller act independently of the executive branch, they have not responded in any way to the group’s requests, prompting the group to file a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) to get the full report to the public with an acknowledgement of its authenticity. This delay in response comes even as Israel has just approved booster shots for young children and stands poised to add babies and toddlers to the COVID vaccination schedule.

Matches previous reports on danger to small children

This passive monitoring analysis (based on reports initiated by parents) matches the alarming findings from an active monitoring study of adverse events in children aged 5-11 in Israel (tracking every child in the study), which “also demonstrated acute safety signals.”

Matches findings of danger to babies

If small children are having difficulty absorbing the contents of the COVID vaccines, one might expect babies and toddlers to also face dangers from the injections That is just what Dr. Shir-Raz found in an analysis she conducted with her colleague Ranit Feinberg, of Pfizer data on children under 4:

. . . contrary to the FDA's briefing document claiming that the majority of adverse events in Pfizers' clinical trial were non-serious – at least 58 cases of life-threatening side effects in infants under 3 years old who received mRNA vaccines were reported. For some, it is unclear if they survived …

Shir-Raz found the most common serious adverse events to be

life-threatening bleeding, anaphylactic shock, anticholinergic syndrome, encephalitis, hypoglycemia and neuroleptic syndrome. In most of the reported cases, these are multi-system injuries.

In one egregious case, with no indication of whether the baby was enrolled in a Pfizer experiment and lacking any other explanation about how a baby just a few weeks old received the COVID shot, Shir-Raz reports,

"Chest pain; cardiac arrest; Skin cold clammy". This short description of a cardiac arrest, which occurred one hour after receiving a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, is taken from the VAERS system - the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (case number 1015467), and it does not refer to an elderly person, nor to a young adult, or even a teenager. It is hard to believe, but this report refers to a two-month-old baby.

Ominously, this infant’s outcome is labelled unknown. 

This case was reported as serious with seriousness criteria-life threatening from HA. No follow-up attempts possible. No further information expected.

Macron's Minority Government Defeated on Genocidal "Vaccine" Passports

From [HERE] French President Emmanuel Macron suffered a humiliating setback in parliament after his vaccine passport scheme was defeated.

Macron's minority government wanted to extend the policy whereby anyone entering France has to show proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test.

However, the right-wing populist National Rally (RN), the hard-left La France Insoumise (LFI) and the right-wing Republicains (LR) all united to vote against the policy.

Macron's government lost the vote by a margin of 219 votes to 195.

"The bill's defeat was met with wild cheering and a standing ovation from opposition lawmakers, in footage that was widely circulated on social media," reports the Telegraph.

The bill was one of the first put to parliament by the new minority government, highlighting how Macron will find it incredibly difficult to get new laws passed in the country. Elisabeth Borne, the French Prime Minister, condemned the vote.

"The situation is serious. By joining together to vote against the measures to protect the French against Covid, LFI, LR and RN prevent any border control against the virus. After the disbelief on this vote, I will fight so that the spirit of responsibility wins in the Senate," she tweeted.

As we previously highlighted, the French Minister of Health admitted that vaccine passports are a "disguised" form of mandatory vaccines, despite President Macron claiming vaccine mandates "will not be compulsory."

On the first day the new program was in place, police in Paris were visibly patrolling bars and cafes demanding customers show proof they've had the jab.

Mark Zuckerberg Caught on Video Warning COVID Injections are experimental and 'we don’t know the long-term side-effects of modifying people’s DNA and RNA and if it causes mutations, other risks'

From [HERE] A leaked video of Meta Platforms, Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg showed him cautioning his inner circle of the unproven effects of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines he called “experimental gene technology.”

Aware of the unsubstantiated curing effects and potential dangers of the vaccines, the tech giant chief felt compelled to alert his people regarding the shots on July 16, 2020 – five months before the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.

“I just want to make sure that I share some caution on this [vaccine] because we just don’t know the long-term side-effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA to directly encode in a person’s DNA and RNA basically the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream,” Zuckerberg said in the leaked video, which was taken during an internal meeting at Facebook (FB).

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe noted during the release of the video last year that Zuckerberg would have been “censored on the platform” if what he said to his staff in July was posted on Facebook. He would be “basically violating his own code of conduct,” O’Keefe said.

“It is yet another case of ‘one rule for thee, and another for me’ that the elite use to control the masses,” news website News Punch said.

Back in 2019, the media magnate spoke in front of students at Georgetown Universityabout the importance of protecting free expression. He highlighted his belief that giving everyone a voice gives power to the powerless and pushes society to be better over time– a belief that is at the core of Facebook, he said.However, the freedom to express has been throttled on Facebook and the other major social media platforms in recent years.

Meta had censored 20 million posts since start of pandemic

Last year, FB and Instagram (IG), which is also under the Meta Platforms umbrella, banned major groups, accounts and IG pages for speaking out and raising concerns and doubts about the vaccines’ adverse effects.

According to a Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior Report last year, FB removed 65 of its own and 243 IG accounts for spreading “misinformation” about the COVID-19 vaccines. They have removed more than 20 million individual posts since the start of the pandemic.

In an interview with CBS in August last year, TV anchor Gayle King asked Zuckerberg to release information on how many people have viewed and shared FB posts containing misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.

He admitted that FB has removed millions of posts containing misinformation from their website, but failed to answer when pressed by the host on how many people viewed or shared these posts.

“I think, to some degree, there are also different definitions that people have over what misinformation is. A lot of the stuff that’s actually the hardest for us to really address is not what I would call ‘misinformation’ but instead another category that I would call ‘hesitancy,'” he said at the time. (Related: House Republicans demand Zuckerberg surrender all communications with Fauci over covid-19 and “vaccine hesitancy” censorship.)

One of the well-known personalities that have been banned from social media is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer who emerged as one of the most influential voices during the early days of the pandemic.

Kennedy Jr., who describes himself as a vaccine safety advocate, was not impressed with Bill Gates’ track record of pushing vaccines on vulnerable populations, causing serious health problems in some cases. Subsequently, Meta “fact-checkers” banned Kennedy Jr. from Instagram for speaking out about vaccine safety.

Activist says The World Economic Forum and Bill Gates are Buying Up Dutch Farmland to Make People Dependent on Government. Farmers are Ungovernable b/c they are self-sustaining and own lots of land

From [HERE] The WEF Great Reset global leaders are rushing to implement their sinister agenda because the plan is to have everything in place 2030 – Agenda 2030. The following clip and summary come from an interview by Ezra Levant of Rebel News with a Dutch activist. She discusses the Nitrogen Policy pushed by the World Economic Forum, and its role in stealing farmland. Don’t underestimate Bill Gates’ role either.

The Netherlands doesn’t need a Nitrogen Policy. It isn’t a crisis and nitrogen isn’t a problem. Holland is a small country surrounded by larger countries that don’t have to abide by a Nitrogen Policy. The real reason for the policy is the Dutch government wants the land.

Farmers are ungovernable in the sense that they are self-sustaining and own a lot of land.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte is very deeply embedded in The Great Reset of the World Economic Forum.

The Dutch minister who has pushed this nitrogen law has a brother-in-law who owns the Dutch online supermarket called PICNIC.

Bill Gates invested 600 million Euros in PICNIC last year. PICNIC is building the most sustainable European supermarket.

The WEF Great Resetters are rushing now because the plan is to have this all done by 2030 – Agenda 2030.

The elite “see a future for us where we are completely dependent on the State, eat bugs, they own your land, you own nothing and you’ll be happy is what they say.”

They want the Dutch dependent. They also plan to use some of the lands for asylum seekers. They push open borders. Agenda 2030 is the New World Order.

The North Dakota Attorney General is Investigating a Land Transaction Involving One of the Biggest Farmland Owners in the US; Bill Gates. Why is this Psychopath Buying Farmland?

From [HERE] Bill Gates has no benevolent bone in his body, so why is he loading up on American farmland? The manufactured food crisis has been in development for several years, giving him plenty of time to position himself for maximum return: When food prices skyrocket, as they are now, Gates will reap a windfall. ⁃ TN Editor

The North Dakota Attorney General’s office is investigating a land transaction involving one of the biggest farmland owners in America, billionaire Bill Gates.

In a letter dated June 21, Attorney General Drew Wrigley’s office asked the Red River Trust, an entity connected to Gates, about a recent purchase of a multi-thousand-acre potato farm, according to local news KFYR.

Wrigley’s office informed the trust that all corporations or limited liability companies are strictly “prohibited from owning or leasing farmland or ranchland in the state of North Dakota” and “engaging in farming or ranching.”

“In addition, the law places certain limitations on the ability of trusts to own farmland or ranchland,” the letter said.

Red River Trust has 30 days to respond from June 21 to Kerrie Helm, the AG’s Corporate Farming Enforcement Division, about the farm purchase.

“Our office needs to confirm how your company uses this land and whether this use meets any of the statutory exceptions, such as the business purpose exception, so that we may close this case and file it in our inactive files,” the letter continued.

A corporation or LLC “found in violation” of the anti-corporate farming laws could face harsh penalties, such as a $100k fine and one year to divest the land.

AgWeek revealed the trust spent $13.5 million on a 2,100-acre potato farm in Pembina County in November 2021.

Over the years, Gates has quietly amassed 270,000 acres of farmland across the country through personal investment vehicles, though still a small slice of the nearly 900 million total farm acres.

Gates isn’t alone. Other billionaires, including Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, have recently increased farmland holdings.

Could this be why billionaires are buying so much farmland?