Destroying People: Movie “mRNA ‘Vaccine’ Genocide” Interviews Victims of COVID Injections. Media Keeps Concealing Reality that COVID Shots are The Most Dangerous Drug in History of Modern Medicine

The Following List of Vaccine Makers, Providers and Hospitals Stand-behind Their COVID Shots and Have Waived Government Granted Immunity from Liability for Injuries or Death Caused: NONE

Dr Fleming says 'There is No Benefit to COVID Shots. Vax is a Bioweapon Making the Vaccinated Susceptible to Disease and Death. Companies Must Be Held Accountable, Gain of Function Research Stopped'

From [HERE] Dr Richard Fleming is an American Medical Doctor, specialising in cardiology and has a law degree. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and a Fellow of the American Society of Internal Medicine, he is a medical patent expert, has authored between 400 and 500 medical papers, and has sat on review boards of medical journals.

In March this year, he testified that:

1. SARS-CoV-2 is a lab-engineered bio-weapon, funded by the US government, the result of gain-of-function research on the spike protein, making it more infectious.

2. Safe and Effective treatments for the virus were suppressed by the US health regulatory agencies.

3. Quarantining of healthy people is completely ineffective.

4. The mRNA/RNA “vaccines” produced by Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen are bio-weapons delivering the same toxic spike protein as the virus but in loads up to 5 million times higher.

5. The vaccinated are responsible for pressure-selecting variants (alpha, delta, omicron, etc.), prolonging the epidemic.

6. The “vaccine” disrupts the natural immune system, making the vaccinated more susceptible to infection and disease.

7. The “vaccine” damages red-blood cells and causes hyper-inflammatory and clotting that cause disease and death in its own right.

CDC Official Used Purposefully Flawed Data to Justify COVID Shots for Infants and Children Analysis Shows

From [CHD] An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used data from a flawed preprint study that exaggerated the risk of death for children from COVID-19 in her presentations to CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisors who were responsible for recommending Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines for infants and young children.

The study, first published May 25 on the medRxiv preprint server, was authored by a group of U.K. researchers. On June 28, the authors published a revised version of the study, after critics questioned some of their original findings.

“It’s really disturbing that data this poor made its way into the meetings to discuss childhood COVID and that it took me less than a few minutes to find a major flaw (and then I found many more as I looked deeper),” said Kelley K, who was the first to point out some of the study’s flaws on her website COVID-Georgia.com.

After learning of Kelley’s analysis, The Defender reviewed the original preprint, confirmed Kelley’s findings and uncovered additional flaws in the original preprint and also in the June 28 revised version.

Study falsely claimed COVID was leading cause of death in U.S. children

During a June 17 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss pediatric COVID-19 vaccines in children under 5, Dr. Katherine Fleming-Dutra, a pediatrician and pediatric emergency medicine physician with the CDC, presented a table that falsely claimed COVID-19 was a leading cause of death in U.S. children.

Fleming-Dutra earlier that week presented the same table during the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee meeting, along with other slides from the original U.K. study that also falsely claimedCOVID-19 as a “top 5 cause of death” in children.

The table, which was sourced from the U.K. study, was disseminated widely by physicians on Twitter who claimed the data “made the case” for vaccinating children under 5.

Under the Guise of Transparency Sharon Hill (PA) Releases Heavily Redacted Report in Police Murder of Fanta Bility. 8 Yr Old Black Girl Shot Dead by Cops who Fired Wildly Into a Crowd Exiting a Game

From [HERE] Sharon Hill Borough Council released its report Friday on the policies and procedures surrounding the police shooting death of 8-year-old Fanta Bility. The report was made by a law firm hired by the Council.

The new report is heavily redacted, with many of its findings and recommendations not visible to the public.

Borough Solicitor Courtney Richardson said the redactions are to protect the purist of justice as cases are still pending.

She said the Borough wants to create policies and procedures so that this never happens again. Bruce Castor, the attorney representing Bility's family called the report "unacceptable."

"The undated and redacted report made public today by Sharon Hill Borough is an insult to the memory of Fanta and completely unacceptable in any society that values the truth and the Rule of Law. The heavily edited report raises more questions in the minds of the family and the public than it answers," he said in a statement.

On Friday night, members of the Delaware County Black Caucus and other community members express similar concerns.

"We need to know what it is that Sharon Hill Borough Council and the police department are hiding," said Arnold Jones, chair of the Judicial and Law Enforcement Committee.

Richardson said she does not have a time frame on if and when officials will be able to release an unredacted version of the report.

"The borough is not hiding anything. I want to be very clear the borough did not have to release this report at all. And it did because it said listen we want to share as much as we can given the circumstances because the community has a right to know something," said Richardson.

Bility was shot in August 2021 as she walked with her mother following a football game at Academy Park High School.

Three officers, identified as Brian Devaney, Sean Dolan, and Devon Smith, fired their weapons as the game was letting out in response to gunfire they heard in the vicinity that was unrelated to the football game.

They fired 25 shots at a black Chevy Impala, which they believed was where the shots were coming from.

That vehicle was passing the exiting crowd, which included Bility. Each officer was charged with 10 counts of reckless endangerment and one count of manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, according the to the charging documents.

Last week, the defense filed a motion to drop voluntary and involuntary manslaughter charges against Devaney, Dolan, and Smith.

Liberals in Philly Talk About 'A Return to Stop and Frisk' as if Black People's 4th Amendment Rights Can Be Turned On and Off or Are Just Favors Given and Taken Away by Master in a Free Range Prison

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board says, The rise in gun violence has prompted some City Council members to call for the Police Department to reexamine its stop-and-frisk policy. While the idea is well intended, it should be a nonstarter.

The Philadelphia Police Department has a long history of racial discrimination and brutality aimed at the Black and Latino communities.

…..In other words, stop-and-frisk doesn’t work, and only fosters the illegal practice of racial profiling. We need new ideas to address crime in Philadelphia.

The city’s recent $5.8 billion budget includes $155 million for violence prevention programs. While better than nothing, it is beyond underwhelming given the stakes. [MORE]

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the people against unjustified detentions by the government. The Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In order for the police to stop you the Supreme Court has ruled that police must have reasonable articulable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot and that you are involved in the activity. Police may not act on on the basis of an inchoate or unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion.

In order to frisk you the Supreme Court has ruled that the police must have independent reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous before they may touch you or put their hands on you (a cursory patdown for weapons). Police may not act on on the basis of an unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific, actual & articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion.

However, legal truths must give way to reality. In real life, Brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no Black shopper, pedestrian, motorist, juvenile, adult or Black professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that so-called constitutional rights provide Black people any real protection from cops or the government in general.

The only thing upholding the 4th Amendment is your belief in it. You only have rights if an authority says that you do. Your possession of "rights” given to you by a magical government, which functions as your master, is cult belief. Rights are myths. As stated by Dr. Blynd, “There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.” The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.” [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY explains,

adherent rights – privileges disguised as so-called “rights” created by men via deceptive word-manipulation in written form called “symbolaeography,” and legal documents. 2) privileges granted by an apparent or putative authority at the expense of one's inherent or unalienable ‘rights.’ (See: Inherent Rights & Rights)

inherent rights – unalienable and unassailable rights. Inherent rights have never been codified into law, so if you’re from a phfree family, you’ll know how to assert and defend them), and if not, you won’t. (See: Adherent Rights)

“rights” – useful fictions declared in order to make agents of another type of fiction (“government”) have to play along in their deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game. 2) mere fictions, the contemplation of which leads only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality. Discussion and debates about “rights” merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any “right” and who will benefit from the pretense. “Rights” are separated into two categories—those flowing from “negative liberties” and those flowing from “positive liberties.” In law, rights are remedies and if a person is without a remedy (as is with citizens of the United States) he is without a right, and only a ‘thing’ is without rights. (See: Negative Liberties, Positive Liberties, Bill of Rights, Liberty, Freedom, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Ma’at & Justice) [MORE]

A White BSO Cop Told a Jury of Sheeple that ‘He Had to Knock a Black Teen Down, Mount Him and Slam His Face Into the Ground to Protect Himself’ and They Believed It b/c They Believe Anything Cops Say

From [HERE] "The defendant is not guilty," a courtroom clerk read. After a three-year legal battle, former BSO Deputy Chris Krickovich is relieved with the not guilty verdict after getting caught committing crimes on camera.

With tears in his eyes, he hugged family and friends in the courtroom.  The jury found him not guilty of battery.

Video shows him slamming a Blcak teenage boy's head into the ground and then punching the teen in the head. one Florida deputy spraying pepper spray in the face of a teen boy. As the teen appears to walk away with his hands on his face, the deputy follows him, grabs him and slams him to the ground.

Another deputy then jumps onto the boy's back, slams his face into the pavement more than once and punches the teen in the head.

In the background, bystanders can be heard yelling "What are you doing?" and "He's bleeding." Such statements are not threats.

Prosecutors say Rolle was in an "give up position" and not resisting, so the head slam and punch showed excessive force.  The jury didn't see it that way.

"It's up the province of the jury.  I put forth a good case, so it's ultimately up to them," said prosecutor Chris Killoran.

In the hallway, retired BSO Capt. Neal Glassman confronted the prosecutor. 

"They have 10 times the courage you'll ever have," said Glassman, regarding the three deputies who were originally charged in this case. 

Killoran is the head of the Public Corruption Unit. He called the confrontation disgusting and unprofessional.

"I'm just doing my job, but apparently captains like to get up in my face and try to intimidate prosecutors.  They should know nobody is above the law and we will continue to prosecute these cases to the fullest of our ability," he said.

Krickovich plans to push to get his job back, along with back pay. 

But Broward Sheriff Gregory was quick to release a statement saying Krickovich won't be wearing a BSO uniform under his watch.

"The Broward Sheriff's Office maintains an unwavering commitment to holding all employees accountable. Under my administration we will never be an organization that finds excessive force tolerable. That standard has been set at the Broward Sheriff's Office and will not change. Independent criminal investigations or convictions of former employees do not supersede BSO's administrative policies, standards, or expectations."

Jury Finds White Euclid Cop Guilty of Misdemeanor Assault for Repeatedly Punching a Black Man and Hitting his Head on the Pavement after a Traffic Stop, Never Had a Chance to Comply

From [HERE] A jury found Euclid police officer Michael Amiott guilty of assaulting a Black motorist during a violent 2017 traffic stop that garnered international attention and thrusted Euclid into the national conversation about police brutality.

Amiott was convicted Friday night in Euclid Municipal Court of one count each of assault and interfering with civil rights of Richard Hubbard III during the Aug. 12, 2017 traffic stop that was captured on cellphone video that went viral, Euclid Municipal Court Clerk Keith Hurley confirmed. He was acquitted of one count of assault.

Amiott faces a potential sentence of up to 360 days in jail on the two first-degree misdemeanors. He is also eligible for probation.

He will be sentenced at a later date. Retired Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Guy Reece presided over the trial after Euclid Municipal Court Judge Patrick Gallagher recused himself from the case.

The jury reached its verdict Friday after deliberating for nearly five hours.

The trial began Monday and included testimony from both Amiott and Hubbard, as well as several other police officers.

25-year-old Richard Hubbard III was pulled over on E 228th St. just before 10:30 a.m. for "a moving/traffic violation." The video showed the white cop repeatedly punching the black man and hitting his head on pavement appears to show a different sequence of events than police had originally described.

The initial statement from police in the Cleveland suburb of Euclid said Richard Hubbard III, had refused Officer Michael Amiott's orders to "face away" after getting out of his car Aug. 12 and then began resisting. But the video shows Amiott not giving Hubbard a chance to comply.

The video of the incident showed Amiott kneed Hubbard, tackled him to the ground and punched him in the face and body several times. Hubbard was handcuffed and taken to a police cruiser, while his girlfriend screamed at Amiott to stop.

Euclid Mayor Kirsten Holzheimer-Gail fired Amiott in the months after the video went viral. An arbitrator later ruled that he should be reinstated.

Hubbard testified Monday and said Amiott slammed his head on the ground and that he didn’t know why Amiott used such force against him, WKYC reports. Hubbard also testified that he believed he was racially profiled during his arrest, WKYC reports.

Amiott took the stand on Wednesday and accused Hubbard of resisting arrest, WJW Channel 8 reports.

The city paid Hubbard $450,000 to settle a civil rights lawsuit.

The white cop has a history of assaulting Black people. Including when he was forced to resign from the Mentor Police Department in 2013 after he lied about why he stopped a driver for a suspended license. Euclid hired him shortly after. [MORE]

Amiott was also accused in 2017 of pepper-spraying a man who started recording Amiott as he searched and handcuffed juveniles. The same year he was accused of throwing a 16-year-old girl to the ground and placed his knee on the girl’s back during an incident at Euclid’s library.

A man sued Amiott in 2017, accusing the officer of kicking him in the face and pepper-spraying him. The city settled that lawsuit for $40,000.

He was also accused of pistol-whipping a driver in 2016 during a traffic stop and received a written reprimand.

Amiott’s legal troubles continued even as he was on trial. A lawsuit filed in federal court in Cleveland accused him of injuring a man he arrested by driving recklessly.

The incident happened during the July 6, 2020 arrest of Tyrez Bowden, 24, according to the lawsuit filed by attorneys Brian Scherf and Sergey Kats of Bedford.

Amiott failed to properly secure Bowden in Amiott’s police vehicle and drove recklessly on the drive to the city jail. He nearly hit a pedestrian, causing Bowden to be “thrown throughout the vehicle.”

The stop and other reckless driving caused Bowden to stuffer several physical and psychological injuries, according to the lawsuit.

Bowden had been arrested on a charge of improperly handling a gun in a car. He later pleaded guilty and was sentenced on Monday to 17 months in prison.

GA Police Claim a Black Woman "Fell from a Moving Patrol Car" and Died. Ben Crump and Parents Demand Answers

From [HERE] The parents of a Black woman who died after she fell from a moving patrol car following her arrest fought back tears on Friday as they demanded answers in their daughter’s death.

Brianna Grier, 28, suffered significant injuries on 15 July and died six days later at an Atlanta hospital. The Georgia bureau of investigation said this week that the deputies who put Grier in the back of a patrol car to take her to the Hancock county sheriff’s office failed to close the rear passenger-side door before driving away.

“We’re trying to get answers of what really happened … We ain’t trying to start no problem,” a tearful Marvin Grier, Brianna’s father, said during a news conference, his voice catching several times. He was joined by Brianna’s mother and sister, Mary and Lottie Grier.

Grier was arrested after Hancock county sheriff’s deputies were called to a home in Sparta, the GBI has said. The deputies put Grier in the back of a patrol car, but she was not wearing a seatbelt, her hands were cuffed in front of her and the rear passenger-side door was never closed, according to GBI investigators.

The GBI has not said why deputies were called to the home or why Grier was arrested. The prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing her family, said Grier was taken into custody after a mental health crisis.

“Yet again we have another African American citizen killed in just an unbelievable way while in the custody of the police,” Crump said at the Friday news conference in downtown Decatur, a suburb of Atlanta.

He addressed Grier’s parents: “We won’t let them sweep your baby daughter’s death under the rug.”

Crump said his team would investigate what failures caused Grier to fall out of the car while it was moving and suffer a brain injury that put her in a coma until she died on 21 July.

The president of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, Gerald Griggs, called on state and county officials for answers.

“To the Hancock county sheriff, it’s time to be transparent,” Griggs said. “It’s time to be accountable. To the GBI, it’s time for y’all to meet with this family. To the governor, it’s time for you to recognize, again, that Georgia has a police accountability problem.”

The GBI has said agents have done interviews, reviewed multiple body camera videos and done mechanical tests on the patrol car as part of the ongoing investigation into Grier’s death.

Federal Judge Convicts 2 Minneapolis Cops of Deliberate Indifference and Failing to Intervene for Doing Nothing as White Cop Murdered George Floyd. Cops Sentenced to Only 3 Years in Prison

From [HERE] Two former Minneapolis police officers were sentenced to about three years in federal prison for violating the civil rights of George Floyd, who was killed in police custody in May 2020, setting off a summer of protests and unrest across the U.S. 

J. Alexander Kueng was sentenced Wednesday in St. Paul, Minn., to three years and Tou Thao was sentenced to 3½ years. They were convicted in February of showing deliberate indifference to Mr. Floyd’s serious medical need and willfully failing to intervene as Mr. Floyd lay handcuffed and face down in the street with former officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on his neck and back for more than nine minutes. 

A third officer, Thomas Lane, was sentenced last week to 2½ years after being convicted of the deliberate indifference charge. 

Mr. Chauvin, who was convicted of second-degree murder in state court, pleaded guilty to federal civil-rights charges and was sentenced earlier this month to more than 20 years in federal prison. 

Mr. Lane has pleaded guilty to state charges of aiding and abetting manslaughter. Mr. Kueng and Mr. Thao are expected to stand trial on aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter charges later this year.

Mr. Lane had been a full-fledged officer for only a few days when he and Mr. Kueng, also a rookie, were called to a convenience store called Cup Foods on a report of someone using a fake $20 bill to buy cigarettes.

Vanessa Bryant Cleared to Tell Jury LA County Cops Destroyed Photos of Kobe and His Daughter's Remains at Helicopter Crash Site

From [HERE] Vanessa Bryant will be allowed to argue that LA County sheriff’s deputies destroyed evidence of photos they took and shared of her late husband and daughter’s remains at a helicopter crash site when her lawsuit goes to trial next month.

U.S. District Judge John Walter at a hearing Tuesday agreed with Bryant that the sheriff’s department had a duty to preserve the evidence once officials could reasonably foresee she was going to sue in early March 2020, but that they failed to stop deputies and other personnel from wiping their phones or replacing them.

“The plaintiffs have been deprived of direct evidence that goes to the heart of their case,” Walter said.

The widow of LA Laker great Kobe Bryant sued after media reports emerged that officers and LA County firefighters were sharing graphic, close-up photos of the remains her husband and their 13-year-old daughter taken at the site of the Jan. 26, 2020, helicopter crash on a hillside north of Los Angeles.

Bryant claims at least 11 sheriff’s personnel and a dozen firefighters shared the photos within 24 hours of the crash and that in the following weeks, one deputy showed the photos at a bar, another texted them to a group of video game buddies, and a Fire Department captain displayed them at an awards gala.

After a citizen filed a complaint with the sheriff’s department that a deputy had been flaunting photos of Kobe Bryant’s remains at a bar days after the crash, LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva instructed officers and other personnel to delete any photos they had from their phones, overriding concerns by one of his captains that doing so might amount to destruction of evidence.

“By destroying the forensic trail, defendants have prevented plaintiff from ever finding out how far the photos spread, how many other people have seen photos of her loved ones’ remains, and how many photos remain unsecured and susceptible to going viral online,” Bryant’s attorneys said in their request for sanctions. “Now, defendants seek to exploit the evidentiary void they have created by using it to downplay their misconduct at trial.”

According to Bryant, 9 out of the 11 sheriff’s department personnel lost the photos or replaced their phones, and a tenth wiped his phone of all data. The Fire Department captain who had been sharing the photos at an awards gala instructed 8 to 10 of his subordinates, friends, and acquaintances to delete all graphic photos from the crash, according to Bryant, and deleted about 45 photos from his own private and work phones.

Mira Hashmall, a lawyer for LA County, unsuccessfully tried to persuade the judge that sanctions weren’t warranted because any spoliation occurred months before litigation commenced.

“It’s been 2 1/2 years and the pictures are still not in the public domain,” Hashmall told the judge.

Walter wasn’t moved and said that allowing Bryant to introduce evidence that the defendants had destroyed evidence was the least severe sanction he could impose. The judge, however, found that the sheriff’s department didn’t have to a duty to preserve evidence when Villanueva instructed his personnel to delete illicit photos from their phones because that was before Bryant’s attorney first sent the department a letter threatening legal action.

It was “significant that Judge Walter did not find the sheriff did anything wrong when he gave the order to delete the photos so that none of them would become public,” Hashmall said after the hearing.

The county also failed to persuade the judge to hold separate trials for Bryant and Christopher Chester, whose wife and daughter died in the crash, and who filed similar allegations that the county violated his right to privacy under the 14th Amendment to control the death images of his loved ones. The trial for both plaintiffs is tentatively scheduled to start Aug. 11 or 12.

The judge denied Bryant’s bid to exclude the testimony of the county’s psychiatric expert witness who is to tell the jury that Bryant and Chester suffered no mental harm or emotional damage from the photos taken at the crash site, even though he never examined either in person. 

Walter said the testimony will give Bryant’s and Chester’s lawyers plenty of ammunition for cross-examination and hinted to the county’s lawyers that this testimony could backfire.

“But I’ll leave it up to you,” the judge said.

Walter previously had urged the parties to settle, saying there wasn’t much Bryant could expect in terms of damages or other remedies should she prevail at trial.

New Massachusetts version of CROWN Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on “Traits Historically Associated with Race,” like Hairstyle

From [HERE] On July 26, 2022, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law House Bill 4554 – commonly referred to as the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (“CROWN”) Act – which bans discrimination based on natural and protective hairstyles in all workplaces, public schools, and places of public accommodation (such as restaurants, retail shops and more) in Massachusetts. The law will go into effect on October 24, 2022.

The CROWN Act specifically prohibits discrimination based on “traits historically associated with race,” including hair texture, hair type, and “protective hairstyles.” According to the new law, the term “protective hairstyle” includes, but is not limited to, braids, locks, twists, Bantu knots, hair coverings, and other formations. Relative to the application of this law in the employment setting, the CROWN Act tasks the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) with adopting rules, regulations, and policies interpreting and enforcing it.

The enactment of the CROWN Act represents an important change in Massachusetts law: prior to the passing of this legislation, there was no Massachusetts law specifically prohibiting discrimination related to hair types or styles. By passing the CROWN Act, Massachusetts joins 17 other states in the nation that have enacted similar laws banning hairstyle discrimination in the workplace and other public settings. On the federal level, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a version of the CROWN Act, but that bill has not yet passed in the Senate.

Massachusetts employers should review their workplace policies and practices—especially those related to harassment, discrimination, personal appearance, and grooming—to ensure that they are in compliance with the Massachusetts CROWN Act. Employers should also offer training to anyone involved in hiring to ensure they appreciate the limits of the organization’s personal appearance and grooming requirements.

Note that employees who can prove that their employer discriminated against them in violation of this law may recover monetary damages for economic loss as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Emails Reveal Biden, Pharma Pressured Top FDA Officials to Approve Booster Timeline

From [CHD] Judicial Watch today announced it received 112 pages from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that show top officials being pressured by “companies and for that matter the administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense.”

The records were produced to Judicial Watch in response to a February Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that was filed after HHS failed to respond to a Sept. 3, 2021, FOIA request for records of communication from the former director and deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause, respectively (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:22-cv-00292)).

Drs. Gruber and Krause reportedly resigned during the White House’s push to approve the COVID-19 vaccine “booster shots.”

On Sept. 13, 2021, Gruber and Krause were among a group of resigning doctors who agreed that, “available evidence doesn’t yet indicate a need for COVID-19 vaccine booster shots among the general population …”

The records include an Aug. 25, 2021, email by Marion Gruber to her boss, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Director Peter Marks:

“Over the last couple of days, Janssen has bombarded us with emails regarding their booster dose studies.

“I am also very concerned that companies (such as Pfizer and Janssen) are trying to put pressure on OVRR [Office of Vaccines Research and Review] by way of PR [public relations]. We need to be given time to consider their data and cannot be pushed by these companies and for that matter the Administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense (e.g., Sep 20)…. It appears that at least Pfizer’s data will not be aligned with this approach and the ‘n’ [test numbers] they have is grossly insufficient. Obviously, we have to review the data but we have taken a peek and have serious concerns.

“Lastly, and this is my personal opinion, data we have seen so far from various companies (Pfizer, Janssen, Moderna) appear to suggest that boosters are not needed.”

In an email exchange on Aug. 27, 2021, Gruber replies to an email from Maureen Hess, a communications specialist at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research:

“Well, the message appears to be ‘total buy-in in the need for boosters,’ this is not how I am writing the BD [likely board decision], I am trying to take a more neutral approach. This piece sounds as if we already decided to approve this supplement.”

Hess responds, “Okay, I’ll make some additional edits (but JW [likely Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock] was included on this statement so our edits may be rejected above us.”

After sending more emails about edits Hess made, Gruber replies, “From my perspective, this is as good as it can get. Obviously, this statements [sic] puts us into a real bind but the damage is already done.”

In an Aug. 20, 2021, email exchange Dr. Doran Fink, the Deputy Director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications raises questions regarding new data, that Moderna was submitting to FDA about its COVID vaccine. Fink told Drs. Gruber, Krause and other colleagues:

“I had to bite my tongue when Peter [likely Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] mentioned this morning we wouldn’t be doing rushed reviews anymore so as not to ask about the booster doses that the administration promised to everyone by Sept 20!

“And then there is the question of the data that will support these booster doses — maybe I’m wrong, but my understanding is that Pfizer is proposing that their sBLA include the Phase 1 booster data from a grand total of 23 subjects. I’m not sure what Moderna will have, but the data Fauci presented in the press conference from NIAID studies, which was ~25 subjects per treatment arm.”

Gruber states in an Aug. 17, 2021, email “They [Dr. Doran’s team] fully understand that the Acting Commissioner would like to approve this product [Pfizer COVID booster vaccine] very soon and are trying their best to complete their review and assessment, while at the same time, maintaining our high standards and scientific and clinical integrity.”

Philip Krause, in an Aug. 10, 2021 email, complains: “It sounds like Peter [likely Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks] thinks he has taken over all vaccine operations, not just the Pfizer BLA [Biologics License Application] …”

On Aug. 23, 2021, Dr. Arnold Monto, professor in the Department of Epidemiology of the University of Michigan School of Public Health, emails Drs. Gruber and Krause using the subject “VRBPAC and boosters.”

The email said:

“The Surgeon General last night made a statement that the FDA and CDC advisory committees would be reviewing Hope that he misspoke about the VRBPAC (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) Doesn’t seem to be enough time to get it organized Just got asked about flu vaccination and COVID boosters being given at the same time. Gave my personal information, don’t”

Gruber then replies to Monto: “We will be discussing the ‘booster question’ and related submissions including whether VRBPAC should be held. We do not know yet and you are right that timing will be an issue once again.”

On Sept. 22, 2021, the FDA approved the use of a booster dose of the Pfizer drug.

According to the organization’s news release, the FDA, “amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series” for people at “high risk” of “severe COVID-19.”

“These FDA documents confirm a politicized approval process for the controversial COVID-19 vaccine booster shots,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is a scandal that it took months and a federal lawsuit to these troubling facts about this unprecedented and seemingly never-ending vaccine operation.”

Through FOIA requests and lawsuits, Judicial Watch has uncovered a substantial amount of information about COVID-19 issues:

• Recently, National Institutes of Health (NIH) records revealed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also show National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.

• HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.

• NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.

• HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high-level commitment from China.”

• HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.

• HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.

• University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) records show the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. James W. Le Duc warned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the COVID issue by Congress.

• HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.

• Records from the Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) reveal safety lapses and violations at U.S. biosafety laboratories that conduct research on dangerous agents and toxins.

• HHS records include emails between NIH then-Director Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, the director of the NIAID, about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.

• HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.

• Fauci’s emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.

Response to FOIA Request Reveals the US Government Colluded with Twitter, Google and Fakebook to Suppress Information Posted About the Dangers of COVID Shots and Intentionally Destroy Informed Consent

INFORMED AND VOLUNTARY CONSENT IS UNTHINKABLE TO PERPETRATORS OF GENOCIDE AND GENTHANASIA

From [HERE] A number of documents described as “the tip of the iceberg” have been made public, revealing communications between private tech giants and the US administration bodies, aimed at closely coordinating censorship of Covid topics on social media.

This was announced on Wednesday by America First Legal (AFL)nonprofit, which obtained the documents thanks to a lawsuit filed against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The legal action came after a failed attempt to, through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, learn about the level of the involvement of the White House in this type of censorship.

The communications are interpreted as providing yet another piece of evidence of coordination, or even collusion, between US authorities and Google, Twitter, and Facebook.

AFL was spurred to action after Jen Psaki, at the time White House press secretary, last July declared that the administration was “regularly making sure” to inform social networks about what it identifies as narrative dangerous to public health. “And we work to engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies,” Psaki said.

The emails that have now finally been released show that CDC maintained regular communication with the three biggest social platforms starting in December 2020 and for at least another six months. These exchanges reveal what “working” with Google and others looked like: it went as far as flagging posts by social sites’ users as “examples” of what needs to be censored.

Ad money was also a building block in this unusual and secretive form of close cooperation that could eventually bring into question the status of Big Tech corporations as private entities not bound by the First Amendment. In April of last year, Facebook gave CDC $15 million-worth of ad credits as a “gift” to be used to spread the agency’s messages on vaccines, social distancing, travel and other Covid restrictions.

In other emails, Twitter employees are arranging regular chats with CDC, while the agency at one point in the spring of last year warned Facebook that its algorithms are not doing a good job – because along with vaccine “misinformation” they also were also getting rid of some posts by public health institutions.

An interesting detail concerns a high-ranking CDC official appearing at Google’s Trusted Media Summit in 2020, but not allowing organizers to post their address on YouTube – because they were not authorized to speak publicly. [MORE]

Best Interest of the Child? Robert Kennedy's Organization Denounces the COVID Injection Mandate for Kids in DC: It Violates the Right to Refuse Emergency Use Vaccines and Refuse Medical Treatment

COVID INJECTIONS DON'T IMMUNIZE OR STOP SPREAD. THEY'RE TREATMENTS (NOT VACCINES) THAT FEED THE VIRUS AND FACILITATE ITS DEVELOPMENT INTO MORE VARIANTS. YES THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO KILL YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN.

From [CHD] Schools in Washington, D.C., will require all students ages 12 and older to get the COVID-19 vaccine before they can attend school in the fall, despite warnings from legal experts who say the mandate violates federal law.

The Office of the State Superintendent of Education announced on July 19 that student immunization requirements for the upcoming 2022-2023 school year will include the COVID-19vaccine for all students who are of an age for which there is a vaccine fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“On July 8, 2022, the FDA fully approved the COVID-19 vaccine commonly known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for individuals 12 to 15 years old,” said State Superintendent of Education Christina Grant in a press release.

“The approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 12 to 15 means that, unless exempted, any student age 12-15 at the start of the 2022-23 school year must have received the primary COVID-19 vaccine series or have started receiving the shot by Sept. 16, 2022,” she said.

“We want to make sure that all of our students have everything they need for a healthy start to the school year,” Grant added. “This means making sure children see their primary medical provider for a well-child visit and receive all needed immunizations.”

D.C. law requires students in all area schools, including private, parochial and independent schools, to be fully compliant with mandated vaccinations, unless they have an approved exemption. The law also requires schools to verify immunization certification for all students.

The requirement was detailed in a law the D.C. Council approved last year and is the first legislation of its kind in the region.

CHD demands D.C. Schools rescind mandate

In a letter sent today to Grant, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), asked Grant to rescind the program or CHD would sue to overturn the mandate.

Kennedy said Grant’s press release was incorrect because the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was never fully approved and still remains under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

The FDA earlier this month granted full approval to Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old, without convening its vaccine advisory panel.

In August 2021, the agency granted full licensing of the Comirnaty vaccine for ages 16 and older.

However, there are no Comirnaty-labeled vaccines available in the U.S., for any age group.

Although courts have upheld many childhood vaccination requirements for licensed and approved vaccines, no court has ever upheld a mandate for schoolchildren for an EUA vaccine, according to Kennedy.

Kennedy wrote:

“In fact, a District of Columbia United States District Court held that EUA vaccines cannot be mandated to soldiers in the U.S. military, who enjoy far fewer rights than civilians. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (2003). That court held: ‘… the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.’ Id. at 135.

“Federal law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requires that the person to whom an EUA vaccine is administered be advised, ‘of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.’

“The reason for the right of refusal stems from the fact that EUA products are by definition experimental.

“Under the Nuremberg Code, a universal legal norm, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is ‘absolutely essential.’ The liability for forced participation in a medical experiment, not to mention liability for injury from such coerced medical intervention, may be incalculable.”

Commenting on the D.C. mandate, CHD President Mary Holland said, “It violates fundamental human rights and international law to force people, and especially children, to take experimentalmedical products.”

“We sincerely hope the District will reconsider its misguided policy for schoolchildren,” Holland added.

Another organization — Liberty Counsel — said it may also challenge the District of Columbia’s vaccine mandate.

“There is no FDA-approved COVID shot available and therefore, individuals have a right under the emergency use authorization to refuse these shots,” Matthew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told The Epoch Times.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, people receiving an EUA product must be advised that some benefits and risks “are unknown” and given the “option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

“It is your choice to receive or not receive [the vaccine],” Staver said. “Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care,” according to FDA fact sheets on EUA COVID-19 vaccines.

Several other school systems have attempted, so far unsuccessfully, to implement a COVID-19 vaccine mandate:

• Louisiana: The Louisiana Department of Health in May said it would no longer seek to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for the upcoming school year because the shot had not receivedfull FDA approval for people under the age of 16.

The decision came after CHD and thousands of concerned parents on March 16 filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit seeking to stop the Louisana Department of Health from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the state’s school immunization schedule.

The joint lawsuit was filed in December 2021, by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and state Rep. Raymond Crews against Gov. John Bel Edwards after he announced COVID-19 vaccines would be mandatory for all children age 5 and over at public or private schools.

• Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Superintendent Alberto Carvalho on April 28 recommended the district postpone its COVID-19 student vaccination mandate until at least July 2023 because the FDA had not fully approved the COVID-19 vaccine for all ages covering grades 7 through 12.

LAUSD officials announced last fall students 12 and older would be required to be vaccinated by the start of the 2022-2023 school year but delayed the mandate because tens of thousands of students still had not complied with the requirement.

• Washington: The Washington State Board of Health in April voted unanimously against adding COVID-19 vaccines to the requirements for students to attend K-12 schools this fall after its advisory group recommended against the requirement. The board said more data was needed about vaccines for ages 5 to 11 and raised concerns that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has yet to be fully approved for ages 5 to 15.

If the Numbers are Correct the Majority of the World’s Population Has Been Poisoned by COVID Injections. Blight Supremacy Depopulation Agenda Working as Deaths Pile Up

According to "FUNKTIONARY, THE KEY HOLDERS ENPSYCHLOPEDIA"

genocide – the intentional decreasing of the people of a given population or asili, particularly in the interests of another population or value-system that wishes to control the resources of the victims. 2) the-cide-show of the World Health  Organization (WHO). Blindness to economic reality has placed mankind in a very precarious position. Our freedom and very lives depend on how (and how soon) we resolve resource misapplication and inequalities. (See: Population Control)

UK Government Data Demonstrates COVID Shots are Most Likely the Cause of ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’

From [EXPOSE] Doctors are allegedly baffled at what is causing a sudden uptick in what they have dubbed ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ among adults under the age of 40 over the past year, and are now urging all under 40’s to go and get their heart checked.

But these doctors need not remain “baffled” any longer because we have rock-solid evidence that the Covid-19 vaccine is to blame. 

• Official UK Office for National Statistics data shows vaccinated adults aged 18 to 39 have a 92% higher mortality rate (per 100,000) than unvaccinated adults.

• Official Public Health Scotland data reveals there has been a 67% increase compared to the historical average in the number of 15 to 44-year-olds suffering heart attacks, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases since this age group was first offered the Covid-19 injection.

• And figures published by NHS England in response to a freedom of information request show that ambulance call-outs for heart illness have doubled among all age groups including the under 30’s since the beginning of the Covid-19 vaccination campaign.

Healthy young people are dying suddenly and unexpectedly from what doctors are dubbing “a mysterious syndrome” and these same doctors are now seeking answers through a new national register. 

People aged under 40 are now being urged to have their hearts checked because doctors claim they may potentially be at risk of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.

Doctors say the syndrome, known as SADS, has been fatal for all kinds of people regardless of whether they maintain a fit and healthy lifestyle.

“SADS is an umbrella term to describe unexpected deaths in young people”, said The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.

But it turns out the term is actually used when a post-mortem cannot find an obvious cause of death, and the reason doctors are struggling to find an obvious cause of death is that we’re now seeing thousands of deaths due to something that was impossible to occur prior to 2021. Covid-19 vaccination.

This becomes obvious once you know where to look. But the problem is doctors are actively discouraged from looking and it is not publicised in the mainstream media. However, all the answers doctors are looking for to explain what they are dubbing Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, are contained in official Government data. 

Vaccinated Young Adults have a 92% higher mortality rate (per 100,000) than Unvaccinated Young Adults

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK. It is responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society at national, regional and local levels.

An ONS dataset on deaths in England by vaccination status can be found here. It contains a large amount of data on age-standardised mortality rates for deaths by vaccination status between 1 January 2021 and 31 January 2022.

Table 2 of the dataset contains data on the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status by age group for all deaths in England. The following table shows an example of how the numbers are presented in the dataset –

What immediately catches the eye when looking at this data is the mortality rate per 100,00 person-years among 18-39-year-olds in the month of January 2021. The figures show the death rate among the unvaccinated in this month was 67.7 deaths per 100,000 person-years. Whilst the death rate among the partly vaccinated (at least 21 days ago) was 119.9 deaths per 100,000 years.

This shows that vaccinated 18-39-year-olds were more likely to die in January 2021, suggesting the Covid-19 injections increased the risk of death or played a part in causing death. So we dug further and extracted all the figures on 18-39-year-olds for each month between January 2021 and January 2022, and this is what we found –

The above chart shows the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status for all-cause deaths, per 100,000 person-years among adults aged 18 to 39 in England. The green line is the mortality rate among the unvaccinated, which while fluctuating has remained pretty stable throughout.

The other lines however represent different vaccination statuses, and they are extremely concerning. The orange, yellow, and pink lines represent mortality rates within 21 days of receiving a first, second or third dose. And they reveal that the risk of death increases significantly immediately after vaccination.

But the most concerning figures are the mortality rates among those vaccinated at least 21 days ago, which you can see more clearly in the following chart –

What’s most concerning here is that the second injection seems to make things much worse in terms of the risk of death.

The highest mortality rate among the double vaccinated (at least 21 days ago) occurred in September 2021, with 125.9 deaths per 100,000 person-years. In the same month, the mortality rate among the unvaccinated equated to 46.8. Meaning the double vaccinated mortality rate was 169% higher than the unvaccinated mortality rate.

But the largest statistical difference occurred in November 2021. The mortality rate among the unvaccinated equated to 33.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years, whereas the mortality rate among the double vaccinated equated to 107. A difference of 220.4%.

The following chart shows the average-age standardised mortality rate to have occurred between 1st Jan 21 and 31st Jan 22 by vaccination status for all-cause deaths, per 100,000 person-years among adults aged 18 to 39 in England – [MORE]

Profiteers at Pfizer Reach Cosmic High of $27 Billion in Record Sales in 2021 Off its Deadly COVID Shots that Have Government Granted Immunity for Any Injury or Death it Causes

From [HERE] Thanks to its COVID shots and its COVID infection antiviral treatment, Paxlovid, Pfizer has marked a record high in its quarterly sales. In all, the company’s revenue increased by 47%, top $27.7 billion in 2021.

It’s expecting even more in 2022, with an anticipated $32 billion incoming from its COVID jab and $22 billion for Paxlovid. Complete immunity fuels the cosmic profits.

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

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

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

Note 2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(5) “If an act or omission by a manufacturer or distributor with respect to a covered countermeasure, which act or omission is alleged under subsection (e)(3)(A) to constitute willful misconduct, … such act or omission shall not constitute ‘willful misconduct’ … if—(i)neither the Secretary nor the Attorney General has initiated an enforcement action with respect to such act or omission; or (ii)such an enforcement action has been initiated and the action has been terminated or finally resolved without a covered remedy.”