The news surrounding Dr. Fauci continues to get worse. More Americans are demanding he get fired. And you’ll be seeing red when you find out what Dr.…You’ll be seeing red when you find out what Dr. Fauci was hiding
The news surrounding Dr. Fauci continues to get worse. More Americans are demanding he get fired. And you’ll be seeing red when you find out what Dr.…You’ll be seeing red when you find out what Dr. Fauci was hiding
ICAN OBTAINS OVER 3,000 PAGES OF TONY FAUCI’S EMAILS | ICAN – Informed Consent Action Network
— Read on www.icandecide.org/ican_press/ican-obtains-over-3000-pages-of-tony-faucis-emails/
The damaging effects of aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines: Dr Larry Pavlesky60 views1End Time Evangelist
Published Tuesday | CommentsSUBSCRIBE (13)Testimony by Dr. Larry Pavlesky a pediatrician who runs the Northport Wellness center (clinic) in front of PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE on a hearing discussing proposed legislation regarding immunization. MUCH INFO about many issues that you will NOT find on Google or any search engine.
THIS video is a MUST SEE. Expect to find MUCH info that is defamatory and derogatory about him as being an anti-vaxxer much like ANYONE like Dr. Judy Mikovits, who are the target of some very directed character assassination to somehow make people avoid listening to what he says or read what he publishes.
Being over the target is a sign his information has a very damaging effect on an industry that is losing credibility and confidence from the public. “Biologics” aka Vaccines.
You decide and apply informed independent-minded critical thinking when you read all the criticism about him AND NOTHING about the very valid scientific issues he raises.
The info you can/will find is very clearly intended to disparage him and not even bring any attention to some very serious issues.
Above details are as quoted from the source below.
Vaccine, Vaccines, Damage, Nanoparticles, Nano particles, Nano-particles, Aluminum, Autism, Covid-19, Covid, Coronavirus, Testimony, Larry Pavlesky, Northport Wellness center, Pediatrician, Pediatrics, Public Health Committee, Health Committee, End Time Evangelist, endtimeevangelist
#vaccine #nanoparticles #aluminum
By Staff – May 28, 2021
“They deserve to know how this terrible pandemic that has ravaged the globe and our country, how it got started and what’s China’s role in starting it,” Hawley stated.
Republican Sen. Mike Braun said, “It needs to be revealed to anyone that can look at it to make sense out of what has happened.”
Method of COVID-19 vaccine delivery in cells may be linked to cause of rare clot reaction, researchers say
A team of German researchers has suggested a mechanism behind rare but serious clotting events reported in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines developed by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.
As millions of jabs were rolled out, reports of exceedingly rare but potentially fatal clotting disorders sent over a dozen mostly European countries reeling, temporarily halting vaccination campaigns with AstraZeneca’s product in March. In the U.S., rare reports of serious blood clots following Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose jab resulted in an 11-day national recommended pause on J&J’s vaccine rollout, before a federal advisory committee suggested the U.S. resume rollout but include new language on the product’s emergency use authorization (EUA) warning remote risks of serious blood clots. AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine is not yet approved for use in the U.S.
In a statement sent to Fox News, a spokesperson at Janssen said “We are supporting continued research and analysis of this rare event as we work with medical experts and global health authorities. We look forward to reviewing and sharing data as it becomes available.”
AstraZeneca did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The early findings posted ahead of peer review on Wednesday from researchers at the Goethe-University of Frankfurt suggested that while mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) delivered on a fat-enclosed particle deposit instructions coding for the production of the spike protein in a fluid portion of cells called the cytosol, adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccines (AstraZeneca, J&J) deliver instructions coding for the SARS-CoV-2 surface spike protein inside of the nucleus.
“And exactly here lies the problem: the viral piece of DNA – deriving from an RNA virus – is not optimized to be transcribed inside of the nucleus,” study authors wrote. “Thus, it could well be that the Spike open reading frame of SARS-CoV-2 is potentially disrupted by arbitrary splice events when transcribed inside the nucleus.”
The so-called splice events then create soluble spike proteins, “described to cause adverse effects, [such as] a strong inflammatory response.”
“And exactly here lies the problem: the viral piece of DNA – deriving from an RNA virus – is not optimized to be transcribed inside of the nucleus,” study authors wrote. “Thus, it could well be that the Spike open reading frame of SARS-CoV-2 is potentially disrupted by arbitrary splice events when transcribed inside the nucleus.”
The so-called splice events then create soluble spike proteins, “described to cause adverse effects, [such as] a strong inflammatory response.”
“Soluble Spike variants together with newly built antibodies against Spike protein as well as the highly specific blood flow conditions in the central venous sinus of the brain may result in the rare but severe events after vaccination observed with ADZ1222/Vaxzevria. Noteworthy, the vaccine from Johnson & Johnson appears to carry fewer splice donor sequences…This may explain the ~ 10-fold lower incidence of severe side effects with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine when compared to the AZD1222 vaccine,” the study reads.
Dr. Tom Shimabukuro with the CDC COVID-19 vaccine task force previously noted 28 total cases of so-called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS) following J&J vaccination were reported through a national surveillance system, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). TTS is a broad term including the rare but potentially deadly cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), but also deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism.
Shimabukuro presented data indicating females aged 30 to 39 had the highest reporting rates of TTS at 12.4 cases per million doses administered, though females aged 40 to 49 had the “most pronounced” increase in cases; the reporting rate in this age group is 9.4 clot cases per million doses administered.
In the study at hand, researchers offered hypotheses behind the clotting events predominantly affecting young women. They noted that older adults more often take drugs that tamp down clotting and inflammatory events.
“This could be a reason why elderly people suffer much less from these thromboembolic events.”
Also, younger people tend to have stronger immune systems, and women tend to have stronger immune responses than men, “All this would imply a higher incidence in young women when compared to men or elderly people,” study authors wrote.
“All mRNA-based vaccines should represent safe products,” they concluded, but strongly suggested “spike open reading frames in vector-based vaccines has to be re-optimized to avoid unintended splice reactions and to increase the safety of these pharmaceutical products.”
Other scientists have suggested different mechanisms behind the clotting, such as an autoimmune response involving “stray proteins” and a preservative in AstraZeneca’s vaccine called ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, or EDTA, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Kayla Rivas is a Health reporter and joined Fox News in April 2020.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/method-vaccine-delivery-cells-cause-rare-clot-researchers-sayExplore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.
Facebook is so determined to get everyone in the world “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) that it is now censoring all content that it deems as promoting “vaccine hesitancy” (VH).
Two whistleblowers recently came forward to tell their stories to Project Veritas, revealing that Facebook’s goal is to “drastically reduce user exposure” to comments and posts that question the “safety and efficacy” of Chinese Virus injections.
Facebook also launched an internal program to force a “decrease in other engagement on VH comments including create, likes, reports [and] replies.”
According to one of the whistleblowers, Facebook uses a tiered system to determine which content should be censored or buried, and to what degree. Anything categorized as “shocking stories,” even if they describe true events that “raise safety concerns” about the injections, is automatically demoted on Facebook.
“True events or facts” that cast a “negative” light on Wuhan Flu shots are considered by Facebook to be “misinformation” and are automatically hidden from view, the whistleblower explained.
Even if the information is authentic, verifiable, and could help someone avoid vaccine-induced injury or death, Facebook will no longer allow users to see it.
“They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it,” the other Facebook insider added. “If I lose my job, it’s like, what do I do? But that’s less of a concern to me.”
Be sure to watch the full Project Veritas exposé on Facebook’s censorship of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) truth below:
There is no more free speech on Facebook
A leaked document outlining the “experimental launch” of the program explains how Facebook tested it out before the official launch to determine whether or not it was capable enough of capturing content for rapid disposal.
The document states that the experiment only applied to “comments that have also been created beneath vaccine-related posts,” which the social media giant has already been flagging with “disinformation” overlays for at least the past year.
Because many Facebook users are ignoring these overlays by continuing to share and comment on posts with truthful information about the dangers and ineffectiveness of Chinese Virus injections, the Mark Zuckerberg empire is upping the ante with this new targeted program against user comments.
“Comments are a major surface relevant to our B2V efforts,” the document further explains about the rationale behind the program.
“We estimate that the prevalence of VH comments in Authoritative Health Pages is 25.3% and for other pages 19.42%. Now that the v1 Vaccine Hesitancy classifier has been cleared for this usecase, reducing the visibility of these comments represents another significant opportunity for us to remove barriers to vaccination that users on the platform may potentially encounter.”
In essence, Facebook is still allowing its users to have “free speech” concerning Wuhan Flu shots. The caveat is that nobody else will get to see that free speech because Facebook is now secretly censoring it before others have the chance to see it.
“People aren’t allowed to have a voice, and yet Facebook touts itself with promoting people’s opportunity to have a voice,” one of the whistleblowers lamented.
Remember when Facebook also tampered with the 2020 election?
We saw much the same behavior from Facebook during the 2020 election cycle. Zuckerberg and his minions were caught censoring posts about election fraud and vote tampering, making it appear as though Joe Biden and Kamala Harris legitimately won – which they did not.
At the same time, Facebook prioritized content on its platform that perpetuated the lie that Biden and Harris won, and that there is “no evidence” that the 2020 election was unfairly stacked against Donald Trump.
Now that the election scandal has moved on and the media and government are focused on Chinese Virus injections, Facebook is once again doing its part to spread propaganda, censor free speech, and steer the “hive mind” of its user base into getting jabbed.
“It’s amazing how Facebook feels that they must patrol people’s legitimate commentary about vaccines in order to try and coerce more people into get vaccinated, which is something I don’t understand,” reports The Right Scoop.
“What’s hypocritical about this is that I remember when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was having internal discussions at Facebook about the vaccines actually changing people’s DNA / RNA and suggesting skepticism about that last year. But now if you want to have such discussions, CENSORSHIP FOR YOU while free speech for him. Yeah, makes sense.”
Be sure to listen to the full roughly 22-minute Project Veritas episode above to get the full scoop on Facebook’s pro-vaccine, anti-free speech agenda. This is an important subject that deserves critical attention, especially since these jabs are killing people at an astounding rate.
More related news stories about the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) and Big Tech’s relentless efforts to censor the truth about it can be found at Pandemic.news.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under: banned, Big Tech, Censored, Censorship, coronavirus, COVID, election, Facebook, free speech, medical fascism, Medical Tyranny, Orwellian, Project Veritas, speech police, tech giants, thought police, Tyranny, vaccine hesitancy, vaccine wars, zuckerberg
Rare Video of ‘Brave New World’ Author From 63 Years Ago
Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
February 20, 2021
STORY AT-A-GLANCE –
Aldous Huxley wrote “Brave New World,” a nightmarish vision of a future society known as the “World State,” ruled by science and efficiency, where emotions and individuality have been eradicated and personal relationships are few
When Huxley wrote the book, optimism about technological advancements were high and there was widespread belief that technology would solve many of the world’s problems. “Brave New World” demonstrates the naiveté of such hopes by showing what can happen when technology is taken to its extreme
Huxley predicted the technological capability to bypass reason and manipulate behavior through subliminal means. Today, social media platforms and search engines use sophisticated artificial intelligence algorithms to push certain kinds of information in front of us
Huxley’s ideas appear to have influenced the technocracy’s planning. The World Economic Forum’s 2030 agenda includes the strangely ominous dictum that “you will own nothing and be happy”
Huxley argues that in order to create the dystopian future presented in his book, you have to centralize wealth, power and control. Hence, the way to protect against it is to insist on decentralization
The video above features a 1958 interview of Aldous Huxley with Mike Wallace. It really is a great glimpse from the past. Wallace was smoking on the set, but that was natural back then, and Rod Serling, who produced the “Twilight Zone,” did the same. Interestingly, they both developed lung cancer.
You might recall that Huxley wrote the classic novel “Brave New World,” in which he presents a dystopian vision of a future society known as the “World State,” a society ruled by science and efficiency, where emotions and individuality have been eradicated and personal relationships are few.
Children are cloned and bred in “hatcheries,” where they are conditioned for their role in society from an early age. There are no mothers and fathers as natural procreation is outlawed. There are no family units.
Embryos are sorted and given hormonal treatments based on their destined societal classification, which from highest to lowest are Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon. The Alphas are bred and conditioned to be leaders while the Epsilons are designed for menial labor, free of higher intellectual capacities.
At the time Huxley wrote the book in 1931 (it was published the year after), optimism about technological advancements were high and there was widespread belief that technology would solve many of the world’s problems. “Brave New World” demonstrates the naiveté of such hopes by showing what can happen when technocracy is taken to its extreme.
Huxley believed his world of horror was right around the corner and, today, just shy of 60 years later, we’re starting to see Huxley’s “World State” closing in around us in the form of the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s transhumanist agenda and the Great Reset, designed to trap us inside a net of constant surveillance and external control.
Enemies of Freedom
Huxley also penned a series of essays called “Enemies of Freedom,” which he discusses in the featured interview. The series outlines “impersonal forces” that are “pushing in the direction of progressively less freedom,” and “technological devices” that can be used to accelerate the process by imposing ever greater control of the population.
Huxley points out that as technology becomes more complex and complicated, it becomes increasingly necessary to form more elaborate hierarchal organizations to manage it all. Technology also allows for more effective propaganda machines that can be managed through those same control hierarchies.
Huxley cites the success of Hitler, noting that aside from Hitler’s effective use of terror and brute force, “he also used a very efficient form of propaganda. He had the radio, which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people.”
With the advent of television, Huxley foresaw how an authoritarian leadership could become a source of “a one-pointed drumming” of a single idea, effectively brainwashing the public.
Beyond that, Huxley predicted the technological capability to “bypass the rational side of man” and manipulate behavior by influencing people on a subconscious level. This is precisely what we’re faced with today.
Google, but also to a large extent Facebook, has been collecting data on you for nearly two decades. They have created massive server farms that are capable of analyzing this data with deep learning and artificial intelligence software to mine information and generate incredibly precise details on just what type of propaganda and narrative is required to surreptitiously manipulate you into the behavior they are seeking.
Huxley also points out the dangers inherent in advertising, especially as it pertains to marketing of political ideas and ideologies:
“Democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest in any given circumstance but …
There are particular purposes for selling goods, and [what] the dictatorial propagandists are doing is to try to bypass the rational side of men and to appeal directly to these unconscious forces below the surface so that you are in a way making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure, which is based on conscious choice or on rational ground …
Children are quite clearly much more suggestible than the average grownup and, again, suppose that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies, you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children who are going to grow up and be adults …
You can read in the trade journal the most critical accounts of how necessary it is to get hold of the children, because then they will be loyal brand buyers later on. Translate this into political terms, the dictator says they will be loyal ideology buyers when they’re grown up.”
Decentralization Protects Freedom; Centralization Robs It
Huxley argues that in order to create the dystopian future presented in his book, you have to centralize wealth, power and control. Hence, the way to protect against it is to insist on decentralization. It’s surprising that even 60 years ago Huxley was wise enough to understand this profoundly important principle.
I believe that it is the decentralization of the internet that is required to prevent censorship and manipulation in the future. This means that websites and platforms are not stored in one central place that can easily be controlled and manipulated but, rather, widely distributed to thousands, if not millions, of computers all over the world. It would work because if there is no central storage it can’t be removed.
Decentralized platforms allow the majority of power to reside with the individual. Technologies that can be easily misused to control the public narrative must also remain largely decentralized, so that no one person or agency ends up with too much power to manipulate and influence the public. Our modern-day social media monopolies are a perfect example of what Huxley warned us about.
The same goes for economic institutions too. Today, we can see how the role of the central bank (in the U.S. known as the Federal Reserve) — a privately-owned entity with the power to break entire countries apart for profit — is forcing us toward a new global economic system that will impoverish and quite literally enslave everyone, with the exception of the technocratic social bankers themselves and their globalist allies.
Our Orwellian Present
A contemporary and student of Huxley was George Orwell (real name Eric Blair1), who wrote another dystopian classic — “1984” — published in 1949. The two books — “1984” and “Brave New World” — share the commonality that they both depict a future devoid of the very things that we associate with having a healthy, free, creative, purposeful and enjoyable life.
In “1984,” the context is a society where an all-knowing, all-seeing “Big Brother” rules with an iron fist. Citizens are under constant watch. Privacy is nonexistent, and language is twisted to justify and glorify oppression.
Some of the spectacles of 2020 could have easily been ripped straight out of the pages of “1984,” as riots were described by cheery news anchors as “mostly peaceful protests,” even as city blocks were engulfed in flames behind them and people were bleeding to death in the streets. For those familiar with the book, such scenes were difficult to watch without being reminded of 1984s “double-think.”
Orwell Versus Huxley
There are differences between the two works, however. While Orwell foresees people being forcefully enslaved by an external agency, and kept in that state by the same, Huxley’s vision is one in which people have been so thoroughly conditioned that they come to love their servitude. At that point, no external authoritarian ruler is actually required.
If you think about it, I’m sure you will agree that this is clearly the most efficient strategy to take control of the population. Moore’s law and the exponential improvement in computer processing capacity has exponentially accelerated the global elites’ ability to precisely identify how to implement peaceful control that will have the majority virtually begging for tyranny.
In Huxley’s “Brave New World,” people have fallen in love with the very technologies that prevent them from thinking and acting of their free will, so the enslaved maintain their own control structure.
As noted by Neil Postman in his book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business,” in which he compares and contrasts the futures presented by Huxley and Orwell:
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
As Huxley remarked in ‘Brave New World Revisited,’ the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny ‘failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.’
In ‘1984,’ Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In ‘Brave New World,’ they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.”
The Promise of the Great Reset
One can argue about who predicted the future best, Orwell or Huxley, but in the final analysis, I think we’re looking at a mixture of both, although it seems obvious to me that Huxley was more prescient and he was actually Orwell’s mentor. Huxley’s concerns are far more serious as the programming is essentially silent, and it is patently evident that the technocrats have been highly successful in implementing this strategy in the past year.2
That said, we’re facing both the threat of externally imposed authoritarianism and control predicted by Orwell, and the subversive, subliminal programming through mindless entertainment and the lure of convenience proposed by Huxley.
Undoubtedly, the combination is a powerful one, and likely far more effective than either control strategy by itself. I’ve already touched on how Orwell’s work is playing out in the real world through the “double-think” mental gymnastics we get from the controlled, tightly centralized mainstream media these days.
For an example of how Huxley’s ideas have influenced the technocracy’s planning, look no further than the globalists’ call to “build back better” (video above) and the World Economic Forum’s 2030 agenda (below), which includes the strangely ominous dictum that you will own nothing and be happy.
The unstated implication is that the world’s resources will be owned and controlled by the technocratic elite, and you’ll have to pay for the temporary use of absolutely everything. Nothing will actually belong to you. All items and resources are to be used by the collective, while actual ownership is restricted to an upper stratum of social class.
Just how will this imposed serfdom make you happy? Again, the unstated implication is that lack of ownership is a marvelous convenience. Rent a pot and then return it. You don’t need storage space! Imagine the freedom! They even promise the convenience of automatic drone delivery straight to your door.
Artificial intelligence — which is siphoning your data about every aspect of your existence through nearly every piece of technology and appliance you own — will run your life, predicting your every mood and desire, catering to your every whim. Ah, the luxury of not having to make any decisions!
Life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom. ~ Aldous Huxley
This is the mindset they’re trying to program into you, and for most, it appears to be working. For others who can see the propaganda for what it is, these promises look and feel like proverbial mouse traps. Once you bite the cheese, you’ll be stuck, robbed of your freedom forevermore. And, as Huxley told Wallace, individual freedom is really a prerequisite for a genuinely productive society:
“Life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom. Initiative and creativity — all these things that we value, and I think value properly, are impossible without a large measure of freedom.”
When Wallace challenges Huxley on this by pointing out that the Soviet Union was successfully developing both militarily and artistically, despite being a tightly controlled regime, Huxley counters by saying that those doing that creative work, especially scientists, were also granted far greater personal freedom and prosperity than everyone else.
As long as they kept their noses out of politics, they were brought into the upper echelon and given a great deal of freedom, and without this freedom, they would not have been able to be as creative and inventive, Huxley says.
The Threat of the New Normal
This anti-human “new normal” that world leaders are now urging us to accept and embrace is the trap of all traps. Unless your most cherished dream is to lie in bed for the rest of your life, your body atrophying away, with a pair of VR goggles permanently strapped to your face, you must resist and oppose the “new normal” every day going forward.
As noted by Spiked editor Brendan O’Neill in his February 5, 2021, article,3 while the first lockdown was marked by a sense of camaraderie and the promise of it being a temporary measure that we can get through if we just address the problem together, by the third round, all forms of social connection have vanished, as has the anticipation of a return to normality.
“In the first lockdown, the dream of normality was what kept people going; it was actively encouraged by some politicians and even some in the doom-laden media. This time, dreams of normality are treated as ‘dysfunction’, as a species of ‘denial,’” O’Neill writes.
Make no mistake. The media’s rebuke of a return to normalcy as a nonsensical piped ream is dangerous propaganda territory. The reality is we could easily open everything back up and go back to business as usual, and nothing out of the ordinary, in terms of sickness and death, would occur.
People die every year. It’s an inevitable reality of life and, up until the last two weeks of 2020, there actually were no greater number of deaths recorded than the year prior, and the year prior to that, and the one before that.4
While new numbers released by the CDC indicate that 2020’s final two weeks may have pushed the total deaths beyond 2019’s (final data won’t be available for months),5 COVID-19 simply isn’t as lethal as initially suspected. It primarily kills the elderly and the chronically ill — what’s most interesting is that suicide deaths among teens went up dramatically as lockdowns and school closings dragged on.6,7
What’s more, we now have effective prophylactics and treatments that ensure the loss of life due to COVID-19 can be radically minimized. Yet, our leaders don’t want you to think in those terms. They want you to remain fearful because they have a deep appreciation of the value of fear in catalyzing the precise type of capitulation and surrender they need in order to implement the Great Reset.
Tragically, many citizens have so embraced the fear culture, they don’t even need an authoritarian figure to tell them to comply with rules that have no medical benefit anymore. They’ll happily act as the designated COVID police, making sure everyone around them complies.
Hell hath no fury like one caught in the unsound belief that they will die if you don’t wear a mask. This is no way to live. It’s not sane and it’s not healthy, and the prophetic works of Huxley and Orwell illustrate where it will all end if we don’t push back.
Never Surrender to the New Normal
In closing, I’d like you to ponder some portions from O’Neill’s article, in which he warns us about the threat posed by the culture of fear itself, which is just as dangerous and damaging as any virus:8
“[Spiked] argued that Covid-19 … would be refracted through the culture of fear, potentially harming our ability to understand and deal with this novel danger. This has come to pass. The shift from paying lip service to social solidarity to encouraging the populace to think of itself as diseased represents a victory for the degraded view of humanity gifted to us by the culture of fear.
The government’s early move from encouraging people to take responsibility for limiting their social interactions to using older methods of terror to ensure compliance with lockdown measures confirmed the culture of fear’s reduction of people from citizens to be engaged with to problems to be managed.
The failure to sustain the education of the next generation spoke to the exhaustion of bourgeois confidence, of the state itself, that underpins the culture of fear.
And the current threat of a New Normal — of a forever post-pandemic dystopia of distanced, masked pseudo-interaction — demonstrates that our future will be shaped at least in part by the ideologies and forces of the culture of fear …
Yes, the New Normal being talked up by the political and cultural elites will partially be informed by the experience of Covid-19 and the necessity of being prepared for a future virus. But it will also be shaped by … the culture of fear and its attendant anti-human, anti-progress ideologies …
Soon the practical task of minimizing and managing the impact of Covid-19 will have been largely completed, leaving us with the far larger humanist task of combating this culture and making the case for a freer, more dynamic, dazzling future of growth, knowledge and engagement.
Those who underestimate the culture of fear will be ill-prepared for these future battles. They will have a tendency to surrender to the New Normal. The rest of us should stand firm, even in the face of smears and willful misrepresentations, and continue to recognize and confront the real and debilitating consequences that fear has on everyday life and on humanity’s future.”
— Read on articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/20/brave-new-world.aspx
STORY AT-A-GLANCE –
- Curative offers a PCR test using spit rather than swabs from the back of your nasal cavity. Initially only authorized for use on symptomatic patients, the company has requested the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expand its authorization for use on asymptomatic individuals
- According to company data, the spit test accurately identifies about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT
- According to the FDA, that comparative CT is too low, and will produce too many false negatives. This, despite the scientific consensus, which states anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable as it produces enormous amounts of false positives
- According to an April 2020 study, a CT of 17 must be used to obtain 100% confirmed real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. At 33 cycles, the false positive rate is 80%. Beyond 34 cycles, the false positive rate reaches 100%
- Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test is important. Recent research shows the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by viral culture is seven days, whereas the PCR test continues to detect nonviable (noninfectious) SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days
For several months, experts have highlighted the true cause behind the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy people as “COVID-19 cases.” In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such.
An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control pandemic.
Regardless, those in charge need to be held accountable, which is precisely what the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee(Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,1 or ACU),2,3intends to do.
They’re in the process of launching an international class-action lawsuit against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world. I wrote about this in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation.”
FDA Demands Higher False Positives
An interesting case detailed in a January 21, 2021, Buzzfeed article4 that raises those same questions in regard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is its recent spat with Curative, a California testing company that got its start in January 2020. It has since risen to become one of the largest COVID-19 test providers in the U.S.
Curative’s most popular PCR test differs from other providers in that it uses spit swabbed from the patient’s tongue, cheek and mouth rather than from the back of the nasal cavity.
In April 2020, the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization5for the Curative spit test, but only for patients who had been symptomatic within the two weeks prior to taking the test, as the data available at that time showed it failed to catch asymptomatic “cases.”
However, the test was subsequently used off-label on individuals without symptoms anyway, and the company has been urging the FDA to expand its authorization to include asymptomatic individuals based on newer data.
In December 2020, Curative submitted that data,6 showing its oral spit test accurately identified about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT.7
The FDA objected, saying that Curative was comparing its test against a PCR that had a CT that was too low, and would therefore produce too many false negatives.8 According to the FDA, the bar Curative had chosen was “not appropriate and arbitrary,” Buzzfeed reports.9
This is a curious statement coming from the FDA, considering the scientific consensus on PCR tests is that anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable.10,11,12
From the start, the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.13 This was already high enough to produce an inordinate number of false positives, thereby labeling healthy people as “COVID-19 cases,” but when it comes to Curative’s spit test, the FDA is demanding they compare it against PCR processed at a CT of 45, which is even more likely to produce false positives.
Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness.
The FDA’s concern is that Curative’s test is missing infections and giving infectious people a clean bill of health. However, in reality, it’s far more likely that the test is accurately weeding out people who indeed are not infectious at all and rightly should be given a clean bill of health. It seems the FDA is merely pushing for a process that will ensure a higher “caseload” to keep the illusion of widespread infection going.
When Are You Actually Infectious?
A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate. In short, media and public health officials have conflated “cases” — positive tests — with the actual illness.
Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA.
The research is unequivocal when it comes to who’s infectious and who’s not. You cannot infect another person unless you carry live virus, and you typically will not develop symptoms unless your viral load is high enough.
As it pertains to PCR testing, when excessively high CTs are used, even a minute viral load that is too low to cause symptoms can register as positive. And, since the test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead viral debris, you may not even be carrying live virus at all.
These significant drawbacks are why PCR testing really only should be done on symptomatic patients, and why a positive test should be weighed as just one factor of diagnosis. Symptoms must also be taken into account. If you have no symptoms, your chances of being infectious and spreading the infection to others is basically nil, as data14 from 9,899,828 individuals have shown.
Of these, not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive. This study even confirmed that even in cases where asymptomatic individuals had had an active infection, and had been carriers of live virus, the viral load had been too low for transmission. As noted by the authors:15
“Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2.
In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.”
PCR Picks Up Dead Virus for Weeks After Infection Has Cleared
Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test ends up being important. One example of this was presented in a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,16 in which the author describes an investigation done on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Seoul, South Korea.
Whereas the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by cultured samples was just seven days, with the longest time frame being 12 days, the PCR test continued to pick up SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days. The shortest time between symptom onset to a negative PCR test was 24 days.
In other words, there was no detectable live virus in patients after about seven days from onset of symptoms (at most 12 days). The PCR test, however, continued to register them as “positive” for SARS-CoV-2 for about 34 days. The reason this matters is because if you have no live virus in your body, you are not infectious and pose no risk to others.
This then means that testing patients beyond, say, Day 12 to be safe, after symptom onset is pointless, as any positive result is likely to be false. But there’s more. As noted in that New England Journal of Medicine article:17
“Viable virus was identified until 3 days after the resolution in fever … Viral culture was positive only in samples with a cycle-threshold value of 28.4 or less. The incidence of culture positivity decreased with an increasing time from symptom onset and with an increasing cycle-threshold value.”
This suggests symptomology is a really important piece of the puzzle. If no viable virus is detectable beyond Day 3 after your fever ends, it’s probably unnecessary to retest beyond that point. A positive result beyond Day 3 after your fever breaks is, again, likely to be a false positive, as you have to have live virus in order to be infectious.
Even more important, these results reconfirm that CTs above 30 are inadvisable as they’re highly likely to be wrong. Here, they found the CT had to be below 28.4 in order for the positive test to correspond with live virus. As noted by the authors:18
“Our findings may be useful in guiding isolation periods for patients with Covid-19 and in estimating the risk of secondary transmission among close contacts in contract tracing.”
Testing for Dead Viruses Will Ensure Everlasting Lockdowns
To circle back to the Curative PCR test, the company argues that the test is accurate when it comes to detecting active infection, and as CEO Fred Turner told Buzzfeed:19
“If you’re screening for a return to work and you’re picking up everyone who had COVID two months ago, no one’s going to return to work. If you want to detect active COVID, what the ‘early’ study shows is that Curative is highly effective at doing that.”
Again, this has to do with the fact that the Curative spit test has a sensitivity resembling that of a nasopharyngeal PCR set at a CT of 30. The lower CT count narrows the pool of positive results to include primarily those with higher viral loads and those who are more likely to actually carry live virus. This is a good thing. What the FDA wants Curative to do is to widen that net so that more noninfectious individuals can be labeled as a “case.”
In an email to Buzzfeed, Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, stated that using a CT of 45 is “absolutely insane,” because at that magnification, you may be looking at a single RNA molecule, whereas “when people are sick and are contagious, they literally can have 1,000,000,000,000x that number.”20
Mina added that such a sensitive PCR test “would potentially detect someone 35 days post-infection who is fully recovered and cause that person to have to enter isolation. That’s crazy and it’s not science-based, it’s not medicine-based and it’s not public health-oriented.”21
While the FDA has issued a warning not to use the Curative spit test on asymptomatic people, Florida has dismissed the warning and will continue to use the test on symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals alike. Only Miami-Dade County is reconsidering how it is using the test, although a definitive decision has yet to be announced.22
The Lower the CT, the Greater the Accuracy
While the FDA claims high sensitivity (meaning higher CT) is required to ensure we don’t end up with asymptomatic spreaders in our communities, as reviewed above, this risk is exceedingly small. We really need to stop panicking about the possibility of healthy people killing others. It’s not a sane trend, as detailed in “The World Is Suffering from Mass Delusional Psychosis.”
According to an April 2020 study23 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at just 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.
By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.
Similarly, a December 3, 2020, systematic review24 published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, which assessed the findings of 29 different studies, found that “CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture.” In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus.
“Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT,” the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24.
In cases where a CT above 35 was used, the patient had to be symptomatic in order to obtain a live virus culture. This again confirms that PCR with a CT over 35 really shouldn’t be used on asymptomatic people, as any positive result is likely to be meaningless and simply force them into isolation for no reason.
PCR Testing Based on Erroneous Paper
In closing, the whole premise of PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19 is in serious question, as the practice appears to be based on an erroneous paper that didn’t even undergo peer-review before being implemented worldwide.
November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review25 challenging the scientific paper26on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman (the so-called “Corman-Drosten paper”).
According to Reiner Fuellmich,27 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned at the beginning of this article, Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.
The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to “fatal errors,”28 one of which is the fact that it was written, and the test itself developed, before any viral isolate was available. The test is simply based on a partial genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper’s retraction, stated:29
“Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper … When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate.
They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology … the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks …
There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper … But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality …
There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to begin with. So, it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”
The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by the November 20, 2020, study30 in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in any PCR-positive cases. I referenced this study earlier, noting that not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive.
But that’s not all. After evaluating PCR testing data from 9,899,828 people, and conducting additional live cultures to check for active infections in those who tested positive, using a CT of 37 or lower, they were unable to detect live virus in any of them, which is a rather astonishing finding.
On the whole, it seems clear that mass testing using PCR is inappropriate, and does very little if anything to keep the population safe. Its primary result is simply the perpetuation of the false idea that healthy, noninfectious people can pose a mortal threat to others, and that we must avoid social interactions. It’s a delusional idea that is wreaking havoc on the global psyche, and it’s time to put an end to this unhealthy, unscientific way of life.
W.H.O and World Leaders have serious questions to answer in the upcoming trials for ‘Crimes against Humanity’
Nuremberg Trial 2.0 is in preparation, with a class action lawsuit supported by thousands of lawyers and medical professionals worldwide, led by the American-German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, who is prosecuting those responsible for the Covid-19 scandal manipulated by the Davos Forum.
In this respect, it is worth recalling that Reiner Fuellmich is the lawyer who succeeded in condemning the automobile giant Volkswagen in the case of the tampered catalytic converters, as well as succeeding in condemning Deutsche Bank as a criminal enterprise.
According to Reiner Fuellmich, all the frauds committed by German companies are derisory compared to the damage that the Covid-19 crisis has caused and continues to cause. This Covid-19 crisis should be renamed the “Covid-19 Scandal” and all those responsible should be prosecuted for civil damages due to manipulations and falsified test protocols. Therefore, an international network of business lawyers will plead the biggest tort case of all time, the Covid-19 fraud scandal, which has turned into the largest crime against humanity to ever be committed.
A Covid-19 commission of inquiry was set up in July 2020 on the initiative of a group of German lawyers with the aim of bringing an international class action lawsuit using Anglo-Saxon law.
Here’s what Reiner Fuellmich had to say on the findings of the inquiry and the questions to be answered in the forthcoming trial against the WHO and World Leaders for crimes against humanity –
The hearings of around 100 internationally renowned scientists, doctors, economists and lawyers, which have been conducted by the Berlin Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 affair since 10.07.2020, have in the meantime shown with a probability close to certainty that the Covid- 19 scandal was at no time a health issue.
Rather, it was about solidifying the illegitimate power (illegitimate because it was obtained by criminal methods) of the corrupt “Davos clique” by transferring the wealth of the people to the members of the Davos clique, destroying, among other things, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. Platforms such as Amazon, Google, Uber, etc. could thus appropriate their market share and wealth.
The three major questions to be answered in the context of a judicial approach to the Corona Scandal are:
1) Is there a corona pandemic or is there only a PCR-test pandemic? Specifically, does a positive PCR-test result mean that the person tested is infected with Covid-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing in connection with the Covid-19 infection?
2) Do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdown, mandatory face masks, social distancing, and quarantine regulations, serve to protect the world’s population from corona? Or do these measures serve only to make people panic so that they believe, without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger — so that, in the end, the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints?
3) Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied, more so than any other country, by the chief protagonists of this so-called corona pandemic (Mr. Drosten, virologist at Charité Hospital in Berlin; Mr. Wieler, veterinarian and head of the German equivalent of the CDC, the RKI; and Mr. Tedros, head of the World Health Organization or WHO) because Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world for its strict and, of course, successful adherence to the corona measures?
Answers to these three questions are urgently needed because the allegedly new and highly dangerous coronavirus has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world, and certainly not here in Germany.
But the anti-corona measures, whose only basis are the PCR-test results, which are in turn all based on the German Drosten test, have, in the meantime, caused the loss of innumerable human lives and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and individuals worldwide.
These were the conclusions of the committee –
‘The corona crisis must be renamed the “Corona Scandal”
• The biggest tort case ever
• The greatest crime against humanity ever committed
Those responsible must be:
• Criminally prosecuted for crimes against humanity
• Sued for civil damages
• There is no excess mortality in any country
• Corona virus mortality equals seasonal flu
• 94% of deaths in Bergamo were caused by transferring sick patients to nursing homes where they infected old people with weak immune systems
• Doctors and hospitals worldwide were paid to declare deceased victims of Covid-19
• US states with and without lockdowns have comparable disease and mortality statistics
• Fatalities almost all caused by serious pre-existing conditions
• Almost all deaths were very old people
• Sweden (no lockdown) and Britain (strict lockdown) have comparable disease and mortality statistics
• Hospitals remain empty and some face bankruptcy
• Populations have T-cell immunity from previous influenza waves
• Herd immunity needs only 15-25% population infection and is already achieved
• Only when a person has symptoms can an infection be contagious
• Many scientists call this a PCR-test pandemic, not a corona pandemic
• Very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive
• Likelihood of false-positives is 89-94% or near certainty
• Prof. Drosten developed his PCR test from an old SARS virus without ever having seen the real Wuhan virus from China
• The PCR test is not based on scientific facts with respect to infections
• PCR tests are useless for the detection of infections
• A positive PCR test does not mean an infection is present or that an intact virus has been found
• Amplification of samples over 35 cycles is unreliable but WHO recommended 45 cycles
• The German government locked down, imposed social-distancing/ mask-wearing on the basis of a single opinion
• The lockdown was imposed when the virus was already retreating
• The lockdowns were based on non-existent infections
• Former president of the German federal constitutional court doubted the constitutionality of the corona measures
• Former UK supreme court judge Lord Sumption concluded there was no factual basis for panic and no legal basis for corona measures
• German RKI (CDC equivalent) recommended no autopsies be performed
• Corona measures have no sufficient factual or legal basis, are unconstitutional and must be repealed immediately
• No serious scientist gives any validity to the infamous Neil Ferguson’s false computer models warning of millions of deaths
• Mainstream media completely failed to report the true facts of the so-called pandemic
• Democracy is in danger of being replaced by fascist totalitarian models
• Drosten (of PCR test), Tedros of WHO, and others have committed crimes against humanity as defined in the International Criminal Code
• Politicians can avoid going down with the charlatans and criminals by starting the long overdue public scientific discussion
• Politicians and mainstream media deliberately drove populations to panic
• Children were calculatedly made to feel responsible “for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow Corona rules”
• The hopeless PCR test is used to create fear and not to diagnose
• There can be no talk of a second wave
Injury and damage:
• Evidence of gigantic health and economic damage to populations
Anti-corona measures have:
• Killed innumerable people
• Destroyed countless companies and individuals worldwide
• Children are being taken away from their parents
• Children are traumatized en masse
• Bankruptcies are expected in small- and medium-sized businesses
• A class action lawsuit must be filed in the USA or Canada, with all affected parties worldwide having the opportunity to join
• Companies and self-employed people must be compensated for damages’
Is the writing on the wall for Gates, Hancock, Fauci and friends? Well the lawsuits have been filed and Reiner Fuellmich’s track record certainly suggests they don’t stand a chance.
A team of over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich have begun legal proceedings against the CDC, WHO & the Davos Group for crimes against humanity.
Fuellmich and his team present the faulty PCR test and the order for doctors to label any comorbidity death as a Covid death as fraud. The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% faulty at 35 cycles. All the PCR tests overseen by the CDC are set at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC admits that any tests over 28 cycles are not admissible for a positive reliable result. This alone invalidates over 90% of the alleged covid cases / ”infections” tracked by the use of this faulty test.
In addition to the flawed tests and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.
The “experimental” vaccine is in violation of all 10 of the Nuremberg Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these International Laws.
The “vaccine” fails to meet the following five requirements to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical “experiment” and trial:
Provides immunity to the virus
This is a “leaky” gene therapy that does not provide immunity to Covid and claims to reduce symptoms yet double-vaccinated are now 60% of the patients requiring ER or ICU with covid infections.
Protects recipients from getting the virus
This gene-therapy does not provide immunity and double-vaccinated can still catch and spread the virus.
Reduces deaths from the virus infection
This gene-therapy does not reduce deaths from the infection. Double-Vaccinated infected with Covid have also died.
Reduces circulation of the virus
This gene-therapy still permits the spread of the virus as it offers zero immunity to the virus.
Reduces transmission of the virus
This gene-therapy still permits the transmission of the virus as it offers zero immunity to the virus.
The following violations of the Nuremberg Code are as follows:
Nuremberg Code #1: Voluntary Consent is Essential
No person should be forced to take a medical experiment without informed consent. Many media, political and non-medical persons are telling people to take the shot. They offer no information as to the adverse effects or dangers of this gene-therapy. All you hear from them is – “ safe and effective” and “ benefits outweigh the risks.” Countries are using lockdowns, duress and threats to force people to take this vaccine or be prohibited to participate in free society under the mandate of a Vaccine Passport or Green Pass. During the Nuremberg trials, even the media was prosecuted and members were put to death for lying to the public, along with many of the doctors and Nazis found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.
Nuremberg Code #2: Yield Fruitful Results Unprocurable By Other Means
As listed above, the gene-therapy does not meet the criteria of a vaccine and does not offer immunity to the virus. There are other medical treatments that yield fruitful results against Covid such as Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc and boosted immune systems for flu and colds.
Nuremberg Code #3: Base Experiments on Results of Animal Experimentation and Natural History of Disease
This gene therapy skipped animal testing and went straight to human trials. In mRNA research that Pfizer used – a candidate study on mRNA with rhesus macaques monkeys using BNT162b2 mRNA and in that study all the monkeys developed pulmonary inflammation but the researchers considered the risk low as these were young healthy monkeys from the age of 2-4. Israel has used Pfizer and the International Court of Law has accepted a claim for 80% of the recipients having pulmonary inflammation from being injected with this gene-therapy. Despite this alarming development Pfizer proceeded to develop their mRNA for Covid without animal testing.
Nuremberg Code #4: Avoid All Unnecessary Suffering and Injury
Since the rollout of the experiment and listed under the CDC VAERS reporting system over 4,000 deaths and 50,000 vaccine injuries have been reported in America. In the EU over 7,000 deaths and 365,000 vaccine injuries have been reported. This is a grievous violation of this code.
Nuremberg Code #5: No Experiment to be Conducted if There’s Reason to Think Injury or Death Will Occur
See #4, based on fact-based medical data this gene-therapy is causing death and injury. Past research on mRNA also shows several risks that have been ignored for this current trial gene-experiment. A 2002 study on SARS-CoV-1 spike proteins showed they cause inflammation, immunopathology, blood clots, and impede Angiotensin 2 expression. This experiment forces the body to produce this spike-protein inheriting all these risks.
Nuremberg Code #6: Risk Should Never Exceed the Benefit
Covid-19 has a 98-99% recovery rate. The vaccine injuries, deaths and adverse side-effects of mRNA gene-therapy far exceed this risk. The use of “leaky” vaccines was banned for agriculture use by the US and EU due to the Marek Chicken study that shows ‘hot-viruses’ and variants emerge… making the disease even more deadly. Yet, this has been ignored for human use by the CDC knowing fully the risk of new deadlier variants emerge from leaky vaccinations. The CDC is fully aware that the use of leaky vaccines facilitates the emergence of hot (deadlier)strains. Yet they’ve ignored this when it comes to human
Nuremberg Code #7: Preparation Must Be Made Against Even Remote Possibility of Injury, Disability or Death
There were no preparations made. This gene therapy skipped animal trials. The pharmaceutical companies’ own Phase 3 human clinical trials will not conclude until 2022 /2023. These vaccines were approved under an Emergency Use only act and forced on a misinformed public. They are NOT FDA-approved.
Nuremberg Code #8: Experiment Must Be Conducted by Scientifically Qualified Persons
Politicians, media and actors claiming that this is a safe and effective vaccine are not qualified. Propaganda is not medical science. Many retail outlets such as Walmart & drive-through vaccine centers are not qualified to administer experimental medical gene-therapies to the uninformed public.
Nuremberg Code #9: Anyone Must Have the Freedom to Bring the Experiment to an End At Any Time
Despite the outcry of over 85,000 doctors, nurses, virologists and epidemiologists – the experiment is not being ended. In fact, there are currently many attempts to change laws in order to force vaccine compliance. This includes mandatory and forced vaccinations. Experimental ‘update’ shots are planned for every 6 months without any recourse to the growing number of deaths and injuries already caused by this experiment. These ‘update’ shots will be administered without any clinical trials. Hopefully this new Nuremberg Trial will put an end to this crime against humanity.
Nuremberg Code #10: The Scientist Must Bring the Experiment to an End At Any Time if There’s Probable Cause of it Resulting in Injury or Death
It is clear in the statistical reporting data that this experiment is resulting in death and injury yet all the politicians, drug companies and so-called experts are not making any attempt to stop this gene-therapy experiment from inflicting harm on a misinformed public.
What can you do to help put an end to this crime against humanity? Share this information. Hold your politicians, media, doctors and nurses accountable – that if they are complicit in this crime against humanity they too are subject to the laws set forth in the Geneva Convention and Nuremberg Code and can be tried, found guilty and put to death. Legal proceedings are moving forward, evidence has been collected and a large growing body of experts are sounding the alarm.
Visit the Covid Committee website at: https://corona-ausschuss.de/ and if you have been affected by this crime, report the event, persons involved, and as much detail to the following website:
Crimes against humanity affect us all. They are a crime against you, your children, your parents, your grandparents, your community and your country and your future.
Facebook’s secret plan to censor vaccine concerns exposed by insiders
‘They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page’
The investigative reporters at Project Veritas on Monday released a video featuring confirmation from two Facebook insiders who described the Big Tech giant’s secret plan to censor comments about the COVID vaccines.
“The company has set up a tier system to rank comments on various scales, based on how much the statement questions or cautions against the COVID-19 vaccination,” Project Veritas reported.
The issue is Facebook’s attempt to “police ‘Vaccine hesitancy’ (VH) through surreptitious ‘comment demotion,'” the report said.
Based on details provided by the insiders, Project Veritas explained Tier 2 of the plan represents “Indirect Discouragement” of getting vaccinated, and those statements would be heavily “suppressed.”
“It doesn’t matter if the comments are true, factual or represent reality. The comment is demoted, buried and hidden from view of the public if it clashes with this system,” Project Veritas reported.
According to one insider, “It doesn’t match the narrative. The narrative being, get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you. Everyone should get it. And if you don’t, you will be singled out.”
Project Veritas obtained “multiple internal documents” detailing the plans, including information on an algorithm test being run on 1.5% of Facebook and Instagram’s nearly 3.8 billion users.
Its goal, Project Veritas explained, was to “drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine hesitancy (VH) in comments.”
The insider reported, “They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it,” one insider said.
Facebook said, “We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.” But Project Veritas said the response “failed to address our biggest questions regarding transparency.”
One of the Facebook documents explains, “We aim to identify and tier the categories of non-violating content that could discourage vaccination in certain contexts, thereby contributing to vaccine hesitancy or refusal. We have tiered these by potential harm and how much context is required in order to evaluate harm.””
It continues to explain that the agenda was developed because of “concerns that exposure to, interaction with, or production of that content can negatively impact these drivers (in other words, creating barriers to vaccination).”
The company’s solutions to language it opposes including options to “remove at scale,” “remove on escalation,” demotion and more.
The company calls “vaccine interference” “Coordinating (statements of intent, calls to action, representing, supporting or advocacy) OR depicting, admitting to, or promoting interference with the administration of a vaccine, including an event, group, page, account, etc. dedicated to this purpose.”
The company’s stated options for language it cannot tolerate editorially include “remove.”
The chain of command flows down from founder Mark Zuckerberg, who notoriously contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to election officials during the 2020 presidential race with strings attached – local officials were ordered to allow leftist organizations to “help” with the election.
It goes to Facebook “research scientist” Amit Bahl, whose job is on the “Core Data Science Team.”
Source:Continue reading “Facebook’s secret plan to censor vaccine concerns exposed by insiders”
BUSTED: CDC Caught Manipulating Data to Hide New COVID Cases Among those Who Were Already Vaxxed
Chile has one of the world’s most ambitious and successful coronavirus vaccination schemes. One-third of the population has received either one or both jabs.
But for some strange reason, Chile is experiencing a surge in Coronavirus cases.
Two weeks ago, Seychelles announced a new surge in COVID cases despite being the most vaccinated country on Earth.
35% of the new COVID cases were those who were already vaxxed.
Seychelles, the most vaccinated country in the world, is seeing a surge in coronavirus cases. The island country shut down schools and sporting events this week due to the outbreak. 35% of the cases are people who were already vaccinated. Bloomberg reported: Seychelles, which has fully vaccinated more of its population against Covid-19 than any … Continue reading
This appears to be a trend.
Now the CDC is manipulating data to hide new COVID cases among those who were already vaxxed.
This is a crime.
They are willfully lying to the American public.
And they got caught.
New policies will artificially deflate “breakthrough infections” in the vaccinated, while the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.
The Off-Guardian reported:
The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease.
They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).
The trick is in their reporting of what they call “breakthrough infections” – that is people who are fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.
Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:
- False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)
- Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.
Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.
Complaints Filed Against Dem Congressman Who Profited From Investments During Pandemic
ByHank BerrienMay 21, 2021 DailyWire.comFacebookTwitterMailStefani Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images
Two complaints have been filed against Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) after reports surfaced that he bought securities at low prices, then profited after their value soared during the pandemic — and allegedly did not properly disclose his actions. He also reportedly sold shares before they plummeted.
In April 2020, Malinowski, who served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor with the Obama Administration starting in 2014, told MSNBC, “This is not the time for anybody to be profiting off of selling ventilators, vaccines, drugs, treatments, PPE (personal protective equipment), anywhere in the world,” as the Associated Press noted.
“Since early 2020, Malinowski has bought or sold as much as $1 million of stock in medical and tech companies that had a stake in the virus response, according to an analysis of records by The Associated Press,” the news agency reported. “The trades were just one slice of a stock buying and selling spree by the congressman during that time, worth as much as $3.2 million, that he did not properly disclose.”
President George W. Bush’s ethics attorney Richard Painter told AP, “It boggles my mind why he’s doing it. It’s a huge conflict of interest and not an acceptable situation.”
AP stressed that there is “no indication Malinowski acted on inside information to make his investment decisions,” but cautioned that it is “difficult to assess the full scope of his financial activity,” as almost six months after the year ended “mandatory reports to Congress detailing his trades have not been made public”
Malinowski said of not filing a disclosure that it is “a mistake that I own 100%,” although he claimed the reports were ultimately submitted. He also stated that his broker decides what trades he makes and he is unaware of specific transactions. “At no point in the last 25 years have I directed, suggested, or even asked questions about a particular trade being made by my brokerage firm,” he said, allowing that the one exception was when he was asked to sell stock after he started at the State Department.
Painter countered, “Of course he is going to say his broker makes all the decisions.”
AP reports that Malinowski’s office provided a statement from his trading firm provided a statement saying that the trades were made “without Congressman Malinowski’s input or prior knowledge.”
In 2012, Congress passed the Stock Act, which stated that it required “specified individuals to file reports within 30 to 45 days after receiving notice of a purchase, sale, or exchange which exceeds $1,000 in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities and subject to any waivers and exclusions.”
Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) commented, “I don’t know that you should be buying and selling stock when the people we represent are facing what will invariably be the most horrific and challenging years of their lives. If you are not willing to make certain sacrifices to be in public service, then perhaps there might be a different job that’s best for you.”
AP highlighted another ethical complaint involving Malinowski, when he was an assistant secretary of state during the Obama administration. After being confirmed to the position in 2014, Malinowski agreed to sell shares held in a Chinese insurance company because it posed a “heightened prospect of a conflict of interest,” yet the stock “remained in his portfolio for over a year, well beyond a 90-day window to sell that he agreed to, records show.”
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
Recently Sasha Stone hosted a 2 hour live stream event called “Focus on Fauci.” Participating in the event were Dr. Rocco Galati, Dr. David Martin, Dr. Judy Mikovits, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Dr. Martin has made tidal waves in the Alternative Media since this event, by explaining that the experimental mRNA COVID vaccines are not even vaccines, and legally cannot be called “vaccines,” because they are really medical devices.
Dr. Martin should be familiar to readers of Health Impact News (as are the other participants), as he was the featured scientist in filmmaker Mikki Willis’ excellent production: Plandemic. He exposed, for example, how the U.S. Government has owned patents on coronaviruses since the 1990s.
Here is a partial bio of Dr. David Martin from his website:
His first invention was a laser integrated system to target and treat inoperable tumors. His mathematics helped unravel the way the human body processes hormones and led to the detection and treatment of many diseases.
His observation of human behavior led to his development of technology which deciphers the intention and motivation of communication – a technology that has impacted and saved the lives of billions.
His global business activities served to develop the world’s top-performing global equity index (including the CNBC IQ100 powered by M·CAM).
He’s brought the world’s largest white-collar criminals to justice and brought the world’s most oppressed and disenfranchised transformative ways to engage.
From the starry expanses of Mongolia to the flashing lights of New York, his work is as passion-filled whether it’s with a camel herder or a global CEO. (Source.)
“This is not a vaccine.”
Here is a partial transcript of the video below explaining that the mRNA vaccines are not really vaccines:
This is not a vaccine.
We need to be really clear. We’re using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions.
This is not a vaccine. This is an mRNA packaged in a fat envelope, that is delivered to a cell.
It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator.
It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term, and they’re a legally defined term under public health law, they’re legally defined term under the CDC and FDA standards.
And a vaccine specifically has to stimulate both an immunity within the person who is receiving it, but it also has to disrupt transmission.
And that is not what this is. They have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell, it is not to stop transmission. It is a treatment.
But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of the public health authorities, because then people would say, well what other treatments are there?
Watch the full explanation by Dr. Martin below.
The entire 2.5 hour event can be viewed here on Bitchute.
People continue to talk about this virus, as it was real. It never was isolated and therefore it do not exist, period! People believe, that they have COVID 19 or figures as cases, because a PCR test is positive, and those tests are so fraudulent, that even WHO have had to admit them being worthless. Of course they are, because there is no virus and the test reacts on a tiny bit of RNA, which may be inherent in most cells on Earth, which is why they even can test positive on kiwi, durian, donkey, blank test etc. This video linked is by Spacebusters, but three doctors are featured and all are debunking the germ theory as the biggest fraud of our times. Bacteria can be isolated, but no virus ever has been isolated. Please, do watch and let us stop this fraud together. The doctors are Andrew Kaufmann, Thomas Cowan and Stefan Lanka. The latter is actually a virologist, who obviously believe and can prove, that no virus have ever been isolated.
Play video from the channels-list
— Read on s3.wasabisys.com/public-videos/play.html
Along with COVID-19 whistleblower and virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan, other scientists are making the same strong claim that the coronavirus did not come from nature, but was instead created by scientists in a Wuhan laboratory in the long-awaited new paper.
Li-Meng Yan’s Paper
According to a Newsweek report, the paper was entitled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route” and has been published on pre-print website Zenodo.
The paper was authored by Yan, who became famous overnight due to her strong claims after fleeing China to come to the US.
Yan was accompanied by three researchers affiliated with the Rule of Law of Society, which is not particularly known for working on infectious diseases.
Moreover, it appears as though the Society was founded by a former POTUS adviser that was recently charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for fraud, along with Guo Wengui, a Chinese businessman who fled China back in 2014 due to bribery charges and more.
With that, many are skeptical about the legitimacy of the paper.
‘No Credibility in Its Current Form’
Since speaking up about the apparent origin of COVID-19, many experts around the world have decided to share their thoughts about the controversial virologist, including her colleagues, with many saying Yan’s research has no scientific basis.
Now that the paper has been released, the news outlet consulted six leading experts in evolutionary biology and infectious disease, and all of them have the same reaction: the paper’s scientific case is weak.
“This pre-print report cannot be given any credibility in its current form,” said Andrew Preston, a microbial pathogenesis expert from the University of Bath in the UK.
For those who are unaware, papers that have been published in pre-print websites have not gone through rigorous peer review, which is required for papers to be published in scientific journals, meaning the paper isn’t precisely identified as a fact.
Moreover, the paper’s authors have not provided any references to support their claims, which is critical for any research paper.
What Experts Have to Say
Another scientist Newsweek talked to also pointed out an issue with the author’s explanation of the coronavirus’ genomic analysis, such as pointing to “restriction sites” in the genetic sequence of the COVID-19 virus as evidence that the virus was modified.
Arinjay Banarjee, a virologist at the McMaster University, said, “All DNA sequences in nature have restriction sites, and it is not surprising that the SARS-CoV-2 genome also has restriction sites. The evidence presented here is anecdotal.”
Banarjee is also skeptical about Yan’s claims that the furin-cleavage, a part of the coronavirus’ protein spike, was deliberately added to the virus.
Meanwhile, a University of California evolutionary biologist, Jonathan Eisen, said that the paper is “filled with unsubstantiated claims,” while another evolutionary biologist from the University of Washington, Carl Bergstrom, called the paper “bizarre and unfounded.”
Unfortunately, despite previous evidence that does back up the prevailing theory that COVID-19 came from bats, many still believe Yan’s thesis and other coronavirus theories have offered no scientific evidence.
This article is owned by Tech Times
Written by: Nhx Tingson
Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Lee Merritt:
Dr. Merritt has been in the private practice of Orthopedic and Spinal Surgery since 1995, has served on the Board of the Arizona Medical Association, and is past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. She has had a long interest in wellness and fitness and has been certified by the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine.
She is married and the proud mother of two sons, one of whom carries on the fourth-generation medical tradition as a General Surgeon, and the other, with a real job as an Electrical Engineer. In her spare time, Dr. Merritt raises chickens, gardens and enjoys a rural Midwest lifestyle.
Today, we discussed her perspectives on COVID, the uselessness of masks (from a surgeon’s perspective!), the fraud of the PCR testing, the interesting perspective that nearly 90% of people with serious COVID infection are type-A blood type, the importance of vitamin D and so much more! We packed a ton of information into this hour. Don’t miss it – and please share!
If you enjoyed this interview, just wait till you hear our Deep Dive. The 90 minute Deep Dive conversation I had with Dr. Lee Merritt was one of the best discussions I think I’ve ever had on “All Things Covid.” We talked about so many things, including who is REALLY behind this scam-demic and the spiritual ramifications of changing our DNA. This is found in The Tenpenny Files Premium area.