Did the US Government Remove and Reclassify 52,000 Death Records to Conceal Deaths Caused by COVID Injections?

According to Leaked Documents U.S. and European Authorities Pressured Drug Regulators to Rush Approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID Vaccine Despite Safety Concerns

From [CHD] U.S. and EU government officials pressured European drug regulators to rush approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine despite safety concerns, according to leaked documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The EMA is the European equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The documents, first reported on by Trial Site News, include emails, a PowerPoint presentation and a confidential Pfizer report from the Nov. 10-25, 2020, time period —  just weeks before European, U.K. and U.S. regulators authorized the vaccine for emergency use.

Key revelations from the documents include:

• A rush to quickly approve the vaccine, which was “pushed hard” by government figures in the U.S. and Europe.

• Pressure on European regulators to approve the Pfizer vaccine despite experts’ concerns about the vaccine’s safety.

• Significant differences in mRNA efficacy between vaccine trial batches and commercial batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, raising safety concerns.

• “No major interest” from the FDA regarding these discrepancies.

• The lowering of the acceptable threshold of mRNA integrity, shortly before the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received regulatory approval in the U.K., U.S. and EU.

• Direct lobbying by Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla to the president of the EU Commission and a high-level FDA regulator.

Political figures ‘pushed hard’ to ‘rush’ approval of Pfizer vaccine

A Nov. 16, 2020, email from Marco Cavaleri, then head of the EMA’s biological health threats and vaccines strategy, stated that “[Alex] Azar and US GOV [sic]” had “pushed hard” to “rush into EUA [Emergency Use Authorization].”

Azar at the time was secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA.

In a Nov. 19, 2020, email, Noel Wathion, then deputy executive director of the EMA, referenced a “TC” — shorthand for teleconference — “with the commissioner,” referring to European Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen.

During the call, which Wathion described as “rather tense, at times even a bit unpleasant,” von der Leyen warned the EMA what might happen “if the expectations are not being met” to quickly issue a CMA [Conditional Marketing Authorization] for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, “irrespective if such expectations are realistic or not.”

In the same email, Wathion wrote:

“The political fall-out seems to be too high, even if the ‘technical level’ … could defend such a delay in order to make the outcome of the scientific review as robust as possible. …

“Although we know that whatever we do (speeding up the process to align as much as possible with the ‘approval’ timing by FDA/MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] versus taking the time needed to have robust assurance in particular as regards CMC [Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls guidelines] and safety) EMA will have a very big challenge addressing questions and criticism from various parties … in case of a delay of several weeks.”

The “various parties” Wathion referenced included the European Commission, the European Parliament, the media and the general public.

Wathion went on to argue that “CMC, responsibility and accountability are certainly elements to be considered in my view.”

In a later email, dated Nov. 22, 2020, Wathion further revealed the pressure the agency was facing to issue a CMA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, writing:

“The likelihood that FDA (and also MHRA) will issue an EUA before a CMA is granted is extremely high. So we have to prepare for this.”

However, Wathion expressed concerns in the same email that such preparation might come at the expense of a proper scientific assessment of the Pfizer vaccine.

“We are speeding up as much as possible but we also need to make sure that our scientific assessment is as robust as possible,” Wathion wrote.

Wathion also said, “the lay public and the media will not understand the nuance” between an EUA or CMA on the one hand, and full authorization on the other. “For them, an ‘authorization’ is an authorization.”

In fact, the media often refer to the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines as “approved” when in fact, in the U.S., they are being administered under EUA.

Wathion suggested it was necessary “to address this going from damage limitation to proactive expectation management,” in reference to the possibility that U.S. and U.K. regulators would issue an EUA before the EMA issued its own CMA.

Did concerns about integrity, consistency of vaccine batches lead to lowered standards?

Other leaked documents reveal discrepancies in the consistency of the Pfizer vaccine batches and other safety concerns.

A Nov. 10, 2020, email from Cavaleri revealed the FDA was, at that time, aware of “some issues on CMC to be sorted out,” and concerns that “CMC will end up being the difficult bit.”

In the same email, he said the FDA may grant its EUA by Christmas 2020, and inquired whether the EMA could grant its own CMA “at the same time.”

The “issues” Cavaleri referred to pertained to a significant discrepancy in the mRNA integrity between the clinical batches and the proposed commercial batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

In a Nov. 23, 2020, email Evdokia Korakianiti, a scientific administrator with the EMA, addressed those issues, writing:

“Issue: A significant difference in %RNA integrity/truncated species has been observed between the clinical batches (~78% mRNA integrity) based on which the Interim analysis was performed and the proposed commercial batches (~55%).

 “The company claims that the efficacy of the drug product is dependent on the expression of the delivered RNA, which requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule.”

This had as-yet-unspecified implications for the safety of the product, as Korakianiti later explained in the same message:

 “The root cause for the lower %RNA integrity at [sic] commercial batches has not yet been identified.

 “The potential implications of this RNA integrity loss in commercial batches compared to clinical ones in terms of both safety and efficacy are yet to be defined.”

A confidential 43-page Pfizer report, also part of the leaked documents, provided further insight into the significance of this discrepancy.

According to the report, Acuitas Therapeutics, the company that developed the lipid nanoparticle platform used by the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, had set “a minimum threshold” of mRNA integrity of “approximately 70%.”

The report states:

“The efficacy of the product is dependent on expression of the delivered RNA, which requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule.”

In a Nov. 24, 2020, reply to Korakianiti’s email, Veronika Jekerle, head of the EMA’s pharmacy quality office, described these concerns as part of “a number of major concerns [that] remain that impact the benefit/risk of the vaccine (efficacy/safety).”

Jekerle said, “these concerns are shared by most member states” of the EU.

However, Jekerle suggested “an approval by the end of the year could potentially be possible if these concerns + GMP [good manufacturing practice] will be resolved.”

In an apparent contradiction, and perhaps revealing a shifting stance on the part of the EMA, a Nov. 23, 2020, email by Cavaleri stated: “…the issue on the mRNA content [is] not perceived as major.”

The same email also strongly implied the FDA felt similarly, as Cavaleri wrote there was “no major interest from [the] FDA.”

A Nov. 25, 2020, email from Jekerle further confirmed the lack of interest on the part of several regulators, including the FDA, regarding the mRNA integrity issue.

Jekerle wrote:

“FDA and Health Canada [HC] indicated that the safety concerns associated with variable species of mRNA/protein are more of a theoretical concern…

 “FDA/HC/EMA agreed that alignment on specifications %B mRNA integrity are key in order to avoid that one regions [sic] gets all the suboptimal material … specifications should be clinically qualified.”

The above passage appears to indicate that specific vaccine batches would be “suboptimal” as a result of this discrepancy in mRNA integrity.

Jekerle’s Nov. 25, 2020, email also revealed further potential safety concerns — namely, that the “applicant has shared with FDA and us/MHRA only today an issue with visible particles in the DP [drug product] (appears to be lipid nanoparticle components).”

In other words, Pfizer, the “applicant,” revealed the concerns to regulators only on Nov. 25, 2020 — shortly before U.S., U.K. and EU regulators granted Pfizer the emergency and conditional approvals.

For instance, the MHRA approved the Pfizer vaccine on Dec. 2, 2020.

Concerns about mRNA integrity discrepancies appear to have been overcome, not by altering the product under consideration, but by changing the acceptable RNA integrity specification.

A leaked PowerPoint presentation that refers to a Nov. 26, 2020, meeting between the EMA and Pfizer, which took place just one day after Jekerle’s email, states:

“… we [the EMA] are revising the RNA integrity specification for drug substance to >=60%, drug product release to >=55%, and drug product shelf life to >=50%.”

These changes were made despite a mention in the same slide of “uncertainties as regards product safety and efficacy of the commercial product.”

Another slide in the same presentation stated:

“Truncated and modified RNA species should be regarded as product-related impurities.

 “In addition, the possibility of translated proteins other than the intended spike protein (S1S2), resulting from truncated and/or modified mRNA species should be addressed and relevant protein characterization data for predominant species should be provided, if available.”

Pharma execs lobby regulators for quick approval

The leaked documents revealed intense lobbying from high-level pharmaceutical and political figures in favor of a quick approval of the vaccine, despite the sentiment among EMA experts that a more robust scientific assessment of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was needed.

For example, another email from Cavaleri explicitly mentions Pfizer’s direct lobbying of Dr. Peter Marks, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

Cavaleri wrote:

“Pfizer CEO lobbied Peter Marks telling him EMA wants the data earlier!!”

The same email mentioned that “colleagues” at the EMA “are pushing hard to compress [the] review timeframe” for Pfizer’s vaccine.

According to Trial Site News, such lobbying “could be interpreted as highly controversial.”

“Pfizer’s apparent access into the federal watchdog raises significant questions at the least,” Trial Site News reported, and “introduces the possibility for disturbing entanglements between industry and a purportedly independent, scientific federal agency.”

Trial Site News also referred to calls, in February 2022, on the part of independent members of the European Parliament for von der Leyen to resign, following revelations she had exchanged private text messages with Bourla.

While “only a small portion of these texts were ever disclosed,” Trial Site News said, the ones that were released “revealed her negotiating portions of a European-wide vaccine deal, unilaterally with Bourla, via a series of texts!”

Caught in Lies: Released Uvalde Video Looks Like a Staged Drill; Heavy Breathing, Cops Looking at Phones, "Border Patrol Hero" Absent, Dry Tears and No Blood. 6 Yr Olds with Cell Phones Not Present

According to FUNKTIONARY:

“Government” – a shamanic sham (as all prime corporate fictions are)—something “created,” propped up for everyone to beseech and blame simultaneously; a cartoonic escapegoat for Hidalgo, Doggy and the CrimethInc. All-Stars.

“Government” – Latinized Greek (“Gubernatio” = control; and from the Latin “mente” = mind; “The control of the mind.” 2) an abstraction (hoax) created for the sole purpose of making theft respectable and mind-control acceptable. 3) the societal manifestation of mass individual psychological reversal, i.e., the statutes, regulations, agencies, and agents (so-called bureaucrats) needed to threaten and shrink one’s comfort zone. 4) a granfalloon. 5) a fiction supported by those who kill on command and steal on demand under the guise of “protecting” their victims. Government is lawlessness (monopolized violence) mindlessly respected and accepted as law (open threats); politics is the way to enable and circumvent the law. The outworking of history consistently demonstrates that government will, in spite of the Bill of Rights, arrogate all power to itself eventually, if the people don’t act to prevent it. You have rights alright, just don’t get caught exercising them, O.K.? “Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. Official “government” is disorganized, politicized; centralized; canonized and revered initiation of force, but it is no less initiation of force and coercion than any unofficial singular action of the same offensive or violent content. “Government” is an abstract infinite entity acting as a possessive noun. There is not a single line in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any governmental document that states that a natural person will be left alone as long as she or he does not impose upon another or others. By commission and omission, all official decrees make clear that a human is regarded as owned property or resource of the god called “Corporate State.” It is controlling the lives, energy and property of others that requires coercive force and this is its sole function. Endorsing the lie of an imagined abstract collective interest supports the very concept that gives rise to all covert and overt oppression. [MORE]

Police Can Control Police Dogs Better than People Can Control Gov Authority: Uncontrollable Gainesville Cops Allow K9 To Torture a Black Man after Traffic Stop. Ripped Out Eye Socket, Tore Off Fingers

The belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity. The force of a K-9 bite can be as much as 1,500 pounds per square inch — three times as powerful as the jaws of an untrained dog of similar size, experts say. German shepherds and Belgian Malinois are the most common K-9 breeds, weighing 70 to 90 pounds. They are trained to bite with a full mouth, using all of their teeth.

An estimated 40,000 people were treated for K-9 attacks in hospital emergency rooms from 2009 to 2018, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A Washington Post study found that in most cases police officers are cleared of any wrongdoing when they unleash dogs on people. It also found that most of the victims mauled by police dogs are Black and most of the officers are white [MORE]

Similarly, citizens have no control over police authority or any kind of political authority. We can’t hire or fire police, nor can we decline their compulsory services. On the street the police have absolute power to interfere with “rights” (touch, stop, search, frisk and incarcerate us) and take life when they deem it necessary. Citizens can argue with police but the police are “the deciders” and they have no lawful power to prevent a deprivation on the street. People must obey authority and have no right to disobey or resist even an unlawful arrest. Did we delegate our power to our public servants to make them our masters? Obviously, people don’t have a lawful right to unleash a dog onto a fleeing police officer. So how did the cops get this fantastic power, if all their power comes from the people? Exactly how did the government acquire the right to rule over people; that is, have a special moral entitlement to impose rules, by force, on all citizens and a special capacity to generate moral obligations in individuals, by issuing them commands? [MORE] In reality if authorities have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. [MORE]

From [HERE] A Black man was put in the hospital after losing his right eye during a routine traffic stop gone awry.

Now family members and local activists want answers from the police who waited a week before publicly addressing the incident.

Last week, Gainesville police pulled over Terrell Bradley, a 30-year-old local, who they say committed a traffic violation and fled from police before being tracked down and arrested. The department hadn't openly addressed the arrest until pictures began circulating on social media showing the extent of Bradley's injuries that landed him in the hospital, which include him losing an eye from a K-9 attack

Gainesville police announced late Saturday night that the incident was under investigation and maintains the use of a K-9 was standard procedure. About 100 protesters who took the streets Sunday, however, argued it was excessive force and police brutality.

The traffic stop

Last Sunday around 10:40 p.m., a Gainesville police officer attempted to pull over a vehicle leaving the Sweetwater Square Apartments at the intersection of Northeast 15th Street and 39th Avenue.

GPD says an officer observed contraband in plain sight and "suspicious behavior," including the driver placing his hand on near the floorboard.

The officer asked Bradley to step out of the vehicle and patted him down, according to a news release. GPD officials said Bradley then took off on foot, bringing in backup units.

Police found a stolen, loaded firearm and ammunition in the vehicle and Bradley's ID.

The police that because he had a a prior felony conviction and a gun was in the car, GPD called on a K-9 unit to seek out the suspect. [that makes little to no sense. Having a prior conviction does not justify unleashing a police dog or using deadly force. Insofar as it applies to white citizens at least, the Supreme Court has explained, ‘a police officer can use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon ONLY where he has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or to others.’ Tenn v Garner, 475 US 1 (1985). In this matter, it will probably come down to whether white authoritarians believe the use of a police dog constitutes deadly force]

Police and their media have not articulated any reason to believe that he posed a threat to cops or anyone else, as he fled. Apparently, the cops took his driver’s license from him and therefore knew where he lived.

The search took nearly an hour.

The attack

Bradley was eventually found hiding behind some bushes. GPD reports that the dog "apprehended" him and he was placed under arrest.

But according to local activist Chanae Jackson, who has been in direct contact with Bradley's family members and witnesses, the arrest was anything but standard procedure.

Jackson, who shared graphic images on social media of Bradley's wounds, says he was found by a police officer first, not a K-9. The dog, which GPD says was on a leash, attacked Bradley, tearing up his hands and latching onto his eye, pulling it out of the socket.

He bled profusely while yelling for police for help, said Jackson, who adds that police did not act in a timely manner to aid him.

Though GPD does not detail the attack in its release of the incident, the department says "officers observed injury to the driver and EMS was immediately requested and responded. The driver was transported via ambulance to the hospital."

After being treated and cared for at UF Health Shands hospital, doctors felt it best to airlift Bradley to Tampa General Hospital. Jackson said there was a near two-hour debate among GPD and hospital staff on how to go about his release to another jurisdiction.

She said GPD "un-arrested" Bradley before his transport so that the department would alleviate any responsibility for additional medical bills. Once in Tampa, surgeons removed Bradley's right eye.

He is now being held in Hillsborough County awaiting transport to the Alachua County Jail.

Those charges include carrying a concealed weapon and unlicensed firearm; possession of fewer than 20 grams of marijuana; theft of a firearm; resisting an officer with violence; and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon.

Jackson says Bradley ran from the police because he was scared and the police officer became physical. She said the crime doesn't fit the punishment.

"The family is extremely distraught and upset," she said.

About 100 people attended a rally to "stop brutalizing Black people"  Sunday in honor of Bradley. Protesters marched from the Santa Fe Blount Center to GPD's headquarters at 545 NW 8th Ave.

Ashley Burke, a cousin of Bradley and U.S. Army veteran, said everyone deserves to be treated humanely.

"I did not serve my country for my cousin to be disrespected," she said. "This man will never look the same and will never be the same."

Tevin Bradley, also cousin of the victim, said that Bradley remains in good spirits despite his injuries. [MORE]

'Do You Believe the Expert Liars or Know From Seeing It with Your Own Eyes? Israel is Suffering Worse COVID than Palestine Due to Higher Vaccination Rates; More COVID Injections Caused More Deaths'

FUCK BELIEFS WHEN YOU CAN SEE AND KNOW.

From [JOEL SMALLEY] The undeceiver and expert statistician explains,

COVID Deaths

The magnitude and distribution of COVID deaths is somewhat similar in both countries apart from a double peak in Palestine in March and April ‘21, and a substantially larger peak in Israel in Feb ‘22 (Figure 2)

COVID “Vaccines”

Israel has “vaccinated” much more than Palestine. Palestine didn’t inject anyone until April ‘21, coincidentally just before their second deaths peak. They vaccinated almost at the same rate as Israel between August and November ‘21 but since then appear to have gotten wise to the dangers while their neighbour suffered the consequences of not. (Figure 3)

The Results

If we plot Israel minus Palestine deaths and “vaccines”, what do we get? Certainly not a picture of Safe & Effective™, that’s for sure! (Figure 4)

In fact, what is quite apparent is that relatively higher COVID deaths in Israel can be explained by relatively higher “vaccinations”.

You can believe the expert liars and the official dogma. Or, you can believe your own eyes.

Haiti Didn't Participate in the Plandemic and Remains Unaffected; Poor Country w/11M People Didn't Socially Distance, Wear Masks and 1% Injected. Hospitals Aren't Full of COVID Patients, Only 837 Dead

From [HERE] Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) showed only 837 people have died in Haiti since the pandemic began, with a vaccination rate of 1.4% of the 11.6 million population.

“In Haiti, from 3 January 2020 to 5:03 pm CEST, 7 July 2022, there have been 31,703 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 837 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 24 June 2022, a total of 342,724 vaccine doses have been administered,” according to the data from WHO.

As of June 24, only 1.4% of the population was fully vaccinated. Haiti had a population of 11,681,526 people as of Thursday, July 7, 2022, according to the data from Worldometers.

In contrast to countries that vaccinated the majority of their populations, Haiti has survived the impacts of Covid-19.

Haiti did not vaccinate its citizens. Their current vaccination rate is 1.4% of the population.

Haiti has not been effected by covid while the countries who did vaccinate the majority of their populations are struggling, and telling their citizens they need repeated injections. pic.twitter.com/23cBJBKqb7

— Frank Grimes Jr. (@FrankGrimes_Jr) July 5, 2022

In December 2021 a reported observed, “The term physical distancing has completely disappeared from discourse in Haiti. In both public and private institutions, people no longer wear masks and containers for washing hands have disappeared.

As a result, people live in total oblivion of the existence of the disease. Only some commercial banks, supermarkets and stores continue to demand the use of masks, in a context in which even the government authorities speak very little about the disease.” [MORE]

the Miami Herald reported: In Haiti, they are acting like COVID-19 doesn’t exist. Mask-wearing is an exception and not the norm; bands are playing to sold-out crowds; and Kanaval, the three-day pre-Lenten debauchery-encouraging street party is back on for February. . .

Across the border in the neighboring Dominican Republic, with roughly the same population, the pandemic has killed almost ten times the number, 2,364. Jet off to Miami-Dade County, home to one of the larger Haitian communities in the United States, and the death toll is even higher: 4,002 in a population of 2.7 million.

Haitians rejected the COVID injections and have returned hundred of thousands of unused doses donated by the U.S. The U.S. donated 500,000 doses of the Moderna Inc vaccine to Haiti in July 2021 through COVAX -- an abbreviation for COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access. According to Haiti’s health ministry, fewer than 66,800 doses were administered and only 20,354 people in the Caribbean nation of 11.4 million are fully vaccinated. [MORE]

DOCTOR SAYS HOSPITALS ARE NOT OVERRUN WITH COVID PATIENTS IN CROWDED, POOR, UNVACCINATED COUNTRY NOT PRACTICING SOCIAL DISTANCING OR WEARING MASKS

Mississippi Court Denies DNA Testing to Willie Manning, on Death Row for Killing a White Student. White Prosecutor Claimed Hairs in the Victim’s Vehicle were from a Black Person and Implicated Manning

From [DPIC] The Mississippi Supreme Court has denied additional DNA testing to death-row prisoner Willie Manning (pictured). Manning, who was sentenced to death in Oktibbeha County in 1994 and in 1996 for two separate crimes, has maintained his innocence of both crimes. He was exonerated of the 1996 conviction in 2015 after police and prosecutors unlawfully withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. 

Manning sought DNA testing in the 1994 case to challenge discredited hair comparison testimony presented by a prosecution expert. After initial DNA tests were inconclusive, the trial court in 2020 refused to authorize the transfer of the evidence to a different lab that was capable of conducting more sophisticated testing. On June 30, 2022, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld that ruling, holding that “Manning has failed to show that a full DNA profile, if gained from additional testing, would have raised a reasonable probability that the trier of fact would have come to a different outcome.”

Manning, who is Black, was sentenced to death in 1994 for the murders of two white Mississippi State University students. At trial, the State presented testimony from an FBI agent stating that hairs found in one of the victim’s vehicles was from an African American. The prosecutor referred to this testimony in his closing argument, saying this implicated Manning because of his race. The agent also testified regarding ballistics evidence recovered from the scene. Nearly ten years later, shortly before Manning was scheduled to be executed in 2013, the United States Department of Justice said that the FBI agent’s testimony at trial was seriously flawed. Because of this, the Mississippi Supreme Court voted 8-1 to delay Manning’s execution and allow DNA testing of the physical evidence from the case.

In August 2014, the Mississippi circuit court entered an agreed order to send newly discovered physical evidence to a DNA testing facility. Over the course of six years, that testing facility tested multiple pieces of physical evidence found at the crime scene, including a rape kit, fingernail scrapings, and the hairs that the FBI agent testified about at trial. The testing facility said that the tests all produced inconclusive results, but that a different, more specialized facility may be able to get conclusive results from the evidence within three to four months. 

The circuit court denied Manning’s motion to allow more time for testing and for the transfer of evidence to the new facility. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court that Manning had not shown that the new facility would be able to obtain conclusive results, and further, that if it did obtain conclusive results, that those results would serve to exonerate Manning. Writing for the majority, Justice Robert Chamberlain said “If additional testing had been granted and another individual’s DNA profile was discovered from the crime scene evidence, no proof has been shown that it would change the outcome of Manning’s case.”

Manning’s attorney, Rob Mink said he is disappointed in the ruling, adding that he had hoped the results would exonerate Manning. Mink told the Associated Press that they are “considering right now what options [Manning] has for additional relief.” 

In dissent, Justice Leslie King, joined by Justice Jim Kitchens, stressed the importance of DNA evidence in death penalty cases. Justice King, who is the only Black justice on the Mississippi Supreme Court, referenced multiple cases that showed that “DNA testing could potentially lead to the true perpetrator of the crime, even when strong circumstantial evidence and direct evidence were presented at trial.” Justice King also pointed out that the new facility claimed they could conduct the new testing within three or four months, which is “surely minimal considering that Manning has been sentenced to death” and “had spent almost twenty years in prison before this Court granted his motion to test the evidence.”

When Manning faced execution for this crime in 2013, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the New York-based Innocence Project strongly supported the testing. In an op-ed in the Clarion Ledger, they argued: “While people can differ on whether the death penalty is an appropriate form of punishment, nearly everyone would agree that it should be used only in those cases where we are certain of guilt. DNA testing could provide that certainty or prove, as Manning insists, that he is innocent.”

Who are the Criminals When Innocent People Get Locked Up 25-35 Years? Illinois Judges Release 4 Latino Men Convicted of Murder Based on Confessions Obtained by Chicago Police Torture, Fake Evidence

From [HERE] Illinois judges Friday found that the police evidence used to convict four men in two cases was not reliable and ruled that the men be released from prison.

Brothers Juan and Rosendo Hernandez, along with Arthur Almendarez and John Galvan, were released from prison after the judges found that the police detectives involved had possibly coerced the men into confessing. After 25 years behind bars for a crime they did not commit, two brothers said they are relieved to be free, but feel righteously angry - as they put it - for the many years ripped away from them.

Juan and Rosendo Hernandez were each sentenced to more than 100 years in prison for the 1997 murder of Jorge Gonzalez, who was 18 years old when he was shot to death. The Hernandez brothers allege that they were framed in a 1997 murder by former Chicago Police Detective Reynaldo Guevara, at the request of another Chicago officer.

The brothers had alibis for their whereabouts the night of the murder, which were supported by witness testimony at trial. However, police stated they had received a tip connecting the brothers to the murder. The police also stated that members of the Gonzalez family had identified the two men as the shooters.

In an affidavit, a former drug dealer stated that he had heard Joe Miedzianowski, a former Chicago police officer serving a life sentence for running a drug trafficking and protection racket, discuss at least three times that he intended to frame Juan Hernandez.

The Hernadez brothers are the 25th and 26th people to have had their convictions overturned due to allegations of misconduct against Reynaldo Guevara, the Chicago police detective who handled the brothers’ case.

In the case of Almendarez and Galvan, the two men were convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated arson in 1987. They were sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal it was found that the only evidence was the signed confessions and that the detectives had a history of coercing confessions. The two were granted a new trial in 2019and 2022.

Almendarez and Galvan will have a status hearing on July 21.

A Cook County judge threw out the murder convictions Thursday, marking the third time in less than a week that a Guevara-related case was thrown out. [MORE]

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.