Tag Archives: CDC

COVID – Looking Down the Line

Posted on by

The Biggest COVID Question: What Will Happen in 10 years?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • So far, children have been largely unfazed by COVID-19 because their interferon pathway works really well. Interferon is an immune molecule that protects cells against invading pathogens
  • The COVID jab inhibits the type-1 interferon pathway, so mass injecting young children may actually erase the natural herd immunity against COVID-19 that would develop if all children remained unjabbed
  • Aggressive cancers have exploded among adults who got the shots, even though it’s only been a little over two years since their rollout
  • Analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths to eliminate the cancer signal, and has been doing so since April 2021
  • We’ve also seen massive increases in excess mortality from abnormal clotting issues and heart problems since the COVID shots rolled out. If side effects such as cancer, heart disease and stroke are killing working age adults in unprecedented numbers already, what will the excess mortality be, say, 10 years from now if children and teens keep getting mRNA boosters every year?

What will the future hold for people whose exposure to COVID-19 occurs during the first years of life? That question was recently asked by Katherine J. Wu, a staff writer at The Atlantic.1

“To be a newborn in the year 2023 — and, almost certainly, every year that follows — means emerging into a world where the coronavirus is ubiquitous … Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this virus will be one of the very first serious pathogens that today’s infants — and all future infants — meet,” she writes.

“Eventually, the expectation is that the illness will reach a stable nadir, at which point it may truly be ‘another common cold,’ says Rustom Antia, an infectious-disease modeler at Emory.

The full outcome of this living experiment, though, won’t be clear for decades — well after the billions of people who encountered the coronavirus for the first time in adulthood are long gone.

The experiences that today’s youngest children have with the virus are only just beginning to shape what it will mean to have COVID throughout a lifetime, when we all coexist with it from birth to death as a matter of course.”

COVID Jab Prevents Natural Herd Immunity

Wu praises the COVID jab as being part of why we can be hopeful for future generations that have to live with this new virus, but is that really realistic? Right now, everything points to the COVID shot being a disaster, and no one actually knows what the long-term effect will be on children who get it.

Wu highlights the fact that children’s immune systems have the advantage of “marshaling hordes of interferon — an immune molecule that armors cells against viruses.” This is thought to be a primary reason why COVID-19 isn’t nearly as lethal in young children as in older adults.

The problem that Wu completely misses is that the COVID jab inhibits the type-1 interferon pathway,2 so mass injecting young children may actually erase the natural herd immunity against COVID-19 that would develop if all children remained unjabbed. The shots will NOT, as Wu suggests, help us achieve herd immunity at all.

Cancer Rates in Young People Will Likely Rise

Mass injecting children with a drug that impairs their immune system may also (rather predictably) result in exploding cancer rates. Already, aggressive cancers have exploded among adults who got the shots,3 even though it’s only been a little over two years since their rollout.

For example, data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED)4 — historically one of the most well-kept and most heavily relied-upon medical databases in the world — showed that, compared to the previous five-year averages, cancer among Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in 2021 skyrocketed.

Overall, cancers tripled among servicemen and their family members after the rollout of the COVID shots. Breast cancer went up 487%. Exploding cancer rates are also seen elsewhere. Indeed, the explosion of cases is so bad that cancer is now one of the top three leading causes of premature death among young working-age adults — a trend that in turn has driven down U.S. life expectancy by three years.

Cancer Relapses and Metastasis Rates Are Exploding

November 26, 2022, The Daily Sceptic published a letter5,6 to the editor of The BMJ, written by Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at St. George’s University of London, warning that COVID boosters may be causing aggressive metastatic cancers:

“COVID no longer needs a vaccine programme given the average age of death of COVID in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling,” Dalgleish wrote. “The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy …

However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practicing oncologist I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel. Even within my own personal contacts I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters.

They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster — one developing leukemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long COVID since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.

I am experienced enough to know that these are not coincidental anecdotes … The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell-based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control — and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments. This must be aired and debated immediately.”

In a December 19, 2022, article7 in Conservative Woman, Dalgleish continued discussing the phenomenon of rapidly spreading cancers in patients who were in stable remission for years before receiving their COVID boosters. He noted that after his letter to The BMJ was published, several oncologists contacted him to say they’re seeing the same thing in their own practices.

“Seeing the recurrence of these cancers after all this time naturally makes me wonder if there is a common cause?” he wrote.8 “I had previously noted that relapse in stable cancer is often associated with severe long-term stress, such as bankruptcy, divorce, etc.

However, I found that none of my patients had any such extra stress during this time, but they had all had booster vaccines and, indeed, a couple of them noted that they had a very bad reaction to the booster which they did not have to the first two injections.

I then noted that some of these patients were not having a normal pattern of relapse but rather an explosive relapse, with metastases occurring at the same time in several sites … Scientifically, I was reading reports that the booster was leading to a big excess of antibodies at the expense of the T-cell response and that this T-cell suppression could last for three weeks, if not more.

To me, this could be causal as the immune system is being asked to make an excessive response through the humoral inflammatory part of the immune response against a virus (the alpha-delta variant) which is no longer in existence in the community.

This exertion leads to immune exhaustion, which is why these patients are reporting up to a 50% greater increase in Omicron, or other variations, than the non-vaccinated.”

Swedish pathologist, researcher and senior physician at Lund’s University, Dr. Ute Krueger, has also observed an explosion in rapidly advancing cancers in the wake of the COVID shots, with the largest increase occurring among 30- to 50-year-olds.9,10 According to Krueger, tumor sizes are also dramatically larger, multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common, and cancer recurrence and metastasis are both increasing.

Cancer Deaths Are Being Intentionally Hidden

Disturbingly, as detailed in “How Cancer Deaths From the COVID Jabs Are Being Hidden,” analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is filtering out and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths to eliminate the cancer signal, and has been doing so since April 2021.

The signal is being hidden by swapping the underlying cause of death with main cause of death. As many as 20% of the weekly so-called COVID deaths are actually cancer deaths.

An Unconscionable Experiment on Humanity

Absolutely no one knows what the long-term ramifications of giving these injections to infants and young children will be. It’s a public health experiment unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. So far, we’ve not seen cancer rates among children skyrocket, but the uptake among young children has also been low.

Since their immune systems are also more robust, children may be protected from cancer for a time even if they do get the jab. The question is how long? The U.S. childhood vaccination schedule now includes the initial series plus an annual COVID booster. How many boosters will it take before a child’s immune system breaks and cancer starts to proliferate?

Excess Mortality Skyrocketing

We’ve also seen massive increases in excess mortality from abnormal clotting issues and heart problems since the COVID shots rolled out. If side effects such as cancer, heart disease and stroke are killing working age adults in unprecedented numbers already, what will the excess mortality be, say, 10 years from now if children and teens keep getting mRNA boosters every year?

I shudder to even think about it. Making matters even worse, drug makers are working overtime to deliver other mRNA-based “vaccines” as well, including one against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already fast-tracked it. This, despite the fact that previous attempts to create an RSV vaccine failed because they caused antibody dependent enhancement (ADE).

No Benefit, Massive Cost

Now that we’re more than two years into the COVID injection campaign, the cost-benefit analysis is clearer than ever. The benefit is so small as to be inconsequential, while the costs are enormous. Here’s a quick summary breakdown, based on available evidence:

•Benefit — Short-term (four to six months) protection from severe COVID illness and death.

•Cost — Negative effectiveness after a few months (meaning the risk of infection, hospitalization and death from COVID is higher than before the injection). It also doesn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus, so vaccine-induced herd immunity can never be achieved.

The shots destroy immune function, making people more prone to all types of infections and chronic diseases, which in turn puts pressure on the health care system, raises disability rates and excess mortality, and lowers life expectancy. On top of all that, there’s evidence suggesting the shots have adverse effects on fertility, which could potentially result in a population collapse.

Evidence mRNA Jabs Cause Fertility Problems

By December 2021, at which time the COVID jabs had only been out for one year, reports of surges in menstrual changes and stillbirths were already proliferating. And, while health officials were, and still are, adamant that the COVID shot is safe for pregnant women, the data tell a very different story.

The study11 most widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected was sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April 2021. According to this study, the miscarriage rate among COVID jab recipients was 13.9%.

However, there was a MAJOR mistake made in this study, which was highlighted in a rapid communication12 from the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK). The authors are Aleisha Brock, Ph.D. of New Zealand, and Simon Thornley, Ph.D., a senior lecturer in the section of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland.

They explained that the NEJM study “presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy, since the majority of women in the calculation were exposed to the mRNA product after the outcome period was defined (20 weeks’ gestation).”13

When the risk of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) was recalculated based on the cohort that was injected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, the incidence of miscarriage was seven to eight times higher than the original study indicated, with a cumulative incidence of miscarriage ranging from 81.9% to 91.2%!

What’s more, 12.6% women who received the jab in the third trimester reported Grade 3 adverse events, which are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening.

Another 8% also reported a fever of 38 degrees C (100.4 degrees F), which can lead to miscarriage or premature labor.14 Another problem with the NEJM study is that follow-up only continued for 28 days after birth, meaning the long-term effects of prenatal exposure to babies is still unknown.

A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study also showed the injection more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss. Birth defects, specifically mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae, were also observed.15

Transhumanist Cabal Intend to Change Humanity

It’s become quite clear that the technocratic, transhumanist cabal that it trying to seize worldwide control is aggressively trying to genetically alter humanity. But to what end? Considering all the negative effects we’re seeing in adults, just two years in, what will happen to the infants and children who have been jabbed over the next decade or two? Especially if they start getting mRNA boosters every year?

Transhumanism is “sold” as the way of the future — a future in which everyone is in perfect health and can live as long as they want. We already see how the COVID shots are advertised as a simple “software update” for your immune system. The idea is that, eventually, any health issue will be solved this way.

The problem with this utopia is manifold, however. First of all, considering how disastrous this first mRNA injection is, it seems clear the reengineering of an already perfect biological system isn’t as easy as they make it out to be, and I for one doubt they’ll ever perfect it.

Secondly, while they say this transhumanist utopia is for everyone, it’s absolutely not. Do you really believe they want 8 billion people to be in perfect health and live for hundreds of years?

Perfect health means perfect reproductive capacity, so the number of offspring would be staggering. Clearly, they don’t want this, seeing how these same individuals are already complaining that the world is overpopulated. So, perfect health for everyone is a pipedream.

Extreme life extension for the masses also isn’t in the cards. Already, they want people to die as close to retirement age as possible, to minimize payouts. Do you really think they’d be willing to pay billions of people to spend 100 years in retirement?

Even if the retirement age was pushed way back to, say, 150, and the average life span is 175, who’s going to employ all these people? Remember, robots and artificial intelligence are already slated to take over most jobs, making most humans obsolete. There’s simply no incentive to extend the health span and life span of billions of people.

No, the transhumanist utopia is intended to be reserved for a select few, and this is something to keep in mind as they continue these genetic experiments on humanity. They’re not for our benefit.

What Are They Turning Us Into?

In closing, here’s a snippet from a November 22, 2022, Truth Talk article, in which blogger Katrina Wicks ponders the reasons behind the transhumanist push:16

“They make no secret of it, it’s not some wild conspiracy theory and is in fact being implemented in front of us and around us. Changing humans from what we are, into something else. Augmented humans seem to be on the horizon, as well as disrupted, corrupted and spliced humans too …

‘The Island of Dr. Moreau’ … by H.G. Wells … highlights an obsession with making animals more human through ‘medical intervention’ … I wonder if they are trying to do the opposite … to make humans more animal like? …

A certain international organization seems to have a nominated mascot who is the mouthpiece of how they want us to be bio-mechanical beings essentially, being constantly monitored, tested, observed and upgraded. Weird huh? Yet they gleefully put these plans forward and explain how and when. Just not really covering the why, or at least the real reasons for it.

But you can make up your own mind on what their purpose really is … what is out there for everyone to see is that they do want control.

Of your daily activities, thoughts, fears, aspirations … and generally of your future. So that is where you do get to take an active role, unless you already consider your life forfeit and have already accepted their new regime and landscape. But if you do not … and you have chosen to live, then now is the time.”

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/03/20/covid-question-what-will-happen-in-10-years.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20230320&cid=DM1366943&bid=1750595981

What Is our Code?

Posted on by

New Medical Codes for COVID Vaccination Status Raise Concerns Among Experts

COVID NEWS
Zachary Stieber
Feb 15 2023
biggersmaller
A woman walks past a doctor's office in New York City on July 26, 2021. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A woman walks past a doctor’s office in New York City on July 26, 2021. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

New medical diagnosis codes for COVID-19 immunization status have been added in the United States.

One code is for being “unvaccinated for COVID-19.”

That code “may be assigned when the patient has not received at least one dose of any COVID-19 vaccine,” the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which implemented the new codes in 2022, states in a document outlining the codes.

Another code is for being partially vaccinated or having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine but not having received enough doses to meet the CDC’s definition of fully vaccinated.

The goal of the codes is “to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized,” according to the CDC.

Experts say the codes don’t fit with the International Classification of Diseases, which has diagnoses for diseases and reasons for health care visits.

“They’re treating nonvaccination as if this is a hazardous exposure that therefore merits being recorded as a medical exposure,” Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Epoch Times. “That’s never been done to my knowledge.”

The CDC did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

Proposal

The CDC proposed adding the codes to the international classification in September 2021.

“People have now been having immunizations for a number of months, and these provide protection for people who are immunized, but there has been interest expressed in being able to track people who are not immunized or who are only partially immunized,” Dr. David Berglund, a CDC medical officer, said during a meeting that went over the proposal.

“At the current time, there can be considered to be a significant modifiable risk factor for morbidity and for mortality and it can be of interest for clinical reasons, as well as being a value for public health reasons, to be able to track this.”

COVID-19 hospitalization and death rates are higher among the unvaccinated, according to data published by the CDC. The data do not take into account key factors such as age or prior infection, and other figures show the vaccinated being hospitalized or dying at higher rates in some states.

The proposal was backed by meeting participants during the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting.

“I definitely think we would support this,” Kristin Balint, a supervisor at Trinity Health, said. “We are currently seeing physicians documenting unimmunized for COVID-19 in our records.”

Jeanne Yoder, representing the Defense Health Agency, envisioned adding additional codes later to indicate if a person was not vaccinated against each successive variant.

The organizations of the people who backed the proposal either did not respond to requests for comment or declined inquiries.

Codes Added

Three codes were added to the classification system on April 1, 2022.

Z28.310 is for being unvaccinated. Z28.311 is for being partially vaccinated. Z28.39 is for “other underimmunization status.” All fell under a new sub-sub category, “Underimmunization for COVID-19 status.”

The codes are grouped with already-existing codes related to vaccination. They include “immunization not carried out because of patient refusal.”

Another code introduced during the pandemic is for counseling related to “immunization safety.”

“I think it would be a good idea to be able to indicate that, for whatever reason, the vaccine was refused,” Valeria Bica, a clinical documentation specialist at Nemours AI duPont Hospital for Children, said during the meeting that featured the code proposals.

“I know that we track that for families where they’ve refused to vaccinate their children, for one reason or another. And certainly we’ve tried to re-educate and to keep trying to find opportunities to give the vaccines,” she added.

The ICD was originally developed by the World Health Organization. U.S. authorities have their own version of the system. The COVID-19 immunization codes are not listed in the World Health Organization’s ICD.

All health care entities operating in the United States and covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act must use the U.S. version of the ICD. Coded ICD data from providers enable public health officials to “conduct many disease-related activities,” according to the CDC. The U.S. version is updated at least once a year.

The codes have multiple purposes. They let health care providers create a medical record, which can be used by future practitioners who take care of the patient. The system also facilitates billing.

Epoch Times Photo
An image from the CDC shows new codes for COVID-19 immunization status. (CDC via The Epoch Times)

Privacy Concerns

Dr. Robert Malone, who first highlighted the codes on his Substack blog, said the new codes were concerning in light of how not being vaccinated has been used during the pandemic to deny patients healthcare services, such as organ transplants.

“That information will end up in the hands of insurers, who will use it to make decisions about what you’re going to have to pay for your insurance policy, whether or not you’re going to be qualified,” Malone predicted.

Risch said the information could be used to perform analyses on groups deidentified data but questioned whether it would remain deidentified.

“Given how little we trust government agencies at this point and how stigmatizing, potentially stigmatizing this information is on individuals, nobody would rightly trust them to stay in their lane about using this in grouped information as opposed to individual,” Risch said. “What’s to stop the government from sharing this individual information with other agencies? With the FBI? With IRS? They say, ‘we don’t do that,’ and we say, ‘we don’t believe you.’

“And if they did it, what recourse would there ever be?”

‘Irrelevant’

The CDC in 2022 changed course and advised in COVID-19 guidelines that people were not to be treated differently on the basis of vaccination status “because breakthrough infections occur.” Breakthrough infections are infections that happen despite vaccination. The COVID-19 vaccines provide little to no protection against infection and transmission.

If any codes related to vaccine status were introduced, they should show whether a person was fully vaccinated because some of those people end up with vaccine injuries, Risch said.

Dr. Todd Porter, a pediatrician in Illinois, said that he uses the long-existing code for refusal to immunize only if a parent declines to get their children all the childhood vaccines. He also questioned the introduction of the new codes.

“I have a hard time clinically seeing the medical indication of using them,” Porter told The Epoch Times in an email.

He noted that there’s no codes for refusal to get the influenza vaccine, which is deadlier for children than COVID-19.

“Using these codes also disregards the contribution of natural immunity, which research evidence shows is more robust than vaccine immunity,” Porter said. Because of the lack of protection against transmission and infectivity, and the lack of data showing protection against severe disease in children, “an individual’s vaccination status would be irrelevant,” he added.

from:    https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/why-experts-are-concerned-about-the-new-medical-codes-for-covid-19-vaccination-status_5053996.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge

Let’s Protect Our Kids

Posted on by

6 ‘Noncompliance’ Strategies for Protecting Kids and Teens in 2023

Since 2020, parents have had to contend with increasingly brazen efforts by governments, schools, foundations, Big Tech, Big Pharma and others to hijack, injure or destroy children’s minds and bodies. Here are some strategies for parents to help kids resist the pressure to comply.

protecting children noncompliance feature

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.

Since 2020, parents have had to contend with increasingly brazen efforts by governments, schools, foundations, Big Tech, Big Pharma and others to hijack, injure or destroy children’s minds and bodies.

Far from being piecemeal or merely opportunistic responses to a convenient “pandemic,” these assaults on children — and adults, too — reflect a well-financed, long-term control agenda aimed at implementation of digital identities, social scoring and “full monitoring and tracking of every human being through … mechanisms already in place.”

At the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in January 2022, Children’s Health Defense Chairman and Chief Litigation Counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., asserted, “Nobody in the history of the planet has ever complied their way out of totalitarian control” and reminded the public, “Every time you comply, you get weaker.”

Kennedy also warned, “they’re coming for our children.”

As if in confirmation, infants, kindergartners and college students were badgered throughout the year to get — and then suffered atrocious damage from — COVID-19 shots, despite overwhelming evidence that the jabs urgently needed to be withdrawn from the market.

Clued in to these and other dangers crowding around their children, a growing number of parents recognized the need for noncompliance.

Keeping noncompliance as the watchword for 2023, here are some actions that could make a real difference in the coming year.

Choose home schooling

In a nine-part series written earlier this year, journalist Corey Lynn of Corey’s Digs described comprehensive social engineering efforts — “obedience training” — rolling out in coordinated fashion in 110 countries, in part via school-based “Social and Emotional Learning” programs.

Implemented by educators, counselors and other professionals in “public schools, charter schools, after-school programs, summer camps, virtual schools and remote schooling,” the goal is, according to Lynn, “shaping minds, regulating emotions, controlling behaviors, instilling twisted beliefs, and building an obedient workforce.”

As Anna L. Noble put it in an April 2022 article in The Defender, “Schools provide a useful testing ground to experiment with ways to hold the attention of children, develop nudges, and elicit desirable behavioral responses.”

Scathing education whistleblower Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, a now-deceased former senior policy advisor for the U.S. Department of Education, decried the “deliberate dumbing down of America” and traced the education system’s shift “from academics to behavioral modification” back to at least 1965.

Iserbyt observed that the Department of Education did not exist prior to its 1979 creation under the Carter Administration, stating, “There is nowhere in the constitution that calls for a Department of Education.”

Even private schools, under the thumb of the agenda-driven National Association of Independent Schools, appear to have lost any vestiges of “independence,” with enrollment contracts reportedly prohibiting parents “from ‘[voicing] strong disagreement’ with school policy or curricula, under threat of expulsion.”

Instead of continuing to expect something different from an “abusive” educational system, Lynn suggests that home schooling can be a powerful form of noncompliance.

Many parents apparently agree — responding to schools’ disastrous imposition of measures like remote learning and masking in 2020, a record number of households turned to home schooling.

Prior to COVID-19, roughly 3.4% of school-age children were home-schoolers, but by the start of the 2020-2021 school year, the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate had risen to 11.1%.

Home schooling is now the fastest-growing form of education in the U.S.

Stop the poisoning

Earlier this month, more than a third of parents surveyed (35%) — up from less than one-fourth (23%) in 2019 — questioned school vaccine mandates,

And this was only the latest in a string of reports addressing rising parental ambivalence about “routine” childhood vaccines.

These trends suggest that a critical mass of parents is coming to see vaccines as a “con man trick,” understanding that promises of vaccine safety were false and conflict-of-interest-riddled well before COVID-19 shots came along — and in fact, since the very inception of childhood vaccination programs.

The world’s vaccine experts conceded this point in a roundabout manner at a World Health Organization Global Vaccine Safety Summit in late 2019, as did Danish researcher and long-time vaccine insider Christine Stabell Benn at around the same time.

Benn commented, “Vaccination opponents are justified in being concerned [about safety],” adding:

“No vaccines have been studied for their non-specific effects on overall health, and before we have examined these, we cannot actually determine that the vaccines are safe.”

Benn’s colleague Peter Aaby admitted, also in 2019, “Most of you think that we know what all our vaccines are doing; we don’t.”

In mid-2021, Benn and Aaby cautiously argued against COVID-19 shots for children in the high-status BMJ scientific journal.

Given the shocking odds of vaccine injury that already prevailed prior to COVID-19 — conservatively estimated in a 2010 government-commissioned report at one in every 39 vaccines administered — it is not surprising that the carnage from COVID-19 jabs would now be swelling the ranks of questioners and “ex-vaxxers.”

However, vaccination — even with its payload of known and undisclosed toxic ingredients and apparent batch-to-batch variability — is far from the only vehicle for poisoning our most vulnerable.

Parents willing to do their own research and forge their family’s own nutritional and healthcare path will find that it may be within their reach to lessen, if not entirely eliminate, their children’s exposure to other common poisons such as food additives, glyphosate, organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides and over-the-counter drugs like acetaminophen, all of which come with vastly underreported dangers.

Reduce screen time

In 2006, author Richard Louv coined the term “nature-deficit disorder” in the subtitle to his book “Last Child in the Woods,” suggesting that today’s “wired generation,” with parents’ conscious or unconscious permission, has unwisely prioritized screens over time in nature.

With the worsening of children’s screen habits over the past several years, the nature deficit has become a “hot topic.”

Worried researchers also describe how screens are displacing “developmentally beneficial activities” as basic as sleep, physical activity, family interactions and book reading.

The related problem of screen or social media addiction — linked not just to sleeplessness but to eating disorders and outcomes like suicide — has become the focus of lawsuits alleging that social media companies “aggressively” deploy algorithms designed to addict children and adolescents.

Discovering the major role that “social influencers” seem to play in the exploding phenomenon of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” among girls, author Abigail Shrier’s top recommendation in her book, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” is to not give one’s daughter a smartphone.

As “Financial Rebellion” and the Solari Report’s Catherine Austin Fitts explains, “Children are targets of some of the most powerful people and dangerous technology on the planet,” and it is parents’ job to “understand this and protect them.”

Teach kids to use cash, not plastic

In late 2020, Bank for International Settlements General Manager Augustín Carstens shared central bankers’ unfriendly vision of a monetary system enabling complete control of all transactions through central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) which, ominously, would also allow central banks to turn people’s money on and off at will.

Unfortunately, the younger generations are marching heedlessly toward this dystopian vision, with millennials, according to 2021 research by Capital One, “increasingly moving away from cash spending” in favor of digital payment systems.

Pushing a “convenience” narrative, some banks — seemingly unaware that CBDCs threaten their own future — are promoting the cashless agenda by offering high school debit cards that double as school ID cards, telling parents they’ll no longer have to “worry about lost lunch money.”

Fitts is a strong proponent of revitalizing the use of cash.

Parents can help by not only being cash role models themselves but by having their children “start handling cash when they are young.”

In 2015, Editor-at-Large Janet Bodnar of Kiplinger’s Personal Finance opined that “using cash is the best way to get young minds thinking wisely about money,” including older teens who can benefit from “the discipline of managing a stash of real cash.”

Bodnar dismissed as flawed the parental argument that plastic can teach kids “financial responsibility.”

A British math expert told The Guardian in 2021, “Being able to handle money and buy something yourself is very special: it builds up your confidence with money.”

Don’t fall for mental health traps 

Over the years, many parents have learned to be wary of recommendations coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an agency so accustomed to conflicts of interest and fake science that it is not embarrassed to use the same PR firm as Big Pharma.

Thus, calls for more mental health screening and greater access to “care” — from birth through young adulthood — by CDC and CDC/pharma front groups like the American

Academy of Pediatrics deserve careful scrutiny.

As recently outlined in The Defender, cradle-to-grave psychiatric surveillance is a stealth tool for social control, and also risks stigmatizing and potentially life-threatening consequences like overdiagnosis, overmedicalization and overmedication.

Schools increasingly serve as the delivery mechanism for mental health screening and services, but as the Los-Angeles-based Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) — a mental health watchdog group — warned in a fact sheet, the “subjective and unscientific” mental health screening tools that schools are using are “developed by psychiatrists predominantly with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.”

According to CCHR:

“Mental health screening asks young students embarrassing, personal and potentially upsetting questions that psychiatrists have worded in such a way that no student could escape being labeled mentally ill at some point during their education.”

CCHR adds, “These questionnaires can result in psychological or psychiatric intervention in the lives of a child and his or her family — often against their will or under threat.”

For households that are not home schooling, the watchdog group recommends that parents become aware of what is happening, sign exemption forms prior to mental health screening or counseling and “unite to get psychiatric screening expelled from schools.”

Stop financing the enemy

Author and researcher Dr. Naomi Wolf recently braved the cold in front of her alma mater Yale University to make the case that the university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates turn students into “medical hostages” and constitute human trafficking.

In her Substack account of the Yale visit, Wolf described conversations with parents, who said “their children had begged them not to speak out, not to call the Dean, not to advocate for them to protect them from these injections, in any way,” due to the fear of reprisal and expulsion.

However, parents have a duty to make sure their young people understand what they are trading off for prestige — including, potentially, their health, their future fertility or their life.

Moreover, even if, as Wolf alleges, universities are now more beholden to government contracts than to those who pay tuition, college students and their parents still represent a powerful economic bloc capable of voting with their feet.

One tool at parents’ disposal, suggests Wolf, is to escrow potential donations to show universities the funds they are missing out on.

But parents who give their current or soon-to-be college students the permission and courage to shun any higher education institution that shows itself willing to poison them and deprive them of their constitutional freedoms can offer their children an even more powerful life lesson.

A high school student who recognized that “mandates will not end as long as we participate” developed a letter for college admissions offices (available as a template for others) that says:

“At this time, I’m only considering schools, colleges or universities that do not require a Covid-19 vaccine and that would mean the initial series, any boosters and including upcoming requirements to be considered ‘up to date.’ Medical freedom and body autonomy are my highest priority.”

Say no to the control grid

Although this article has focused on measures to protect young people, the control grid — in the form of interventions like digital IDs, vaccine passports and CBDCs — is also coming after adults.

As Kennedy wrote in the afterword to his bestseller, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” “We can bow down and comply … Or we can say no. We have a choice, and it is not too late.”

CHD.TV’s “Financial Rebellion” offers weekly suggestions on how to not comply.

In Kennedy’s words:

“We can say no to compliance with jabs for work, no to sending children to school with forced testing and masking, no to censored social media platforms, no to buying products from the companies bankrupting and seeking to control us. These actions are not easy, but living with the consequence of inaction would be far harder. By calling on our moral courage, we can stop this march towards a global police state.”

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/protecting-kids-teens-noncompliance/

What Did Fauci Do?

Posted on by

Fauci’s Calendar: What Was He Doing in the Months Before the Pandemic?

After filing an expensive lawsuit, OpenTheBooks.com finally got the National Institutes of Health to release Dr. Anthony Fauci’s work calendar — here’s what it shows.

anthony fauci calendar pandemic feature

On Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020, at 9 a.m., Dr. Anthony Fauci joined staff at the National Security Council (NSC) — the President’s national security and foreign policy advisory shop — for a meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building about the novel coronavirus.

Fauci would continue to have meetings in classified settings throughout the month.

Fauci’s calendar entries included NSC meetings, White House Situation Room meetings and meetings in other classified settings, as COVID-19 was breaking in China. (To our knowledge, the existence of these meetings before Jan. 28, 2020, was not previously disclosed.)

On Friday, Jan. 24, four days after China admitted human-to-human transmission of the virus, Fauci started attending a small group COVID-19 discussion that first took place in “Anthony’s Office” in a building next to the White House. Anthony, in this case, appears to be an NSC employee and an expert in biodefense and China.

Flashing back to December 2019, when patients in Wuhan were showing up at hospitals with unidentified pneumonia cases, Fauci attended the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — National Institutes of Health (NIH) dinner and workshops on Dec. 19 and 20 — the sixth annual event for NIH staff and Gates Foundation executives.

On the morning of Dec. 19, billionaire Bill Gates tweeted out his own hopes for the coming year and his now prescient prediction: “one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Today, we only know about these meetings, because our organization at OpenTheBooks.com, in partnership with the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch, sued the NIH in federal court. NIH had refused to even acknowledge our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

So, for the first time, here is our exclusive release of Fauci’s official calendar.

For a government bureaucrat, this sure was one tightly held calendar.

The refusal by NIH to follow open records law was a strategy to delay transparency: NIH forced us into expensive taxpayer-paid litigation to slow-walk 156 pages of semi-redacted calendar production.

Fauci’s calendar has 933 events during this five-month period — including 224 media interviews and 84 redacted events (only significant redactions that prevented analysis and understanding were counted, for example, phone number redactions were not included).

It’s a document that NIH and Fauci didn’t want you to see …

Why? What did Fauci know? And when did he know it?

Following Fauci’s timeline — highlights

Nov. 6, 2019: Fauci’s calendar lists “GPMB Discussion Note.” This likely deals with the World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Fauci is a past member of the GPMB board which was formed to “ensure[s] preparedness for global health crises.”

On Jan. 27, 2020, the GPMB convened regarding the COVID-19 outbreak and Fauci signed off on the group’s Jan. 30, 2020, statement commending the WHO and the “transparency of China.”

Judicial Watch’s FOIAs uncovered that this statement was organized and circulated by Wellcome Trust scientist and GPMB member Jeremy Farrar (who also organized a secret conference call with Fauci and others on Feb. 1, 2020).

Nov. 12, 2019: Fauci flies to the Netherlands. His multi-day itinerary is not listed. The Netherlands is home to the father of “gain-of-function,” high-risk researcher Dr. Ron Fouchier.

Fauci’s NIH institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), paused (2014) then restarted (Jan. 2019) funding to the controversial researcher who (using NIH funds) created an H5N1 bird flu in his lab with pandemic potential. He did so by passaging the virus through ferrets multiple times, until it gained a new function by going airborne and infecting a ferret in a different cage.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci joins Ambassador Deborah Birx, the Global AIDS Coordinator at a World AIDS Day evening event hosted by the Business Council for International Understanding. On Feb. 27, 2020, Birx is appointed to join Fauci on Trump’s COVID-19 Task Force.

Earlier that day, Fauci has a “Pre-Brief for US Japan Biodefense Meeting.” In 2004, as I previously reported at Forbes, Fauci received a permanent pay adjustment for his “biodefense” work. Fauci is the top-paid federal employee, specifically because he was paid to prevent the next pandemic.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci has a call with his future biographer, Janet Tobias, who later produces the “FAUCI” documentary.

Dec. 3, 2019: Fauci has a call with Victor Dzau, who is the president of the National Academy of Medicine, a Duke University professor and a man whose Chinese family fled to Hong Kong to escape China’s civil war.

Dec. 19, 2019: Fauci attends an “NIH Gates Fdn dinner” at “The Cloisters,” likely the one in Lutherville, Maryland, an hour from NIH.

Earlier that morning, Bill Gates tweeted out what has become a much-discussed prediction, “What’s next for our foundation? I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Fauci and top officials, such as NIH director Francis Collins and Health and Human Services (HHS) assistant secretary for health Brett Giroir, joined Gates Foundation executives during the dinner and on panels the next day, according to a press report from the time.

 

Jan. 17, 2020: Fauci has a call to discuss “CDC Gao Writing Request.” This is presumably related to George Gao, Director-General of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jan. 23, 2020: Fauci had an 8 a.m., in-person meeting with Dr. James LeDuc. LeDuc ran one of the few BSL-4 (biosafety level-4) biocontainment labs in the country (think: moon-suit stuff), at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where he has long-trained Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab in BSL-4 biosafety procedures.

Emails acquired by FOIA from the U.S. Right To Know (USRTK) organization revealed that LeDuc was sending backchannel emails with his Wuhan colleagues to get information on the novel coronavirus outbreak, and even soliciting edits and corrections from Wuhan’s so-called “bat lady” Shi Zhengli for his April 2020 Congressional testimony.

LeDuc’s emails show he was communicating with his virologist colleague Yuan Zhiming, who was in charge of the WIV BSL-4 lab. LeDuc wrote an op-ed published on January 24 about his U.S.-China working relationship.

It’s possible this drop-by visit by LeDuc was to let Fauci know what he was hearing from Wuhan, and perhaps, not put that news in email.

By 4:30 that afternoon, LeDuc and former Ft. Detrick BSL-4 biolab director Dave Franz joined HHS Robert Kadlec for a conference call, a call revealed in USRTK’s document production from the University of Texas (page 3,409).

Franz emailed a brief note that same day “to facilitate [the] call.” The email described his and LeDuc’s work since 2007 as establishing a relationship with Chinese scientists (pg 115).

In other words, LeDuc was in town to talk about China and the Wuhan lab with top HHS and former military biolab officials.

Thus, while the public discussion was and would remain that the virus had a natural origin, behind the scenes, people were being briefed on the U.S.-Chinese scientists’ interactions and the Wuhan lab itself.

Top-secret meetings

Unreported until now, throughout late January and February 2020, Fauci was in meetings with the NSC and in top-secret settings — including in the White House Situation Room. Fauci was also in small, “restricted” meetings with the NSC.

Were all these top-secret meetings known to the president, and do they give the impression people-in-the-know thought the virus had a natural origin?

Jan. 14 and 16, 2020: Fauci has a 9 a.m. “Novel Corona Virus PCC/Synch Meeting” with Phil Ferro, NSC and Executive Office of the President, on the 14th and a “Novel Corona Virus Touch Base” with Ferro on the 16th.

Jan. 20: China announced to the world that the virus has human-to-human transmission, an admission that they had a possible pandemic virus on their hands.

Jan. 21: Fauci’s NSC meeting gets a new name (“nCoV-PCC”) and the meeting now includes secure video teleconference.

Jan. 21: Fauci is interviewed by The Wall Street Journal reporter Betsy McKay on the listed topic “Coronavirus & HIV Papers.”

Is she asking Fauci about an upcoming scientific paper (published Jan. 31 by Indian scientists, but quickly withdrawn by the authors, amid intense criticism) that noted an “uncanny similarity” between the HIV virus and the spike protein in the COVID-19 virus?

Because bats don’t contract HIV, such a similarity would point to a lab creation for the novel virus.

An hour earlier, Fauci had a call with Peter Hotez about an “Anti-SARS vaccine candidate.” Hotez is an NIH-funded, Texas-based scientist and vaccine researcher, who had a $6 million NIH grant since 2012 studying a “SARS vaccine for biodefense.”

Hotez developed a non-mRNA vaccine model, that won recent approval for distribution in some foreign countries, such as India.

Jan. 22: The COVID-19 meetings with Fauci rise to a new level as Fauci’s calendar shows him in the White House Situation Room (“WHSR”), from ~1:30-3 this day for “nCoV PCC.”

Jan. 24: From ~1:30-2:30 p.m. Fauci has a “nCoV Small Group Discussion” at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), next to the White House, in “Anthony’s Office” Room 381. (nCoV stands for novel coronavirus and was the reference given to COVID-19 before it was officially named SARS-CoV-2.)

This is one of the few times no last name is listed on Fauci’s calendar. The meeting entry in our FOIA production is cut off but includes “***Please”; the entry also includes an attachment, which NIH currently has not released to OpenTheBooks.com.

“Anthony’s Office” Clue from Feb. 5: From 2:30-3:30 p.m. on Feb. 5, Fauci’s calendar shows an EEOB “Restricted Small Group” meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, who is listed as with the Executive Office of the President/NSC.

Anthony Ruggiero, according to his public LinkedIn page, was NSC “Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Counterproliferation and Biodefense” at the time of the meeting. Thus, it’s likely the Jan. 24 EEOB meeting in “Anthony’s Office” was with the same man as the Feb. 5 meeting: Anthony Ruggiero.

Jan. 27: From 2:30-3:30 p.m., Fauci has an “NSC Deputy Call” in the NIH SCIF. (SCIF stands for “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility” and is usually a room reserved for sensitive or classified briefings.) Trump’s NSC deputy at the time was Matthew Pottinger. The subject of the call is not noted on the calendar.

(Also on Jan. 27, Fauci met with the CEO of Moderna, Stephane Bancel.)

Jan. 28: A Fauci/NSC COVID-19 meeting was previously disclosed Sharri Markson, who reported in her book “What Really Happened in Wuhan” that Pottinger called the Jan. 28 meeting with Fauci, HHS Secretary Azar and CDC Director Redfield just after Pottinger heard from Chinese dissident and human rights activist Wei Jingsheng about the virus breaking in China.

From Jan. 16 through Jan. 29, with few exceptions, Fauci’s weekday calendar shows a COVID-19 meeting, either in person or by phone via secure video teleconference with Phil Farro, who is with the Office of the President and the NSC.

Jan. 22: Fauci has an hour and a half blocked off for the COVID-19 meeting in the White House Situation Room.

Jan. 27: If he didn’t know before, emails released to the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee reveal that on this date, Fauci got definitive word from his staff that NIAID, his institute, funded a bat coronavirus grant to EcoHealth Alliance who collaborated with the WIV and Ralph Baric. If the virus was from the WIV, Fauci now knew he had funded the Chinese lab.

Jan. 31: Fauci is in the Oval Office, meeting, presumably, with the president.

Feb. 4: By this date, according to released emails, Fauci and the federally funded scientists he consults with, have decided that COVID-19 came from nature via a bat, through some intermediate species. Behind the scenes, they are drafting papers arguing that any position besides a natural origin is a conspiracy theory.

Yet, Fauci keeps meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, NSC’s biodefense and China expert (1/25 and 2/5). Are they thinking COVID-19 may have come from a lab leak?

Feb. 11: Fauci has a meeting with Ralph Baric, the University of North Carolina coronavirus scientist, arguably the nation’s foremost expert on bat coronaviruses. The meeting includes Emily Erbelding, the director of the NIAID Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Baric had a long working relationship with the Wuhan lab, and, it would later be revealed, applied (unsuccessfully) for a $14 million DARPA grant with the WIV and EcoHealth Alliance to insert a furin cleavage site into a chimeric bat virus and passage it through “humanized” mice to see if it had pandemic potential.

Some virologists have called that leaked document a recipe for the COVID-19 virus.

The Fauci/Baric meeting backs up against the NSC meeting with Phil Ferro. It’s not clear where Baric is during the meeting, if in-person or by phone. Was Baric on the NSC call or listening in?

(Previously at Forbes, I wrote about how Fauci continued to fund scientists like Baric and Fouchier by giving exemptions and narrowly defining scrutinized research — circumventing funding bans by Presidents Obama and Trump.)

Feb. 17: “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a paper that Fauci apparently helped edit and was organized by NIH-funded Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, stated that the COVID-19 virus was from nature and called any suggestion otherwise a conspiracy.

Largely based on this paper, scientific discussion and social media posts suggesting a lab leak were censored as misinformation.

Other items of interest

Between Nov. 25, 2019, and Feb. 26, 2020, Fauci does three events with the American Society of Microbiology (ASM): a “Biothreats” discussion (11/25/2019); the ASM biothreats conference (1/29/2020); and meets with the ASM board (2/26/2020).

Jan. 7 and 9, 2020: Fauci did his first interviews on corona: 1. With CTV (Canadian TV) on the “pneumonia outbreak in China”; and 2. With Voice of America (VOA) on the “Wuhan pneumonia.” We couldn’t find the interviews published anywhere on the internet.

While the NIH keeps a public record of interviews Fauci conducted since Jan. 27, 2020, we identified 34 other interviews with him discussing the coronavirus from Jan. 7 to Jan. 26.

Between Jan. 27 and Feb. 24, Fauci meets or has calls with Stephane Bancel, the CEO of Moderna (1/27); Jeremy Farrar of Wellcome Trust (British health non-profit focused on vaccines) (2/1); BioNTech executive and former NIH staffer Gary Nabel (2/6) and Johnson & Johnson chief scientist Paul Stoffels (2/24).

Feb. 7: Fauci receives training on personal protective equipment (PPE). Given his varying recommendations on PPE early in the pandemic, it would be interesting to know what training he received.

March 18: Fauci logged a meeting entitled “code red” with a follow-up meeting on March 20. No further details were listed.

March 26: Fauci did four YouTube hits of 15 minutes each. Fauci’s calendar titled these events: “FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] Califf Request” — likely referencing Robert Califf. At the time, Califf was leading healthcare strategy at Alphabet (Google and YouTube parent company).

Robert Califf is the current Commissioner of Food and Drugs of the FDA and the former commissioner under Obama.

Summary

The official work calendar is an historic hour-by-hour documentation of Fauci in the months leading up to and during the publicly announced COVID-19 pandemic.

Even with this topline calendar transparency, NIH admits to holding an additional 60,000 pages of backup documentation. The federal court is allowing us to ask for specific items.

Therefore, if there is a specific document of oversight interest, please send our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com a message via the “Contact Us” portion of our website.

The historic release of Fauci’s work calendar leaves all of us with more questions than answers.

It’s incumbent upon Congress to exert its right to oversight.

Note: We reached out for comment to Fauci, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other top scientists mentioned on Fauci’s calendar. None gave us comments by our deadline.

Originally published on Adam Andrzejewski’s OpenTheBooks Substack page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/anthony-fauci-calendar-before-pandemic/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=84cfc378-168f-4950-b1ba-671f4546a6b0

Pay No Attention to he Facts

Posted on by
facebook

Facebook Labeling 100% Facts About Vaccine Company Corruption as ‘Misinformation’

Don Via Jr. May 18, 2021

The censors at Facebook’s ministry of truth have sunk to a new low. Yesterday at 1:35 p.m. EST, TFTP journalist Don Via Jr received a 24-hour ban on the platform for posting a completely factually accurate meme acknowledging big pharma’s history of rampant corruption.

Unlike other instances of individuals being censored on the platform however, in which the social media company attempts to thinly veil their censorship behind openly biased fact-checkers. This time there was none. No “fact check” for “false information”. Simply a notification of the post being removed from Mr. Via’s Break The Matrix Facebook page, and a notice that all of his accounts were restricted for 24 hours.

Below is the meme in question.

What makes this act of censorship particularly egregious is the blatant nature with which Facebook is now suppressing 100% verifiable facts.

After disputing the decision, Facebook replied with an automated message stating “We don’t allow false information that could cause physical harm. In some cases this includes information that recognized health organizations say could mislead people about how to cure or prevent a disease or that could discourage people from seeking medical treatment.”

In this case though, none of the information stated was false.

For instance, the first tier of the graphic claims that since inception in 1848, Pfizer has racked up nearly 5 billion dollars in criminal charges. While the exact total may vary a bit, the facts regarding their history of rampant corruption and medical malfeasance is.

In 1991, the FDA charged Pfizer subsidiary Shiley with withholding information from safety regulators and deliberately falsifying manufacturing records with regards to faulty heart valves. Nearly 300 people died from Pfizer’s faulty products and ultimately the company spent 205 million dollars settling the tens of thousands of lawsuits filed against them.

Despite this, Pfizer resisted to comply with FDA orders to notify patients and ultimately paid an additional $10 million when the Department of Justice charged them with lying to regulators.

In 2009, among other allegations of human rights abuses, Pfizer agreed to settle a lawsuit for $75 million after a lengthy court dispute in which it was charged with using Nigerian children as human guinea pigs.

In 2012 the company was forced to pay 60 million dollars after it was exposed for bribing foreign doctors to sell their products.

These are only a select few examples of the company’s history rife with criminal activity. More can be seen under Pfizer’s corporate rap sheet via the Corporate Research Project.

The second tier of the meme asserts that Moderna has not successfully completed the production of a viable vaccine in the company’s history. This can be confirmed via a simple internet search. In May of 2020, it was reported by The Daily Mail and CNN that Moderna has a track record of never bringing a successful vaccine to market since the company’s founding in 2010.

Furthermore, despite the company’s dubious past it was reported that Moderna was first tapped to lead U.S. vaccine development in what equated to a gamble. Simply because the company’s slick talking CEO was able to get the attention of former President Trump with bold promises during a meeting with biotech executives.

The third tier of the meme acknowledges the well-documented history of heinous crimes committed by Johnson & Johnson. Of which TFTP has also extensively covered in recent years.

As we reported in 2016, the company was forced to pay out billions of dollars in several lawsuits for continuing the sale of products they knew were causing cancer.

J&J has also been found guilty of irresponsible marketing practices and penalized nearly 600 million dollars for their role in fueling the opiate epidemic. As well as having been caught hiding crucial laboratory data from safety inspectors — resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people.

But these only scratch the surface of the company’s flagrant human rights abuses. Among them, being one of the main financiers alongside, Dow Chemical and the United States Army, funding 20 years of unethical human experiments by Dr. Albert Kligman in Pennsylvania’s Holmesburg prison. Experiments which entailed prisoners being financially coerced to “volunteer” as research subjects to study mind-altering drugs, painful medical procedures, radiation, and chemical weapons such as Agent Orange.

As a matter of fact, in addition to Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson — It is thoroughly documented by the Corporate Research Project that nearly every major company involved in the development of Covid-19 vaccines has an abhorrent history of medical malfeasance, and criminal charges.

Finally, the last section of the meme asserts that AstraZeneca’s covid-19 vaccine has itself already been suspended in 24 countries due to health concerns. Yet again, a simple query in your preferred search engine can corroborate this as a fact.

As a March 16th report from Al Jazeera explains; the countries of Sweden, Latvia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Portugal, Slovenia, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Ireland, Bulgaria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand, Romania, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Austria have all suspended the Oxford / AstraZeneca jab in some capacity.

Since that report the Philippines and Australia have also suspended the shot for individuals under 60 years of age. Venezuela has also refused to authorize it.

What Facebook is doing by deleting this content, which by all accounts is completely accurate, is suppressing vital information that the people have a right to know. Informed consent matters, and it’s not something that can be so freely thrown to the wayside — certainly not as adverse events reported to the CDC are at an all-time high.

Facebook, as we have reported ad nauseam, works alongside government entities to facilitate their censorship. And more recently was even implicated in a lawsuit filed by Robert F Kennedy Jr as directly taking orders from the government to stifle concerns for vaccine safety on its platform.

The company is now essentially working as a cover-up crew to protect those with which they have a vested financial or political interest. While their counterparts in the mainstream media ingloriously propagate the notion that those concerned with vaccine safety are domestic terrorists.

Bodily autonomy is paramount, and individuals have an inherent right to be given all the facts so that they are adequately informed to make proper decisions with regard to their health.

Just because the truth is unpleasant, does not make it misinformation. As a matter of fact, censoring unpleasant truths in favor of biased one-sided narratives is the greatest danger of all.

from:   https://thefreethoughtproject.com/facebook-labeling-100-facts-about-vaccine-company-corruption-as-misinformation/

Nutrition & Sanitation Not Pills & Vaccinations

Posted on by

Rejecting Rockefeller Germ Theory once and for all

by Jon Rappoport    March 25, 2021

Note: In a number of articles, I’ve offered compelling evidence that the deaths attributed to COVID-19 can be explained without reference to a virus. Furthermore, whatever merits “alternative treatments” may have, I see no convincing evidence their action has anything to do with “neutralizing a virus.”

The entire tragic, criminal, murderous, stupid, farcical COVID fraud is based on a hundred years of Rockefeller medicine—a pharmaceutical tyranny in which the enduring headline is:

ONE DISEASE, ONE GERM.

That’s the motto engraved on the gate of the medical cartel.

—Thousands of so-called separate diseases, each caused by an individual germ.

“Kill each germ with a toxic drug, prevent each germ with a toxic vaccine.”

In the absence of those hundred years of false science and propaganda, COVID-19 promotion would have gone over like a bad joke. A few sour laughs, and then nothing, except people going on with their lives.

The overall health of an individual human being has to do with factors entirely unrelated to “one disease, one germ.”

As I quoted, for example, at the end of a recent article—

“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

And Robert F Kennedy, Jr.: “After extensively studying a century of recorded data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Johns Hopkins researchers concluded: ‘Thus vaccinations does not account for the impressive declines in mortality from infectious diseases seen in the first half of the twentieth century’.”

“Similarly, in 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published their seminal work in the Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly on the role that vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive 74% decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century: ‘The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century’.”

“In this article, which was formerly required reading in U.S. medical schools, the McKinlays pointed out that 92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950, before most vaccines existed, and that all medical measures, including antibiotics and surgeries, ‘appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900 — having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances’.”

How the immune system (if it is a system) actually operates is beyond current medical hypotheses.

“T-cells, B-cells, neutrophils, monocytes, natural killer cells, proteins,” are welded into a breathless story about a military machine that attacks germ invaders. Push-pull. Search and destroy.

The notion that THIS is what creates health is fatuous.

Positive vitality is what keeps us healthy.

A few factors of positive vitality are on the tyrannical COVID list of what-should-be-squashed: financial survival; open mingling of friends and family; people looking (unmasked) at people; open communication without fear of censorship.

Nutrition and basic sanitation are key vitality factors, of course.

And then we have Purpose in Life: where are people pouring their creative energies?

Obviously, freedom from harmful medical treatment is necessary for vitality to flourish.

Suppression of LIFE, in order to stop a purported germ, is institutionalized death.

Modern medicine is sensationally exposed in a review I’ve mentioned dozens of time over the past 10 years: Authored by the late famous public health doctor at Johns Hopkins, Barbara Starfield, it is titled, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

It found that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people.

Per decade, the death toll would come to 2.25 million people.

You won’t find that in CDC reports.

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. I asked her whether the federal government had undertaken a major effort to remedy medically caused death in America, and whether she had been sought to consult with the government in such an effort.

She answered no to both questions.

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/03/25/rejecting-rockefeller-germ-theory-once-and-for-all/

Only Monkeys Are Susceptible to SARSCoV-2- What Are You?

Posted on by

Dr. Tom Cowan explores the COVID virus invented out of sheer nonsense

by Jon Rappoport

—Cowan analyzes yet another key document posted by the CDC, in their journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases: “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”—

The hits keep coming. The CDC used an arbitrary computer “tinker-toy” process to invent a description of the virus. The virus that no one has proven exists. This is the basic conclusion of Dr. Tom Cowan.

The CDC article was discovered by Sally Fallon Morrell. Her co-author, Dr. Cowan, fleshes out the fraud. Cowan’s article is titled, “Only Poisoned Monkey Cells ‘Grew’ the ‘Virus’.”

Dr. Cowan: “[The CDC journal article] was published in June 2020 [original publication, March 2020]. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.”

“First, in the section titled ‘Whole Genome Sequencing,’ we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.”

In other words, the sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was done by assumption and arbitrary inference. If this is science, a penguin is a spaceship.

Cowan: “To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”

“The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by ‘consensus,’ sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary ‘unicorn,’ so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.”

As I’ve been stating, the “discovery” of the “new virus” was actually the foisting of a PRE-DETERMINED STORY ABOUT A VIRUS. Nothing real or believable about it.

But once the official pattern is laid down, others follow it dutifully.

Dr. Cowan uncovers more insanity in the CDC journal article. Using the ASSUMED new virus, in an UN-ISOLATED STATE, the researchers try to prove it is harmful by injecting it on to several different types of cells in the lab:

Cowan: “The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:”

“’Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells [monkey cells]. … Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero [monkey] cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells [human cells] were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection’.”

“What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible ‘hosts’ or models on which they can test…”

“The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.”

“The shocking thing about the above [CDC journal] quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this ‘new coronavirus’ is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.”

“My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion. They simply say they can provide virus stocks cultured only on monkey Vero cells, thanks for coming.”

So first…use a process of genetic sequencing that involves concocting, out of an arbitrary computer program…

The existence and structure of the “new virus”…

And then, taking a soup that the researchers claim contains the virus, in an un-isolated state, inject the soup into several types of cells in the lab…

And discover the prime target—human cells—are not infected by the imaginary virus.

And after this good day’s work, walk away and pretend nothing odd or self-incriminating happened.

And oh yes, lock down the planet based on this “science.”

Naturally, we MUST take a toxic vaccine that prevents non-infection by the non-virus.

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/19/dr-tom-cowan-explores-the-covid-virus-invented-out-of-sheer-nonsense/

Where is That Elusive Virus? Don’t Know? Maybe it Isn’t…

Posted on by

The Smoking Gun: Where is the coronavirus? The CDC says it isn’t available.

by Jon Rappoport

October 8, 2020

The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It is dated July 13, 2020.

Buried deep in the document, on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”

The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available…”

Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.

A further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE.

Another way to put it: NO ONE HAS AN ISOLATED SPECIMEN OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS.

NO ONE HAS ISOLATED THE COVID-19 VIRUS.

THEREFORE, NO ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT EXISTS.

As if this were not enough of a revelation to shock the world, the CDC goes on to say they are presenting a diagnostic PCR test to detect the virus-that-hasn’t-been-isolated…and the test is looking for RNA which is PRESUMED to come from the virus that hasn’t been proved to exist.

And using this test, the CDC and every other public health agency in the world are counting COVID cases and deaths…and governments have instituted lockdowns and economic devastation using those case and death numbers as justification.

If people believe “you have the virus but it is not available,” and you have the virus except it is buried within other material and hasn’t been extracted and purified and isolated, these people believe the moon is made of green cheese.

This is like saying. “We have the 20 trillion dollars, they are contained somewhere in our myriad accounts, we just don’t know where.” If you don’t know where, you don’t know you have the money.

“The car keys are somewhere in the house. We just don’t where.” Really? If you don’t know where, you don’t know the keys are in the house.

“The missing cruise missile is somewhere in the arsenal, we just don’t where.” No. If you don’t know where, you don’t know the missile is in the arsenal.

“The COVID-19 virus is somewhere in the material we have—we just haven’t removed it from that material. But we know what it is and we’ve identified it and we know its structure.” NO YOU DON’T. YOU ASSUME THAT.

Science is not assumptions.

“But…but…there is a study which says a few researchers in a lab isolated the virus…”

They say they did. But in July, the CDC is saying no virus is available. I guess that means trucks were not available to bring the virus from that lab to the CDC. The trucks were out of gas. It was raining. The bridge was washed out. The trucks were in the shop. Joe, the driver, couldn’t find his mask, and he didn’t want to leave home without it…

Science is not assumptions.

The pandemic is a fraud, down to the root of the poisonous tree.

from:   https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/08/the-smoking-gun-where-is-the-coronavirus-the-cdc-says-it-isnt-available/