White Gastonia Cops Get Revenge on Jason Lipscomb by Murdering Him. After He Hit an Officer w/His Car Video Shows Cops Execute Black Man as He Backed Away from Them, Trying to Flee From Slave Catchers

From [HERE] and [HERE] A Black man was shot and killed by a white police officer Wednesday afternoon after authorities first responded to a home for a kidnapping call, according to the Gastonia Police Department.

Officers said they were called to a home just after 12:30 p.m. on North Edgemont Avenue off of Highway 74.

Gastonia Police Public Information Officer Rick Goodale said officers got a call saying two kids had been taken by a man who was not supposed to have them. Goodale said they arrived at the home on North Edgemont Avenue but found the two children safe and unharmed inside.

Goodale said that was when they also found the man who was suspected of taking the children nearby. He said the man had “some sort of encounter” on the street with police, and that was when he hit one of the officers with the car he was backing away.

“During the course of the investigation, the suspect was operating a vehicle and struck one of our officers,” Goodale said. The officer is expected to be ok. The car was not going that fast as it backed up into him while the officer was back-peddling. The SBI is investigating the case.

According to Goodale, multiple officers fired their guns, hitting the suspect. It’s too early to know which officer did, he said.

Police said the suspect, who family identified as 21-year-old Jason Lipscomb, died at the scene. Investigators said the officer who was hit had a police escort to the hospital with serious injuries.

Goodale said though the relationship is unclear, everyone involved in the situation knew each other.

Police said they are not looking for any additional suspects in connection to the shooting.

Channel 9′s Ken Lemon spoke to a stepfather at the scene who said he saw police shot and kill his stepson.

“When I started praying, all I hear is gunshots. Nothing but gun shots,” Robert Hamlett said.

Hamlett said he didn’t know what was happening outside his home, and that when he stepped out on the porch, he saw Lipscomb with police around him. 

Other family members heard about the shooting minutes after it happened and also rushed to the scene. One uncle had to be held back because he wanted to cross the police line and see everything for himself. Lipscomb’s mother also came to the police line hoping someone would tell her the news wasn’t true. 

Family members said Lipscomb didn’t have a weapon at the time of the shooting. Goodale said that’s part of the investigation.

As standard procedure for all officer-involved shootings, the State Bureau of Investigation is responding to investigate along with GPD internal affairs.

Panic-Hype Man, Masterful Liar and Biocide Architect Anthony Fauci to Retire at the End of Biden's Term. Will He be Alive for His Nuremberg Trial?

Anthony Fauci, the psychopathic infectious-diseases fake expert who has helped steer the nation’s response to Covid-19 through two administrations, said he is likely to retire by the end of President Biden’s term. His work undoubtedly will kill millions of people.

Dr. Fauci, 81 years old, has become one of the most well-known public-health leaders during the pandemic, appearing often at White House Covid-19 press briefings and on national TV and other outlets. He delivered unvarnished views in his characteristic Brooklyn accent about the dangers of the virus and a need to take precautions, drawing criticism from some Republicans.

Dr. Fauci is the chief medical adviser to President Biden, while also leading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID. He has directed the institute since 1984, serving under seven presidents.

Dr. Fauci said Monday he hadn’t decided on a date but planned to step down by the end of Mr. Biden’s term in January 2025. “Sometime between now and then, I will step down from my current position and pursue other directions in my professional career,” he said. [MORE]

Scientist says the Experiments Used to Establish COVID are a Fraud. ‘There is No Real Evidence that SARS-CoV2 “virus” Causes Anything More Serious than a Short, Common Cold or that It Actually Exists'

From [EXPOSE] Infecting mice with the deadly SARS-CoV-2 virus should be lethal right? Wrong. In an experiment that used mice the researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the supposed human disease called Covid 19.

But maybe mice are too different to humans to be relevant models for human disease. Maybe if our fellow primates (monkeys) were infected with this deadly virus they would get seriously ill and die right? Wrong.

We are told that the SARS-CoV-2 “coronavirus” causes serious and lethal disease in humans. Three research papers presented by Facebook “fact checkers” in support of this contention prove nothing of the sort. This is called a citation bluff and is a common tactic used by scientific fraudsters. The fraudsters depend on people not reading or understanding the research that is cited but instead just blindly trusting that there is evidence to support the claims made by the fraudsters. I have read and understood the monkey studies for you…

The first is a “Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a nonhuman primate model.” that was published in the prestigious scientific journal “Science”.

This is one of the papers used by Facebook “fact checkers” to justify the official Covid 19 narrative and to prove that Covid 19 is a serious and life-threatening disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It proves nothing of the sort…

They infected some monkeys with the “deadly” SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. This is what happened:

“No overt clinical signs were observed in any of the infected animals, except for a serous nasal discharge in one aged animal on day 14 post inoculation (p.i.). No significant weight loss was observed in any of the animals during the study.”

In other words, one of them got a snotty nose or a “serous nasal discharge” if you prefer to be more polite but nothing more serious than that.

Surely, they must be shedding high levels of this “deadly” and rapidly replicating virus for a long-time post infection, right? Wrong:

“Low levels of infectious virus were cultured from throat and nasal swabs up to day 2 and 4, respectively.”

After 4 days of most monkeys being absolutely fine ( except for the one with a snotty nose) the monkeys were unlikely to be infectious to other monkeys. In spite of this lack of viral shedding the whole world was locked down to prevent spread and to “flatten the curve”.

Sadly, the monkeys had to be killed and their tissues had to be examined under a microscope to detect anything wrong with them at all:

“The main histological lesion in the consolidated pulmonary tissues of both the young and aged animals involved the alveoli and bronchioles and consisted of areas with acute or more advanced DAD.”

DAD is Diffuse Alveola Damage. This is how a pathologist would describe your lungs if you had a cold or lived in a polluted city and they sliced up your lungs to have a look at them down a microscope. They aren’t doing this to humans just yet (except in China) but who knows what they will do in the future when they invent a new new variant.

We are told that SARS-CoV-2 enters the body via the lungs, spreads via the bloodstream, and goes on to ravage all of our internal organs. But:

“The other organs in these two macaques, as well as the respiratory tract and other organs of the other two animals, were normal.”

What no seriously deadly pneumonia? No renal failure? No liver damage? No brain damage? No blood clots? No cytokine storm? No multi-organ failure? Doesn’t sound like the deadly COVID 19 human plague to me:

“Virus replication was primarily restricted to the respiratory tract (nasal cavity, trachea, bronchi, and lung lobes) with highest levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in lungs.”

Sounds like a common cold affecting only the airways then:

“The other aged macaque, without virological or pathological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the lungs, did have SARS-CoV-2 antigen expression in ciliated epithelial cells of nasal septum, nasal concha, and palatum molle, in the absence of associated histopathological changes. No SARS-CoV antigen expression was detected in other sampled tissues, including brain and intestine.”

This monkey evidently had a great immune system. Do you? Lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, chronic stress and the shots will adversely affect your immune system.

The researchers summarised their findings:

“In summary, we inoculated young and aged cynomolgus macaques with a low-passage clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in productive infection in the absence of overt clin- ical signs.”

“These data show that cynomolgus macaques are permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection, shed virus for a prolonged period of time, and display COVID-19–like disease.”

In summary, they gave some monkeys a mild mostly asymtomatic cold. Not the deadly plague that has been invoked to terrify the human population into compliance.

What these data really show is that a mild self-limiting common cold can be induced in some monkeys (but not all) when their airways are inoculated with an un purified soup of biological material and toxins which they choose to call “SARS-CoV-2”.

These data do not show serious or fatal respiratory or systemic disease caused by this strain of “coronavirus”. These data do not justify lockdowns, social isolation, the destruction of small businesses, tracking and tracing people’s movements, the taking of our freedoms, rights and democracy.

The second paper is titled “Infection with novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causes pneumonia in Rhesus macaques.” and was published in the journal “Cell Research”.

This is another one of the papers used by Facebook “fact checkers” to justify the official Covid 19 narrative and to prove that this disease is real. It once again proves nothing of the sort…

They infected some more poor monkeys with the “deadly” SARS-CoV-2 “coronavirus”. This is what happened:

“No obvious clinical signs were observed during the study course except that one animal showed reduced appetite. All animals investigated did not show body weight changes from 1 to 6 days post infection…Body temperatures were monitored from day1 to day14 and no obvious changes were found.”

One animal went off its food a bit but none of them lost weight and none of them developed a fever. Doesn’t sound too serious, does it? They went on:

“No viral RNA could be detected in blood from day 1 to day 14”

We are led to believe that Covid 19 causes multi-organ systemic serious and fatal disease but it doesn’t even get into the bloodstream? Hmmm:

“No specific viral RNA could be detected in heart, liver, spleen, kidney, intestine, stomach and reproductive tract on day 3 and 6 post infection”

The virus doesn’t infect these internal organs? Hmmm…

“We presume that the respiratory tract is the preliminary target of SARS-CoV-2 infection, while other organs might not be the direct targets.”

So, it’s what we used to call a common cold then…

“After 6 days of infection, the lung lesions of RMs were alleviated, with decrease of monocyte and lymphocyte infiltrations, increase of macrophages, and reduction of edema and hyaline membrane.”

“On day 6 post infection, the mucosal lesions of trachea and bronchus were significantly alleviated and the epithelial cell structure was basically restored, but a small number of monocytes, lymphocytes and eosinophils were still seen in the submucosa.”

So, they have demonstrated a mostly asymptomatic self-limiting common cold that the monkeys recovered from in less than a week. So, what has actually been killing people then? The authors explained:

“A retrospective study in China showed that compared to the recovered group, more patients in the death group exhibited pre-existing comorbidities, dyspnea and decrease of oxygen saturation, characteristics of advanced age.”

They died from old age and pre-existing comorbidities. The elderly and those with pre-existing comorbidities are routinely poisoned to death by their doctors. It’s very profitable. They get cash bonuses for doing it. The elderly and infirm are considered by some to be a burden on society. The Nazis were of the same opinion.

“In another study investigated in China, 1099 COVID-19 cases showed that majority of the cases (84.3%) were non-severe, ~5% of confirmed cases required ICU attendance after severe pneumonia occurred, 2.3% needed mechanical ventilation support, and 1.4% died.”

Prolonged mask wearing is a great way to give yourself “severe pneumonia” and inappropriate mechanical ventilation together with toxic drugs can be lethal. Draconian societal measures don’t seem proportionate to a disease which in 84.3% of cases is non-severe. But I’m not a Chinese Communist so what would I know…

“This animal model has confirmed the causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and respiratory disease in RM reminiscent of the mild respiratory symptom or non-symptomatic cases in COVID-19 already reported in humans.”

They have proven once again that a “coronavirus” can cause a mild common cold, something which has been known for many decades. Where is the proof of serious and life-threatening disease? It doesn’t exist.

What about immunity to this “deadly virus”?

“The neutralizing antibody generated by infection could prevent secondary infection by SARS-CoV-2, which suggested that humoral immunity could play a role in protection, although T cell and innate immune could be further investigated in the future to examine their role in the protection.”

So, they admit that natural immunity is a thing then? Weird how the media don’t think it’s a thing and everyone should get the shots instead. The shots are causing a type of immunodeficiency similar to AIDS but affecting a different cell type. Vaccine induced antibodies to “coronaviruses” are often not protective but due to Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) cause more serious disease.

The third study is another Chinese Communist Party paper that Facebook “fact checkers” love: “Age-related Rhesus Macaque Models of COVID-19.” which was published in the journal “Animal Models and Experimental Medicine.”

They infected some more poor monkeys and…

“Clinical signs were transient and lasted for a few days.”

None of the monkeys developed a fever or died from the infection. Get the picture? See the pattern here?

There is no real evidence that the SARS-CoV2 “virus” causes anything more serious than a mild mostly asymptomatic short-lasting common cold. In fact, there is no real evidence that the virus actually exists except in-silico (on a computer). All of the above studies used a complex mixture of biological and toxic material that has not been properly purified but the researchers refer to this as the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” nevertheless.

Do you really believe that multi-million amounts of money were spent on “gain of function” research to develop such a pathetic damp squib “bioweapon”?

The fatalities and serious illness in humans are due to other causes (often old age) and Covid 19 is a misdiagnosis used to create a pseudo pandemic. The sick globalist psychopaths running the show don’t care whether you believe the gain of function bioweapon narrative or the naturally occurring deadly virus narrative. They only care that you believe in the deadly virus on the loose hoax narrative.

References

1) Shi-Hui Sun et al (2020) “A Mouse Model of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Pathogenesis.” Cell Host Microbe. 2020 Jul 8; 28(1): 124–133.

2) Rockx Barry et al (2020) “Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a nonhuman primate model.” Science 368, 1012–1015 29 May 2020.

3) Shan Chao et al (2020) “Infection with novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causes pneumonia in Rhesus macaques.” Cell Research 30:670–677; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41422-020-0364-z.

4) Yu Pin et al (2020) “Age-related rhesus macaque models of COVID-19.” Animal Model Exp Med. 2020;3:93–97.

Is COVID a Real Virus Created in a Lab or a Mind Virus Created to Control People? David Icke says COVID is a ‘Meaningless New Name for an Old Familiar Cluster of Seasonal Flu-Like Symptoms’

Like “authority,” “government,” “race,” and “money” (monetized debt), the mind virus COVID-19 is a granfalloon enslaving and ensnaring mankind.

FUNKTIONARY explains;

mind viruses – memes with both the anchor and carrier embedded into its payload. Mind viruses are stealth psychopathogens in that they can mutate to penetrate our natural defenses undetected, pretend to be part of us, and compel us to spread them further.(See: Memes, Memetics, Evolution, Religion, Government, Corporate State & Taxation)

Granfalloon – an empty representation, of which one cannot even positively aver that it is even a concept. All Corporate State fictions (stationary bandits) are “created” by its creators as a psychological retro-virus in people’s minds as if it were a real (existential and volitional) entity, the sole purpose of which is to command, mediate, control and subdue the natural inclinations of a sleeping people who do not understand (know) themselves in order that they may silently rob them of their property and mind—under the Great Brain Robbery. The Constitution is a putative agreement or covenant to which you were neither a signatory nor interested party. The Constitution made provisions for the establishment of a Congress. Congress never formally created the so-called Internal Revenue Service as a duly formed agency of the United States of America. The Secretary of the Treasury never created revenue districts in the States of the Union. Internal Revenue Service was never granted authority to tax income of American citizens (or citizens of the United States of America, not U.S. citizens or subjects of Congress) earning money within the 50 States of the Union. The word “income” is not explicitly defined in the Internal Revenue Code (although it is implicitly defined by the most basic of accounting principles, i.e., cost. The income (“money”) that you earn is simply hypothecated “credit” created as iconic numbers within yet another fictitious corporate entity known as a bank. When every foundation is imaginary, alienation becomes desirable but impossible. You can elude the “authorities” but you cannot escape that which simply isn’t real or has no reality to begin with—so just what are any so-called “authorities” agents of anyway? Where are the office and the oath of office? Never fight (oppose) things that are not or ‘what is not’—as you will stratify your energy and dissipate your life-force while paradoxically strengthening what-is-not. Determine whether something has a real existence or whether it is just an absence. If it is an absence—a granfalloon—then don’t fight with “it,” seek the thing of which it is the absence (for), find it and handle your business accordingly. (See: Reification, Stationary Bandits, Territorial Gangsters, Voting, Doggy, Somnamnesiac, Sleepwalking, Corporate State, Income, “Government,” President, SimCult, Authority, Grand Juries, Tax Invasion, “Credit,” Hegelian Banking, Holodeck Court, Judicial Victimization, Statutory Oppression & The Flag)

DC Forces Genocidal COVID Shots on Kids Ages 12+. Law Destroys Rights to Refuse Medical Treatment and Refuse Emergency Use Vaccines. Falsely Claims Vax Slows Spread, Disproportionately Affects Blacks

COVID Injections Don't Immunize or Stop Spread. They're Treatments (Not Vaccines) that feed the Virus and Facilitate its Development into More Variants. The Government IS TRYING TO KILL YOU.

From [HERE] and [HERE] D.C. schools have a new mandate requiring all students 12 and up to receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccine before returning to school this fall.  

In a July 19 press release, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education directed that all students eligible for COVID-19 vaccines according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must receive their vaccines for the 2022-2023 school year.  

The mandate extends to all schools, including private, parochial, and independent. Students must verify their vaccine status as part of enrollment and attendance requirements.  

According to the mandate, all students 12 and up, unless exempted, must have received a series of COVID-19 shots or begun the process of vaccination before the start of the school year. Pursuant to implementing regulations, “School authorities may exclude from regular instruction a student who is not immunized and provide for special instruction for the student.” DCMR 5- 5300.13

With regard to exemptions the new law states, § 38–506. Exemption from certification.

“No certification of immunization shall be required for the admission to a school of a student:

(1) For whom the responsible person objects in good faith and in writing, to the chief official of the school, that immunization would violate his or her religious beliefs; or

(2) For whom the school has written certification by a private physician, his or her representative, or the public health authorities that immunization is medically inadvisable.” D.C. Code § 38–506.

It makes no exception for children with natural immunity.

The legislative record indicates that DC lawmakers were explicitly warned that COVID injections are dangerous to all people. The liberal puppeticians were also aware that the mandate will disproportionately impact Black people. The record states, “In a school system made up of mainly Black students, this Council is determined to override the decision‐making of Black parents about the medical care of their own children. This is pure white supremacy.“ [MORE]

The mandate is part of the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination law passed in D.C. last year. The law required all eligible teachers and students to receive the experimental vaccines.  

NO FULLY APPROVED COVID SHOTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE US. Despite evidence showing the vaccine is more dangerous to children than the virus on July 7th the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC) recently approved the experimental shots for children as young as six months old.  

However, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S for any age group and is not the same formula as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine currently authorized under EUA and being distributed as a “fully approved” vaccine.

That is, all all the shots are Emergency Use, which are legally distinct, not interchangeable w/comirnaty. As such, the only way to comply with the D.C.’s mandate will be children are injected with a shot under an EUA. This is especially important because EUA vaccines bypass the FDA and PHS Act's requirements for safety and efficacy.

Pfizer’s information hotline says it has no specific information on when Comirnaty will be available. The FDA said earlier this month that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be, authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.” The CDC’s website states that Comirnaty is “not orderable.”

According to FDA documents, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S. and nobody has received a fully approved and licensed COVID-19 vaccine.

“Comirnaty has not been made available under EUA,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, physician and senior science editor for The Defender. “The FDA and Pfizer have already stated very quietly, that they have no intent of manufacturing Comirnaty for distribution. Everyone is getting the non-licensed formulation that carries no liability for pharmaceutical companies.” [MORE]

Apparently in the recent case NFIB v. OSHA before the US Supreme Court, it was undisputed by the government that “Comirnaty is not available at all in the United States.”

The distinction between an EUA and an FDA-approved product matters. In particular, the FDA's grant of EUA requires little, if any, demonstration that the EUA product is safe and effective. Nor does the EUA include FDA review or approval of manufacturing processes, facilities, storage, distribution, or quality control procedures. This is why the FDA has acknowledged the products are "legally distinct.'' [MORE] and [MORE]

An amicus brief filed by Defending The Republic (DTR) in NFIB v. OSHA importantly pointed out the following;

Important Differences Between EUA and FDA-Approved Vaccines

“There are significant differences between the FDA's approval standards and the EUA standards. EUA vaccines require little to no proof of safety or efficacy. FDA vaccine approvals do.

The FDA may grant an EUA where: (1) the HHS Secretary has declared a public health emergency that justifies the use of an EUA, see 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(b)(1); and (2) the FDA finds that "there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating" the disease in question. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c)(3).

The differences between licensed vaccines and those subject to an EUA render them "legally distinct." First, the requirements for efficacy are much lower for EUA products than for licensed products. EUAs require only a showing that, based on scientific evidence "if available," "it is reasonable to believe," the product "may be effective" in treating or preventing the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(A).

Second, the safety requirements are minimal, requiring only that the FDA conclude that the "known and potential benefits ... outweigh the known and potential risks" of the product, considering the risks of the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(B). There is no requirement that the FDA know the potential risks of the product.

In comparison, vaccines that go through traditional FDA review typically take 10 years or more to reach approval. And the approval process compiles more information on the risks of the vaccine, gathered through lab testing and clinical trials, "to assess the safety and effectiveness of each vaccine.''

The Right to Refuse an EUA Vaccine

The FDA's grant of an EUA is subject to informed consent requirements to "ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed" that they have "the option to accept or refuse administration of the product." 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).

For the three COVID-19 vaccines, FDA implemented the "option to accept or refuse" condition described in Section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) in each letter granting the EUA by requiring that FDA's "Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers" be made available to every potential vaccine recipient. These include the statement that the recipient "has the option to accept or refuse" the vaccine. Moreover, the EUA label itself must expressly state that the recipient has a "right to refuse" administration of the EUA product.

Informed Consent Rights

The norm of informed consent has been "firmly embedded" in U.S. law and FDA regulations for nearly 60 years. Adullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 182 (2d Cir. 2009). Congress first enacted this requirement in 1962 drawing on the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, "which suggests the government conceived of these sources' articulation of the norm as a binding legal obligation." Adullahi, 562 F.3d at 182. Informed consent requirements are a cornerstone of FDA rules governing human medical experimentation. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. §§ 50.20, 50.23-.25, 50.27, 312.20, 312.120 (2008); 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.111, 46.116-117.

EUA and FDA Licensed Products do not have the "Same Formulation" and are not "Interchangeable"

The EUA and licensed versions of Pfizer- BioNTech do not have the "same formulation" as revealed by a simple inspection of the Pfizer Vaccine EUA letters and the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action (SBRA) for Comirnaty. Thus, they cannot be treated as "interchangeable," because there is no legal basis to administer an EUA product as if it were the FDA-licensed product. By definition, they are different.

There is no evidence in the public record for finding that the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and FDA-licensed Comirnaty have the "same formulation." There is, however, ample evidence for finding that they do not. The most detailed information on Comirnaty's composition, manufacturing process, manufacturing locations and other matters approved by the FDA is included in the FDA Comirnaty SBRA, nearly all of which is redacted, while most of this information was never made available in the Pfizer- BioNTech EUA applications or authorizations. To the extent such information is available, it reveals differences in the composition of the EUA and the licensed product. There is also no dispute that the FDA EUA does not address manufacturing processes or locations, which are addressed in the Comirnaty license.

For the same reasons, the public record does not support any argument that the two admittedly "legally distinct" products are "interchangeable." "Interchangeable" and "interchangeability" are specifically defined terms in Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act ("PHS Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 262, in relation to a "reference product," which is a biological product licensed under Section 351(a) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262(a). For the purposes of determining "interchangeability," the "reference product" must be an FDA-licensed product; in this case, the FDA- licensed Comirnaty Vaccine. But the "interchangeable" product, the EUA BioNTech Vaccine, must be the subject of a later filed "abbreviated" application under 42 U.S.C. § 262(k), and there is no indication that any such application was ever filed by BioNTech, much less reviewed or approved by the FDA.

Any "interchangeability" determination would therefore reverse the temporal order of the COVID-19 licensed product and the interchangeable product. The reference product under 42 U.S.C. § 262(a) is the first licensed product, and therefore the basis for determining the interchangeability of the later product (i.e., the generic or EUA product). Here, however, the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine is the earlier product, while the licensed Comirnaty is the latter product; the earlier EUA product cannot rely on the FDA's safety and efficacy determinations for Comirnaty. Thus, an "interchangeability" determination would be a transparent attempt to retroactively license the earlier EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine, solely for the purpose of enabling the unlawful vaccine mandate.

Moreover, "FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before [FDA] approval." Austin, 2021 WL 5816632, at *6. Any EUA-labeled vaccines manufactured before licensure and "vaccines produced after August 23 in unapproved facilities--remain 'product[s] authorized for emergency use,"' i.e., EUA rather than licensed products. Id. In any case, such a post hoc interchangeability determination should not even be considered by the Court. "An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted." DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1909 (2020). [MORE]

COVID Shots Don't Prevent Infection or Transmission. As such, they are Treatments Not Vaccines; and People Have a Right to Refuse Medical Treatment. Mandates Violate Rights/Equal Protection.

At any rate COVID injections are not actually vaccines because they do not create immunity. The injections are treatments. As such, individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment.

Prosecute Now explains, The uncontroverted medical consensus is that existing Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. This is admitted openly today, including by U.S. Health Agencies, which is why the CDC Director stated on CNN, "What the vaccines can't do anymore is prevent transmission.'

The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.

The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law. [MORE]

in August of 2021, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" from "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease" to "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection to a specific disease.’'

However, this newly created CDC definition conflicts with the statutory criteria for a vaccine, which focuses solely upon immunity. In 1986, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1, which established "a National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization " (emphasis added). Clearly, from both a public health standpoint as well as from a legal standpoint, immunization is the intended sine qua non of vaccination.

That is, the CDC eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” The CDC apparently did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19. Since they do not create immunity, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, the so called Covid-19 vaccines are treatments, not vaccines.

Even the FDA has classified them as "CBER-Regulated Biologics" otherwise known as "therapeutics" which fall under the "Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.’'

The medical community, the relevant agencies, and both Pfizer and Moderna -- the manufacturers of the dominant injections -- recognize that the so-called vaccines are therapeutics, or medical treatments. Since they do not achieve immunization, this conclusion is also consistent with Congress' definition of vaccines in establishing the National Vaccine Program in 1986: the "prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization.''

This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which individuals have a fundamental human right to refuse. [MORE]

As explained by Dr. Devan Griner’s complaint against the CMS mandate,

“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).

It further explained,

As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.

No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.

The Injections may have been somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV- 2 strain, but that strain has come and gone, and the Injections—designed to fight yesterday’s threat—are simply ineffective against the current variant.

Since the Injections are ineffective against the Delta and Omicron viral variants, and the original variant has been supplanted, there can be no compelling interest to mandate their use at this time.”

But even if there were a compelling interest in mandating the Injections, the CMS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.

The blanket mandate ignores individual factors increasing or decreasing the risks that the plaintiff—indeed, all healthcare workers—pose to themselves or to others.

Defendants entirely disregard whether employees have already obtained natural immunity despite the fact that natural immunity does actually provide immunity whereas the Injections do not.

Treating all employees the same, regardless of their individual medical status, risk factors, and natural immunity status is not narrowly tailored.

Moreover, the CMS Mandate fails entirely to consider other existing treatment options beyond the Injections as part of a more narrowly tailored approach. 97. Given these facts, as more fully set forth above, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Alternatively, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law as to Plaintiff, who already has natural immunity.” [MORE]

Eight-year-old Boy Dies after Receiving COVID Injection in Mexico

From [HERE] An eight-year-old boy reportedly died on Sunday July 10, after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine five days earlier in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca.

The family of the eight-year-old boy reported the child died after receiving the COVID vaccine on July 5, resulting in symptoms such as a fever, that got progressively worse.

Due to his deteriorating health, an ambulance was called, which took him to a nearby hospital, where hours later, his death was announced.

Family members claim that the child died as a result of the vaccine and the symptoms he had suffered.

The death was confirmed by the Secretary of Health of the state of Oaxaca, Virginia Sanchez, and reported that “there is already an investigation to find out the causes of the child’s death”.

“It is several days after the child received the vaccine, so there will be a thorough investigation into what really caused his death,” she added.

The epidemiology unit will carry out a full autopsy as well as an investigation in to the death of the young child.

The news follows the FDA granting Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine full approval for use in adolescents, on Sunday, July 10.

The FDA said the approval followed a rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data conducted. [MORE]

'We See People with Bad Colds. None with Severe COVID Disease.’ LA Hospital Officials say Media Reports About a Rising Threat and Hospitalizations are Inaccurate; 90% of COVID Positive Not Admitted

From [HERE] Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center (LAC+USC) officials Thursday slammed claims that COVID hospitalizations are rising, a claim being used by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to likely return to mask mandates by the end of the month. 

“With the coronavirus resurgent and cases and hospitalizations on the rise, Los Angeles is poised to become the first Southern California county to reinstate mandatory public indoor masking,” reported the Los Angeles Times Friday. 

But LAC+USC Chief Medical Officer Brad Spielberg says that as far as hospitalizations go, everything is pretty much the same at the 600-bed hospital. 

“It’s just the same,” he said in a video alongside LAC+USC CEO Jorge Orozco and epidemiologist Paul Holtom. “It’s been the same. It’s been like two months of the same.” Spielberg shared graphs showing how hospitalizations have largely plateaued, even though cases are going up. 

“The numbers at LAC: COVID-positive tests continue to go up, but this isn’t because we’re seeing a ton of people with symptomatic disease getting admitted.” 

In fact, said Spielberg, not only are very few patients being admitted due to COVID, but even those few are not being put on ventilators.  

“We’re seeing a lot of people with mild disease in urgent care or ED who do not get admitted, and of those who are admitted, they’re 90% of the time not admitted due to COVID,” he continued. “Only 10% of our COVID-positive admissions are admitted due to COVID. Virtually none of them go to the ICU, and when they do go to the ICU, it is not for pneumonia. They’re not intubated . . . we haven’t seen one of those since February. It’s been months." 

“It is just not the same pandemic as it was, despite all the media hype to the contrary,” he confirmed. “A lot of people have bad colds is what we’re seeing.” 

“I’m going to really have to work to burst that soothiness bubble,” Holtom then chimed in. “Maybe we can turn to the media which is trying to burst that bubble by talking about a new variant in India that is sweeping the country.” 

Holtom echoed Spielberg’s statement that cases are going up due to more people testing positive, but cautioned against taking the numbers too seriously. 

“Although, we have to understand that first of all, most of that data is completely incomprehensible because at the moment many, many people are testing at home and most people are not reporting those tests in. So no one has any idea actually how many people are testing positive at any point.” 

“We’re just seeing nobody with severe COVID disease,” he continued. "As of this morning, we have no one in the hospital who had pulmonary disease due to COVID. Nobody in the hospital. We have 24 people who have tested positive for COVID but nobody, nobody who had COVID-19 disease as we would see in the past." 

Rule Thru Fabricated Emergency: Without Public Input, Review or Vote an Unelected Health Director in LA Uses Her Unilateral Authority to Declare a Useless Mask Mandate Using Science-Free Metrics

From [HERE] Los Angeles County health director Barbara Ferrer just declared that the county was in a “high” level of Covid transmission. She is an unelected administrative official who was appointed to her position. Apparently, she has the unilateral authority to declare “an emergency” and then issue orders to the public without any public input or review. As with all laws, the public has a moral and legal duty to obey or face some form of punishment for non-compliance. Apparently, “the emergency rule” will last as long as she deems fit.

While health officers nationwide are largely shying away from new restrictions Los Angeles County health officials hope that forcing people to mask up will curb the virus’s spread as well as growing hospitalization and death rates.

Ferrer has declared that the mask mandate will take effect July 29 absent a sudden turnaround in Covid tracking metrics. It would apply to indoor shops, offices, events, schools and more. The order would be rescinded once case levels begin to drop again.

At a recent press conference, Brad Spellberg, chief medical officer of Los Angeles County and epidemiologist Paul Holtom rebuked the corporate media and took a swipe at the government’s terror tactics.

“It is just not the same pandemic that it was, despite all the media hype to the contrary… Spellberg said. “I mean – a lot of people have bad colds is what we’re seeing.

one day after Barbara Ferrer tried to con Los Angeles into further oppression, epidemiologist Paul Holtom spoke at a press conference, rebuking the narrative. “As of this morning, we have no one in the hospital who had pulmonary disease due to Covid. Nobody in the hospital….NOBODY.”

Chief Medical Officer Brad Spellberg presented the actual case data and hospital admission data. “The numbers at [LAC+USC] Covid-positive tests have continued to go up, but this isn’t because we’re seeing a ton of people with symptomatic disease being admitted,” Spellberg said. “We’re seeing a lot of people with mild disease in urgent care and [emergency department] who go home and do not get admitted.”

“Of those who are admitted, they’re 90% of the time not admitted due to Covid. Only 10% of our Covid-positive admissions are admitted due to Covid. Virtually none of them go to the ICU, and when they do go to the ICU, it is not for pneumonia. They are not intubated.”

Spellberg iterated that it has been “months” since the hospital has seen a COVID cases that requires ICU admission. He said the COVID ICU admissions usually present with an “auto-immune attack of the nerves that may or may not be Covid-driven.”

Hospital administrators have complied with a fraudulent narrative for far too long

When covid-19 propaganda and medical tyranny first swept the nation, hospital CEOs and administrators largely kept their mouths shut. Lock downs ensued, and people across the nation did not receive critical health care services in their time of need. Patients were unduly isolated from their families and subjected to deadly remdesivir, sedation and ventilator protocols. These issues are still taking place in hospitals nationwide.

A “national state of emergency” allowed hospitals to enjoy financial incentives every time a fraudulently-calibrated PCR test presented false evidence for a covid-19 diagnosis. Under this medical tyranny, a patient’s true cause of death does not matter. If covid-19 is “suspected” or “could not be ruled out,” it is codified as the cause of death. Worse, this ongoing “national emergency” allows hospital staff to enjoy indemnity from medical error and iatrogenic death — which is one of the top causes of death in the US.

The PREP Act enabled the Department of Health and Human Services to issue broad immunity protections to health care professionals who administer or use countermeasures during the national state of emergency. The CARES Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, provided federal liability protections for volunteer health care professionals. The Biden regime renewed the medical tyranny and signed a new decree in February of 2022, allowing the national state of emergency and all of its liability protections to persist. [MORE]

MASKS ARE USELESS AND MAY HARM YOU

The evidence that masking healthy people in community settings reduces viral transmission is – at best – weak and contradictory. Face masks do not reduce covid cases. [MORE] and [MORE] and [MORE] At least 400 studies show face masks don’t work, meaning they are useless [MORE] and [MORE] New studies show masks may harm people by making COVID worse [MORE]

It is intriguing that a sphere of society where one might reasonably expect a reliance upon evidence-based practice is now the outlier in persisting with the unscientific and pervasively damaging mass-masking phenomenon. After all, a piece of ill-fitting cloth or plastic does not transform into an impermeable viral barrier, or shed its associated harms, by virtue of crossing the threshold of a hospital or health centre. It seems that doctors, nurses and allied-health professionals are becoming culturally wedded to masks, a symbolic gesture to demonstrate a united team – patient and staff – fighting against a virus. It is hugely concerning that this ideological trend ignores a fundamental tenet: a positive relationship between professional and patient is a necessary ingredient of a healing environment, and such a therapeutic alliance is much more difficult to achieve when access to facial expressions is denied.[MORE]

Prior to facemask mandates as an alleged preventive for Covid infection and transmission, such masks were infrequently worn in hospitals and other medical facilities. They were only used in operating theatres or for visiting seriously ill patients in order to prevent infection from spit or droplets into open wounds or to partially protect visitors from acquiring and transmitting pathogens more dangerous than Covid.

No studies were needed to justify this practice since most understood viruses were far too small to be stopped by the wearing of most masks, other than sophisticated ones designed for that task and which were too costly and complicated for the general public to properly wear and keep changing or cleaning. It was also understood that long mask wearing was unhealthy for wearers for common sense and basic science reasons.

There has been an international flood of lies about mask wearing in order to justify the bizarre and disturbing situation we have today of almost everyone wearing masks in many regions, inside and outside healthcare facilities, in schools with children of all ages, during sports events, in churches, in grocery stores and all commercial facilities, while driving and walking, and long after peak infection has passed. [MORE]

Dr. Michael Yeardon explains, masks are “mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others' masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you're told, even if the measure is useless.

We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.

Cloth masks definitely don't stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.

Some people speak of "source control" catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?

It's not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don't do anything.

Many don't know that blue medical masks aren't filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that's all. [MORE]

Comply or Die in Copitalist System: Video Shows White San Bernardino Cops Emerge from Unmarked Car to Fatally Shoot Robert Adams Multiple Times in the Back. He Had a Gun but Posed No Threat as He Fled

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY: COPITALISM – POLICE-STATE AUTHORITARIAN FORCE, USURPED POWER AND REPRESSION OVER MEN AND WOMEN WIELDED IN FURTHERING THE INTERESTS OF COMMERCE AND THE PROTECTION COMMERCIAL PROPERTY; ANY BENEFIT WHATSOEVER ACCRUING TO CITIZENS EXISTS IN SPITE OF THIS CORPORATE POLICE STATE MONSTER. ANY PAUSE IS PROBABLE CAUSE—SO DON’T STOP, ‘GET IT-GET IT’ AND BRING THE NOISE.

LIKE THEIR CONSTITUTION SAYS, ‘IF YOU LOOK BACK AT COPS WHILE THEY CHASE YOU THEN YOU CAN BE EXECUTED, BECAUSE AUTHORITY SAYS’

From [HERE] The family of a Black man gunned down by San Bernardino police are demanding the officers involved be charged for shooting him in the back as he ran away.

San Bernardino cops have asked their community to withhold judgment after security footage circulated of officers fatally shooting 23-year-old Robert Adams, claiming the video “fails to provide any details or context as to what occurred in the incident.”

For Adams’ family, however, the video tells the whole story: An officer opened fire on Adams as he ran the opposite direction, never firing a shot of his own.

“It is unbelievable that another Black family has to bury their child due to police shooting first and asking questions later,” Ben Crump, the family’s attorney, said in an emailed statement Tuesday.

Crump later tweeted that Adams didn’t realize the unmarked car had police inside, calling his death a “horrific execution.”

The shocking video, which began circulating this week despite the shooting happening on Saturday, shows an unmarked car driving slowly through a parking lot. Adams—who was working as a security guard and pacing around the lot—saunters toward the car with a handgun in his right hand. About 15 seconds later, two officers jump out of the vehicle with guns drawn.

Adams is seen immediately running off in the opposite direction. The video never shows him point his handgun at the pursuing officers, but he appears to be shot less than five seconds after the cops hopped out of the vehicle—his arms flailing in the air before he collapses onto the asphalt between two cars.

San Bernardino police have since claimed the nearly two-minute clip doesn’t paint the whole picture of what happened, despite confirming an officer fired at Adams without the 23-year-old pulling the trigger of his gun.

“We are aware of a surveillance video clip circulating online that fails to provide any details or context as to what occurred during the incident,” the department said in a statement.

San Bernardino police have not said whether the cops involved have been suspended or placed on administrative leave. The department did not immediately respond to The Daily Beast’s request Tuesday for further details on the shooting.

The cops involved were fully uniformed during the incident, authorities said, and were sent to the parking lot to investigate an illegal gambling business at the property around 8 p.m. Saturday.

Authorities say the officers involved gave Adams first aid until first responders rushed him to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Adams’ family confirmed he was working at the gambling site as a security guard and had been carrying a gun after a string of robberies, CBS News and KTLA reported.

“I could understand if he was a threat to them,” Adams’ mother Tamika Deavila King told CBS. “But he was not a threat to them. He was running for his life.”

Adams’ stepfather Audwin King told CBS he wants to see the officer who fired the fatal shots charged with murder.

“The boy ran,” said King. “[The officer] hunted him down like a dog. If [Adams] still had some life in him, the [the officer] probably would've finished the clip. So, when do we have justice for that?”

Police say they plan on releasing further details and video from the incident. The department has already released a photo with Adams carrying a handgun, which it says had a “bullet in the chamber.”

That explanation isn’t good enough for King, however.

“We want justice. We want his badge. We want his job,” the grieving stepfather said. “We want murder charges.”

Researchers Find High Bacterial, Fungal Counts in Face Masks - fungi continues to grow and accumulate with usage

From [MERCOLA] and [HERE] In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers found high counts of both fungi and bacteria on face masks worn by the study subjects. On the face side, bacterial colonies were found in 99% of the samples. On the outer side, bacterial colonies were found in 94% of samples.

Researchers found fungal colonies in 79% of the face-side samples and 95% of the outer sides. While the bacteria tended to die off after the masks were removed, the fungi continued to grow and accumulate with usage.

Bacterial counts also were higher in males’ masks than females’.

Researchers said, “Since masks can be a direct source of infection to the respiratory tract, digestive tract, and skin, it is crucial to maintain their hygiene to prevent bacterial and fungal infections that can exacerbate COVID-19.” [MORE]

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]