The Schwab study proves the Covid Vaccines are killing massive numbers of people.
What is Peer Review?
Gain of Function Research Guidance Handbook.
A thousand scientists” signed a petition warning the public against the “zealotry” of radical “veganism”
Dr. Michael Yeadon: Every Single Thing We Were Told Is a LIE
Navigating Banking + Pharma Lies
Looking Forward to the New ‘New World Order’ Tomorrow
Children must have sexual partners says the UN
What’s the greatest Army On Earth?
Fake News + Bad Journalism = New Normal
There were 31% higher deaths in the vax group in the "gold standard" Phase 3 clinical trials. How do we know that none of those deaths were caused by the vaccine? Because Pfizer didn't think so!
Federal Reserve Bank Launches Phase One of CBDC This July. FedNow is the gateway to a Central Bank Digital Currency.
Madonna Looks Demonic and Unrecognizable at Satanic Grammy Awards Show (VIDEO).
THE LEVEL OF INSANITY JUST SKYROCKETED.
Canada Criminalizes Dissent
A Zelensky in a G-string!
UK government tacitly admits the COVID vaccines are killing working age people in the UK in record numbers
The Population Controllers
The ICC Wants to Start Arresting Politicians! I Think That's A GREAT Idea!
THE SPIKE & CENSORSHIP: Sounding the Alarm
The Solution Series: Securing Your Privacy from Big Tech with Rob Braxman.
Michael Shellenberger Warns That Governments Around the World Are Conspiring to End Free Speech as We Know
Tell Your Children. A new study out of Denmark has the most disturbing findings yet about the link between cannabis and schizophrenia.
Pharma seeks to obliterate humanity and love itself.
‘Godfather of AI’ quits Google with regrets and fears about his life’s work.
Executive summary
I’ve written about the Schwab paper before, but I wanted to put it all in an article to make it easy to reference.
Basically, this study, written by top German scientists and published in a prestigious German peer-reviewed medical journal, proves that the COVID vaccines kill people. They basically started with 35 bodies who died within 20 days of a COVID shot, and focused on 5 where no other cause of death could be ascribed. All 5 had similar findings consistent with a vaccine injury and inconsistent with any other known cause of death.
This suggests that at least 5/35 or 14% of people who die within 20 days of vaccination were likely killed by the vaccine. Note that is a lower bound.
Despite having world-famous pathologist Peter Schirmacher as the senior author on the paper, the Schwab paper will never be covered in the mainstream media anywhere in the world. It was published Nov 22, 2022 and ignored by the media.
Having more than 14% of the deaths 20 days after vaccination being caused by the vaccine should be an immediate stopping condition in any sane world.
But medicine today is dictated by politics, not science.
So the vaccine will continue to be recommended and nobody will be warned about how deadly the vaccine is.
Introduction
This article on Peter McCullough’s Substack published on December 4 entitled Found Dead at Home after COVID-19 Vaccination points out that 71% of a random sample of people who died unexpectedly within 20 days of the vaccine and underwent an autopsy to determine the cause of death, died of a primary symptom that is caused by the vaccine.
If there was ever a stopping condition for an experimental intervention, that SHOULD do the trick shouldn’t it?
McCullough was describing the paper by Schwab: German scientists conclusively linked the COVID vaccine and sudden death for the first time.
From the paper:
“Our findings establish the histological phenotype of lethal vaccination-associated myocarditis.”
In plain English, it means that “the COVID shot killed people by damaging their heart.”
They looked at 35 patients; 10 were excluded as having died from pre-existing conditions, leaving 25 people.
Of the 25, the study found 5 which likely died exclusively from vaccine-induced myocarditis and no other case.
So they only examined the histopathology of five bodies (3 female, 2 male) who met the criteria of myocarditis and had no other likely cause of death because they were looking to assess whether the vaccine caused myocarditis leading to sudden unexpected death.
They basically were looking for the “cleanest” proof of death, but it’s likely that all 71% of the cases (25 out of 35) died from the vaccine, it’s just harder to “prove” that.
They pointed out that one of the 5 they investigated had herpes, but nobody ever dies from herpes so they left that patient in.
They found heart damage consistent with vaccine-induced myocarditis in all 5 cases that they examined in depth.
More interestingly is the death timing. The subjects were taken from a 20 day window, but the mean time to death was 2.5 days which matches what the Israeli MoH found in their study (see Figure 5).
“All [five] persons died within the first week following vaccination (mean 2.5 days, median 2 days).”
See Table 2 in the Schwab paper for the death timing of each case. If it was not related to the shot, it wouldn’t be clustered so close to the shot. It would be evenly distributed.
They wrote that they have NEVER seen anything like this before in any patient:
“During the last 20 years of autopsy service at Heidelberg University Hospital we did not observe comparable myocardial inflammatory infiltration.”
Then they said they they’ve ruled out everything for these 5 cases except the vaccination:
“Based on the autopsy findings and all available data, no other cause of death except (epi-)myocarditis was identified in any of the cases presented here. Hence, myocarditis has to be considered the likely cause of death.”
”In three cases, the overall autopsy findings, in particular presence of (epi-)myocarditis in combination with the absence of other plausible causes of death (especially pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, severe brain infarction or bleeding, other cardiac disease), together with the close temporal association with the vaccination event lead to the conclusion that vaccination was the likely cause of (epi-)myocarditis and that this cardiac affection was the cause of sudden death.”
My personal favorite part is that the vaccine leaves a “fingerprint” when it kills:
The latter criterion is supported by demonstration of a phenotypically identical T-cell infiltrate at the deltoidal injection site in one of the cases.
In plain English, “the damage pattern in the shoulder (injection site) was the same as in the heart.” This means if the vaccine didn’t kill the patient, this may be the greatest “coincidence” in medical history.
Schwab was the first author but Peter Schirmacher was the senior author on the paper. Peter Schirmacher is a world-famous pathologist, one of the top 100 pathologists in the world.
Schirmacher was also one of the first pathologists to link these vaccines with deaths and tell the world about it. More than a year ago, on August 1, 2021, he looked at 40 deaths within 2 weeks after vaccination and determined that at least 30% to 40% of the deaths could be linked to the vaccine. I was told that they threatened to kill his family so he went undercover which is why he was completely unreachable when I tried to contact him in August 2021).
Top cardiologists such as Dr. Peter McCullough immediately recognized the importance of this paper. See this news story on the vaccine-related COVID deaths and this FOX News segment featuring Peter McCullough. It is consistent with the research described by Dr. Ryan Cole here.
Watch this video from John Campbell entitled Myocarditis German evidence who explains the significance of the paper. Also, did you notice that throughout the video (such as at 12:10), Campbell has to expressly point out what he is “allowed” to talk about? Have you ever wondered what he would say if his speech wasn’t muzzled? Don’t people have a right to know that? Or is the public better off when clinicians’ speech is muzzled? Finally, look at all the comments on the video.
In particular, this comment tells you all you need to know about Campbell’s video:
Here is Dr. Been’s video about the Schwab paper.
The question everyone should be asking is why is this research only now appearing two years after the vaccine roll out? Why are no autopsies being done in the US? Why is nobody in the US publishing similar research?
The question for the reader is whether you have a more likely explanation for these deaths than vaccine induced?
Confirmation via the Thailand myocarditis study
Here is Dr. Moran’s video about the Schwab paper which in the first 5 minutes talks in detail about the prospective Thailand study where 7 out of 202 males developed myocarditis or pericarditis within just two weeks after their second dose of the vaccine. This is far greater than the risk of myocarditis from COVID (which creates NO added risk per this large-scale Israeli study of 196,992 unvaccinated adults after Covid infection).
A rate of 3.5% of teenage males (which is 1 in every 29 teenage males) being diagnosed with myocarditis post-vaccine is a disaster. If the vaccine isn’t causing this, what is? This cannot be simply “bad luck” that these kids all developed spontaneous myocarditis; the rate is too high and the timing is suspicious.
The precautionary principle of medicine requires us to halt the vaccine for kids, but the US ignored it, no further research is being done.
Real world confirmation
You simply can’t have 96 kids in Canada dying suddenly for no reason in just a 3 month period after the jabs rolled out. Read this article by Bill Makis which covers each case along with the pictures of everyone who died: Over 96 Canadian children ages 2-19 have died suddenly or unexpectedly in the past 3 months - a warning call for Canadian parents.
It’s behind a subscriber paywall, but the $5 to subscribe helps offset the tremendous time investment Dr. Makis made to compile the list.
Dr. Makis has written over 100 peer-reviewed medical papers.
Do you think he would even bother to spend his time on this if it wasn’t extraordinary?
Here is a subset of the 96 profiles in his article:
For more information on proving a vaccine caused death
See:
The key information is that all autopsies take tissue samples. But only half the time will they turn these tissue samples into microscope slides. Once you have the slides, they can be examined to see if there are lymphocytic infiltrates that are unusual. If there are, then the pathologist should taken further steps (such as staining) to look at the type of infiltrates such as was done in the Schwab study.
Summary
The COVID vaccine is killing people in huge numbers.
The Schwab paper is a good indicator that at least 14% of the people who died within 20 days of vaccination were killed by the vaccine, but the actual number is likely higher than that since that was the bare minimum of cases that could be definitively proved that no other cause existed. Peter McCullough went further and pointed out that 71% of the people who died within 20 days of vaccination had symptoms consistent with a vaccine-caused death.
Other papers (e.g., Rancourt, Skidmore, etc.) show the vaccines are killing on average about 1 person per 1,000 doses overall. In America, that’s over 600,000 Americans.
Interestingly, when eye drops kill a person, they are recalled. When vaccines kill 600,000 Americans, we mandate them.
Unfortunately, the medical community, health authorities, government agencies, and mainstream media will continue to look the other way because to admit the truth would simply be too embarrassing. They will not debate. They will not answer any questions we have. They simply want to censor us and avoid talking about it. And, above all, they want to make sure that the public will never see the death-vax records that will tell everyone exactly what is going on. Those records must never be disclosed.
We live in interesting times. It’s clear to anyone who looks seriously at the data that the US is killing massive numbers of people with these vaccines.
But they don’t want to hear any arguments that they may have made a mistake about these vaccines.
Update: 19.01.2023 - I’ve had several wonderful, and important comments to this post, so I’ve updated the stack. Starting with this from CK:
A mathematician once advised:
If you understand something and can prove it, then publish it in a mathematics journal.
If you understand something, but can't prove it, then publish it in a physics journal.
And if you don't understand something and can't prove it, then publish it in an engineering journal.
To this I would add:
And if you don't understand something and can't prove it and don't care anyway because you're just trying to make a fast buck, then publish it in a medical journal.
My son reminded me of the above Sagan clip recently, it is from a 1996 interview with Charlie Rose.
Sagan understood the threat that “The Science™” posed to society, and the charlatans waiting to take advantage of the public’s naivety, trust, and ignorance.
Upgrade to paid
In fact, that ignorance can be manufactured, as Toby Rogers highlighted recently:
The premise of agnotology is both simple and profound. Most people think of ignorance as the absence of knowledge. Proctor and others in the field argue the opposite — that ignorance is socially constructed in the same way that knowledge is. Powerful interests instruct society to pay attention to some things and not others through a variety of inducements (you get paid to study certain topics and not others) and punishments (you will be blacklisted if you ask too many questions about forbidden topics). Over time these values become invisible and just a part of culture.
Let me repeat:
“Ignorance is socially constructed in the same way that knowledge is.”
Ignorance can be manufactured.
Which begs the question: How?
Well, there are a variety of tactics and strategies that would sit comfortably under the label of “propaganda” or more generously under the label of “marketing”.
But whichever label you want to use, the building block, in fact the key ingredient in the propaganda/marketing dish, especially in a “scientific” culture, is the Peer Reviewed Study.
Peer Review is the truth-making, sense-making, holy grail of “knowledge” in a culture that has no ability to understand it’s high priests (The Scientists™) anymore.
If it’s peer reviewed, it must be true.
Our realities are perceived. Those realities are constructed on scaffolding. The bars, and joints and screws of that scaffolding are all made at the Peer Review factory.
Whoever runs that factory, runs “reality”.
Desmet’s book on The Psychology of Totalitarianism spends a lot of time on the problems of a culture built on Science. He comments on Peer Review this way:
The lack of quality in scientific research raises a few pressing questions, including about the blind peer review system, which is used in all scientific journals and is considered the ultimate seal of approval for scientific legitimacy. Peer review requires that a study be read and critically evaluated by two or three independent experts in the field before publication. These experts are supposed to be “blind” (they don’t know who conducted the study), but in reality, they usually do know the authors because they know the other researchers working in their field. Hence, they can usually guess who conducted the research.
For this reason, a fair assessment by an expert requires not only that he is willing and able to free up sufficient time and energy—far from given in the current academic climate. Moreover, it requires that he is capable of identifying his personal prejudices with regard to the research and its authors, and put them aside.
In other words: Peer review stands or falls on the ethical and moral quality of the expert—that is, his subjective, human characteristics.
Here is a very insightful comment left below by the Dr Mike Yeadon, that is worthy of inclusion here:
During my PhD research, I made an interesting observation which challenged the dominant narrative in the field. Encouraged by my supervisor, I wrote it up & submitted it to a good journal. During peer review, it was rejected, citing questions with the novel methodology. In fact the methodology was superior to that used by peers. I had designed it to permit estimates of in vivo pA2, using pharmacokinetic principles, which theoretically should approximate pA2 values for pure antagonists obtained in vitro.
My supervisor found out through back channels that a jealous reviewer didn’t want their body of work to be thrown into question. I managed to publish it in a lesser journal.
As a post-doc, I had extensively characterised the impact of ozone on “twitchy” (“hyperresponsive”) airways, evaluating the effect (or lack of it) of various experimental treatments (this might have helped prioritise programs for clinical trials in asthma). A leading London researcher, who’d taken on the peer review, left my manuscript to age on his desk for six months, while his lab repeated my experiments & published ahead of me. I did get published but was required to make changes to acknowledge that my work was not entirely novel. I had to cite their papers! (they were “in press”).
It’s not just peer review that isn’t always objective, though mostly it was.
In my first professional job after obtaining my PhD, doing some “skunkworks” with another researcher in analytical a chemistry, we devised a method to measure concentrations of nitric oxide (NO) in exhaled breath. I did most of the sampling from multiple species & my collaborator measured [NO] using mass spectrometry. We were the first in the world to show that exhaled breath contained NO & measuring it in trials became quite common.
The research director liked the results so much that he added his name to the manuscript and booted me off it! I got a “technical mention”!
It was one of the most-cited papers of that year. I minded at the time but looking back it simply reinforced how badly I didn’t want to become an academic.
Which brings us to one of my readers, now a mentor of mine, who is an elite researcher and peer reviewer, who shall remain anonymous for reasons obvious to all of us by now.
In a recent conversation I asked if they would be kind enough to write me an article about peer review, from an insider’s perspective. How does it work, who gets paid what and why? Where are the weaknesses in the process and how can it be influenced, manipulated and weaponised.
And so, they did; here is the piece. I am responsible for the final English edit, so any issues of grammar or expression are on me solely.
With much gratitude to The Researcher, you know who you are.
Publish or perish: What is a “peer-reviewed” paper?
Referee = peer= reviewer
1) Who can write a “scientific paper”?
Any staff with an affiliation (university, industry, hospital) can submit an article. You don’t need a degree to submit an article.
2) What is the process to be published?
The authors write the article, format it according to the standards of the chosen journal and submit it online. The publishers assign a number to the submitted article and offer it to several "peers" who agree or not to evaluate the manuscript. When the referees (usually 2 or 3) have finished, they complete an online evaluation page, with a list of standard yes/no questions on the quality or originality of the work (rated from 1 to 5) and can also send their remarks/questions, intended for the authors. The referees must indicate whether they accept the manuscript as it is, accept it with minor modifications, accept it with major modifications, refuse the article. The publisher takes note of these reports and sends them to the authors. If the article is not rejected, the authors must then respond to the remarks and make the requested changes, provided that they are relevant. Responses and edited manuscripts are resubmitted online, and reviewers have access to this and can make a second set of comments (not always the case, sometimes the editor makes the decision at that time, without re-consulting referees). A rejected article may be submitted to another journal. An accepted article will then follow the publication process (last proofreading by the authors, online publication and assignment of a unique number, payment if open access).
3) Are the authors directly paid for?
No. Publishing is part of a researcher's job, who is not specifically paid for an article. The number and level of publications by a researcher or a team is an important element of evaluation, and therefore impacts their ability to obtain future funding.
4) Is it necessary to pay to be published?
When articles are available in "open access" for readers, it means that the authors have paid. The sum is usually around 2,000 – 2,500 dollars, depending on the journal, and up to 12,000 dollars! With some journals, “open access” is the only publishing option.
5) What does “peer reviewed” mean?
It means that the article has been reviewed and critiqued by 2 or 3 “experts” in the field. Note that a researcher may be asked to review an article on a subject on which he is not at all an expert. When an editor sends an email to a researcher as an “invitation to review a manuscript”, the researcher (the “peer”) is perfectly free to accept or not. Including if they in fact are not an expert in the field. Most of the time I refuse because I know nothing about the topic or methodology.
No one evaluates the content of a referee's comments.
6) Does every scientific paper need to be peer reviewed?
This is the classic process of scientific publication, which “ensures” a certain level of relevance and quality. Possibilities of “pre-print” articles are possible, but this remains a little marginal and really less well considered.
7) Who are the reviewers?
The “peers” are scientists solicited by publishers for their expertise in the field. But it is also the case that “peers” are not necessarily experts in that field, but because of their existing relationship with the publisher (they may have submitted research in the past), they are asked to review a submission.
8) How many “peers” are there?
There are 2 or 3 for an article.
9) How do they work and how long do they have to review the paper?
They evaluate the work done in depth or not, it relies on the professional conscience of each reviewer.
10) Are they paid? If not paid, why do “peers” accept the reviewing work?
They are not paid to do this. Depending on the publishing groups, they can get a percentage discount on publishing future articles. The evaluation of articles is something essential to the functioning of research today and most researchers willingly lend themselves to it, despite the time it can take if things are done rigorously.
As a researcher, you may need to read a paper on the same topic you are reviewing, for instance to understand the data or the methodology. If you are reviewing quite the same data, it may be a way to waste time on the article for which you are referee or simply to refuse it without honest justification. But, if the paper is from friends, you can agree to be the referee and then accept the paper even if it is not deserved.
Reviewers typically have 3 weeks for a first evaluation. For the 2nd round, some publishers ask to respect a deadline of a few days, with very frequent reminders.
11) Is this process anonymous?
The process is not necessarily anonymous, the journals sometimes display the name of the reviewers for a given article, but this is a choice of the reviewer, who can therefore refuse.
12) Can “peers” kill a paper?
A referee can completely destroy an article, without true arguments.
If a referee doesn’t want a paper to be published, they just need to check the "refusal" box on the website of the journal. The reason can be as poor as “it is not in the scope of the journal”, or no reason is given at all.
13) Who are the Editors?
The editors of scientific journals are researchers in the field concerned. They are paid for this function and decide what is published or not in their journal.
14) Who owns scientific journals?
See this excellent article by Xavier Bazin, a French scientific journalist, author of 2 books with very, very strong work.
And yet, in fact, these newspapers are intimately linked to Big Pharma's interests.
First, because they agree to insert advertisements for the pharmaceutical industry in their columns.
But above all because these medical journals practice without restraint the very lucrative system of "reprinting".
Here's how it works: as soon as one of these newspapers publishes a positive study on a drug, the manufacturer buys thousands of copies of the relevant edition.[11] !
However, the massive recirculation of a single issue can generate up to 2 million euros in turnover for the magazine!
This is not nothing, when you know that the annual turnover of The Lancet is $ 40 million.[12] (and NEJM of 100 million).
In total, it is estimated that these "reprints" represent up to a third of the revenues of these newspapers.[13] !
This is all the more significant since these revenues have a margin rate of at least 80% (because it costs nothing to re-print)[14].
In short, these reprints ordered by Big Pharma make a lot of money for medical journals!
You may tell me that it is not a big problem because these journals are selfless.
But this is not the case at all! The vast majority of these medical journals are privately owned, and are therefore "for-profit"... That is, their legal goal is to earn as much money as possible.
And the directors of these journals are very well paid, thank you very much! for example, the editor-in-chief of NEJM earns the modest sum of 703,324 dollars per year, or about 60,000 euros per month.
These magazines are real businesses, so necessarily sensitive to advertising revenues and "reprints" granted by Big Pharma!
And that's not all.
Because it is also necessary to know who really directs these journals!
In any company, the real decision-maker is not the director, but the shareholder. It is the shareholders who appoint (and dismiss) the directors of the companies, and therefore decide on the strategy to be pursued.
But who are the shareholders of these medical journals?
The Lancet, for example, is owned by Elsevier, itself a subsidiary of the multinational RELX Group.
And who owns RELX Group?
Answer: financiers!
You can look at the official list of shareholders: they are essentially large asset management groups, such as BlackRock.[15].
However, these "investment funds" are known to seek and demand maximum profitability.
And as if this were not reason enough to be suspicious, you should know that the main shareholders of Elsevier are also the main shareholders... of Big Pharma!
For example, BlackRock, to name but one, is the number 1 shareholder of RELX Group, and one of the top 10 shareholders of... Pfizer.
It's even worse than that, because the number 1 shareholder of Pfizer is Vanguard Group... who is himself the main shareholder of BlackRock!
In short, these are the same players (and probably the same people) who own the leading medical journals AND the major pharmaceutical multinationals.
[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3386142/
[13] https://qz.com/2121448/medical-journals-have-incentives-to-publish-positive-drug-studies/
15) Who controls the “conflict of interest” section?
Nobody. You can write what you want.
16) If you don’t agree with a published paper, what can you do?
You can write and submit a letter to the editor or a comment, a kind of “right of reply”. The editor can refuse to publish this.
17) Are all published studies good?
No.
18) What “retractation” means?
After publication, an editor can take the decision to withdraw a study. This remains referenced, with the mention “retracted” and an associated notice of withdrawal, explaining this decision. A study can be retracted if it is very bad or fraudulent. It can also be very good and still be retracted. The authors have no way to counter this decision. However, they can resubmit the article in another journal. The mention “retracted” is very damaging for the study and for the team.
19) Are all retracted papers bad?
No.
20) Is peer review used as a tool (weaponised) to maintain orthodoxy?
It's a possibility. The mention “peer-reviewed” is an argument of authority, which does not guarantee 100% the relevance and the value of a study.
Testimonies
- Dr. AS Relman, professor of medicine at Harvard:
“The medical profession is being bought off by the drug and vaccine industry, not only at the level of medical practice but also at the level of teaching and research. Academic institutions in this country (USA) have indulged in becoming paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I find that hideous.”
- Dr M Angell, physician, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe the essential clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of reference doctors or to authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in making this observation, which I came to slowly and reluctantly over two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
- Dr R Horton, editor of The Lancet:
“A scandalous number of published studies are unreliable at best, when they are not completely misleading, in addition to fraudulent. Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
And lastly, I’ll end with this insight, in the comments, from antitermite.
Now that we understand that it is unpaid work to be a “peer”, that obviously will attract a particular type:
An institution I previously worked for had regular peer review sessions.
It was open invite, but in practice consisted of only a handful, maybe 3 regulars.
I didn't join in because it was time consuming (I was busy enough!), the subject material didn't always interest me, and most importantly, I didn't gel with the other "peers".
The sort of person who did attend the peer review sessions, were the exact same people who made it their business to be in every meeting (whether or not it directly involved them), and who never seemed to be doing any real work.
Busybodies & powertrippers.
Their productiveness so low that when they had a day off, no one noticed or cared (in fact, the place often ran more smoothly!)
I considered the peer review sessions, and all the circlejerk meetings, as ways for them to get paid to sit on their asses all day, but it was also a means of gaining influence.
Gain of Function Research Guidance Handbook
I happened to be browsing through the Intercept document released under FOI from the US Department of Health and Human Services, “Understanding the risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence”, a 2013/14 grant proposal by Peter Daszak of Eco Health Alliance, who was heavily implicated in the alleged Wuhan Lab leak, having been listed on some studies done in Wuhan with the so-called Bat Lady, Shi Zheng Li, and I happened across a few links.
One of the links led to this document, a guidance manual on “dual use” research - which is, as far as I can understand it, biotechnology that can have a civilian use and a military use.
Gain of Function Guide
In that document, which was relatively brief and fairly uninteresting, I noticed a footnote that referred to another document, “Recommendations For The Evaluation And Oversight Of Proposed Gain-Of-Function Research”, published by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. I clicked on the link and found that it had mysteriously disappeared from the internet. However it so happens that it had been archived on the Wayback Machine so I managed to download it.
You too can download it here:
Or try this link if the above doesn’t work: https://web.archive.org/web/20170107112313if_/http://osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/resources/NSABB_Final_Report_Recommendations_Evaluation_Oversight_Proposed_Gain_of_Function_Research.pdf
The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity is an experts panel that is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States.
Now it so happens that in this document there are a few interesting and rather incriminatory facts. Could it be that the paragraph at the bottom of page 14 contains a rather interesting warning about the possibility of GOF studies into coronaviruses being possibly… a bit dangerous? This is the first possibility they mention in fact.
Well, gee, laboratory acquired infections - um… it kinda looks like this might have happened, considering the fact that SARS-COV-2 outbreak apparently began in the residential quarters of the Wuhan Lab, according to the well researched investigative reporting of Alina Chan and Matt Ridley in their book Viral.
The gain of function research handbook continues:
Oh, SARS is a small risk because most of the information of interest is already published… Would that be studies that were done with ‘outsiders’ in the Wuhan Lab gain-of-functioning in the ability to bond with human ACE2 receptors on humanised mice to bat coronaviruses like the one?
November 2013 Ge XY, Li JL, Yang XL, Chmura AA, Zhu G, Epstein JH, Mazet JK, Hu B, Zhang W, Peng C, Zhang YJ, Luo CM, Tan B, Wang N, Zhu Y, Crameri G, Zhang SY, Wang LF, Daszak P, Shi ZL. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature. 2013 Nov 28;503(7477):535-8. doi: 10.1038/nature12711. Epub 2013 Oct 30. PMID: 24172901; PMCID: PMC5389864.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/
(Gee suddenly NIH won’t give me that one. Here’s the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20210811162944/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/)
They were already swapping out the spike proteins in this study. But what I can’t find in the body of the study is the humanised mouse model - however they were using the humanised mouse model, as this 2013 study is listed in a 2018 study as one of the studies that used the humanised mouse model.
Or this 2015 study (complete with a now laughable disclaimer from Nature’s editors saying “30 March 2020 Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.”)
December 2015. Vineet D. Menachery, Boyd L. Yount, Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E. Gralinski, Jessica A. Plante, Rachel L. Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A. Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi, and Ralph S. Baric. “A SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence.” Nature Medicine 21 (12): 1508–13.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
This one is also one of the studies where they were using Ralph Baric’s humanised mouse model.
And here is why we know this: a 2018 Wuhan study lists their previous work with humanized mice and bat viruses, which began in 2013:
Our previous work based on cellular and humanized mouse infection studies suggest that these viruses are less virulent than SARS-CoV (Ge et al. 2013; Menachery et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2016). Masked palm civets appeared to play a role as intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV in the 2002–2003 outbreak (Guan et al. 2003). However, considering that these individuals have a high chance of direct exposure to bat secretion in their villages, this study further supports the notion that some bat SARSr-CoVs are able to directly infect humans without intermediate hosts, as suggested by receptor entry and animal infection studies (Menachery et al. 2016).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12250-018-0012-7
Wang, N., Li, SY., Yang, XL. et al. Serological Evidence of Bat SARS-Related Coronavirus Infection in Humans, China. Virol. Sin. 33, 104–107 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-018-0012-7
Back to the GOF (Gain of Function) guide where they give this little tidbit which counsels against making a mouse-adapted virus - which is not what they were doing above - the humanized mouse models were actually made to test human transmission - via the human ACE2 receptors Ralph Baric had inserted in the chimeric mice.
I think that might just be GOFROC (Gain of Function Research of Concern) - it certainly seems to trigger Attribute 2.
And Attribute 1 apparently, for the virus they were playing around with, SARS, was a lot more transmissible than MERS.
Here are the two attributes for research to be considered GOFROC:
I can kindof see why the NIH might have deprecated this document, tried to hide it from the prying eyes of the internet, can’t you?
CLICK HERE TO EXIT THE WHO
I was recently asked (by a good journalist from the alternative media) to comment on some complicated issues in relation to birth rates, miscarriage rates, etc.
I chose not to get into a foul “debate” going on on Twitter, and I explained why not.
Here’s my note, anonymized.
I no longer waste any time on details, even important ones. Why not?
Well, because we’ve established beyond ANY doubt that:
1. *Every single thing we were told is a lie.
2. The “vaccines” not only don’t work to protect people, but they are injurious and have killed millions.
Personally I no longer believe there was any novel respiratory virus, though my beliefs don’t change anything.
See Denis Rancourt’s articles and interviews.
So arguing details just wears us out. I stick with the big picture because this is the heart of it.
If we can’t persuade people of that, humanity is going down.
Best wishes
Mike
PS: Wodarg and I were absolutely correct to warn of these toxins. Specifically, in relation to pregnant women, we NEVER ever give experimental medical interventions to pregnant women. Not even in cases where she might benefit. Prior to even contemplating that act, we demand full reproductive toxicology reports, three segments in two species. Also, a huge amount of anecdotal evidence from non-pregnant patients and usually some from inadvertently dosed pregnant women.
Only then. So blasting all pregnant women using lies to back it up? Censorship and smearing of those simply reminding people what we have done since thalidomide (60 years+) is appropriate?
No. It’s more evidence of malign acts of unconscionable evil.
PPS: by which I’m referring to 1) extent of population health threat; (2) who is at special risk and it’s not kids); (3) that lockdown worked; (4) that masking reduces transmission and is harmless; (5) that transmission from people without symptoms was a major driver; (6) that mass testing was useful and necessary; (7) that business and school closures were necessary; (8) that border restrictions were necessary (they’re STILL in force in USA, over three years since the start of this alleged “pandemic”); (9) that vaccination could EVER have been an appropriate response; (10) that early treatment of sick people, uniquely those declared as having COVID, was inappropriate, denying decades of off-label prescribing; (11) that EVERYONE needs to be jabbed, even those not at any risk, or having recovered and thus being immune, or being pregnant); (12) that certification of having been jabbed was necessary when it obviously isn’t.
The lies have not stopped. Anyone STILL believing the narrative is being paid to take that stance or is frightened of their mental state if they accept the above or is really pretty dense, intellectually.
I point out in this rhetorical question: “What’s the right number of times your health officials and government should lie to you about matters that affect your health, life, and liberty?”
Obviously, it’s ZERO. I don’t mean mistakes or ignorance. I mean knowingly telling untruthful things.
Source: https://t.me/robinmg/
A thousand scientists” signed a petition warning the public against the “zealotry” of radical “veganism”
I was amazed when I read that “a thousand scientists” signed a petition warning the public against the “zealotry” of radical “veganism” and reminding their audience that meat is “crucial to human health”. I mean, gee, scientists? Aren’t they all lined up for a totally plant-based diet—to Save The Planet from Man-Made Climate Change? (They’d also like us to eat bugs.) Where did they find a thousand scientists to say otherwise?
Navigating Banking + Pharma Lies
Looking Forward to the New ‘New World Order’ Tomorrow
Looking forward to the new tomorrow… in the coming NOW World Order the survival of the FINEST (the moral and most authentically virtuous) will determine and guide the destiny of humanity. I want all of you in this equation to deeply grasp that you are superior in every respect for holding and continuing to embrace your connection to God. We have our own unique multi-level culture that is based on the unifying principles that have existed for all of human history and will continue to exist forever. We are the Psalm 46 “be still and Know” NOW World Order generation. Zechariah 2:13 Be silent before the LORD, all people, for He has roused Himself from His holy dwelling.”
What is the greatest army
in the world?
It’s not China, America, Russia or North Korea. The greatest army in the world is the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who are taking a stand against tyranny. They have the greatest power all over the world.
The millions of people in France, the millions of people in Germany, the millions of people in the UK, the millions of people in America, the millions of people in Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc.
We are the force that will change the course of history. We are the power that will overthrow their deception. We are the army of those who speak truth to humanity.
That’s why they are so terrified of us. They want to shut us down. Label us conspiracy theorists, domestic terrorists, spreaders of misinformation, extremists. Because we frighten them.
Your power is greater than their tyranny. Your voice can take them down. Your prayers will end their rule. Your love will shatter their hatred.
Don’t be afraid. Don’t back down. Don’t hide. Don’t be afraid of them. They are afraid of you.
The 0.0003% of elitists who have been suffocating, abusing, murdering, terrorizing, torturing, impoverishing, poisoning, and deceiving all of humanity are being exposed.
They know how vastly outnumbered they are. They see the worldwide awakening that’s happening. They see how they have lost control. That’s why they desperately try to shut everyone down, by rushing their agenda of imposing digital currencies and digital ID’s. This exposes them even more. It reveals their evil hearts for all to see. The sleeping masses are even starting to sense something…
Keep speaking. Keep shouting. Keep raising the sound of deliverance. Keep spreading truth by all means. Keep showing humanity what is going on.
Give hope to the downtrodden. Speak life to those that are desperate. Lift them up. Don’t proclaim the victory of the wicked, but declare their downfall. Use your spiritual authority to herald the defeat of evil and announce the victory of good.
We are the greatest army in the whole world. There is nothing like us. Hell is terrified because we have Heaven on our side.
Stand up, speak truth, don’t back down, let the light shine. The new day will come.
On May 6th a major blow will be dealt to their strongholds of deception and destruction: the World Health Organization and United Nations will be exposed for the world as blatant pedophilia organizations.
All the evidence will be shown to humanity how the WHO and UN are using the worldwide school system to sexualize little children for the purpose of normalizing pedophilia.
Once humanity sees this, and understands how wicked the organizations are that they have blindly trusted and unthinkingly obeyed, their reign is over.
Use this unveiling as a weapon of deliverance for humanity, to take off the masks of the evil tyrants, expose them for all to see, and wake up the world.
The unveiling happens on May 6th, at StopWorldControl.com
Make sure to be there!
“Little children are sexual beings who must have sexual partners, and begin with s*x as soon as possible."
"Having s*x is a human right regardless of age. For this reason kindergartens and elementary schools must teach children to develop lust and sexual desire, learn masturbation, build same-s*x relationships, use online pornography, and learn different sexual techniques such as oral s*x.”
That is a limited summary of the guidelines issued by the World Health Organization and the United Nations to educational authorities worldwide.
Meanwhile, international judicial organizations are issuing statements that s*x between little children and adults should be legalized, while media outlets are calling for the acceptance of pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation.
Evidence report will be
revealed on May 6th
"Gender-Affirming Care" and the so-called 'Transgender Agenda' is running rampant in North Carolina, according to a recent investigative report which details how the medical-industrial-complex in that state is targeting toddlers as young as two years of age for surgical sex changes, hormone blockers, and sterilization.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated situation, as dozens of 'Gender Clinics' targeting children and adolescents popup up throughout the United States to serve a market that has grown in lockstep with a relatively recent tidal wave of anti-scientific propaganda coming simultaneously from the major media, government, and corporations which propose your sexual identity is determined by your psychological identification with a gender (or otherwise a non-binary status), and not your biological sexual characteristics.
A recent investigation by journalist Sloan Rachmuth reveals that three leading medical schools in North Carolina are now transitioning toddlers as young as two years of age, as well as training future primary care doctors on how to perform these experimental treatments, justified as they are by the egregiously fallacious notion that a toddler or young child's still inchoate and uncertain gender identity should preempt biologically determined sexual characteristics and require the permanent deconstruction of the biological basis for their sexuality and reproduction through a suite of largely irreversible medical procedures and lifelong pharmaceutical products such as hormone blockers.
For example, in this questionable medical and psychiatric model, a female toddler as young as two could be identified as "gender dysphoric" for having a preference for playing with trucks instead of dolls, and therefore be referred to a transitioning program if her parents and their medical providers believe it is in her best interest.
For example, UNC Health's 2019 "Transgender Health Program" (since removed from their website but available through WayBackMachine) lists 10 different surgical procedures in their "Gender-Affirming Care" offerings:.
Jennifer Bilek is an investigative journalist, a feminist and a leading voice really looking behind the curtain at who is pushing this TRANS AGENDA!
In this interview, we discuss one of the most controversial subjects of our time: the massive effort to promote transgenderism and to push "gender-affirming care" on children. Everyone has heard of the documentary "What is a Woman" but that film didn't dare ask: "Who is behind this?"
This interview was shot as apart of a documentary What Happened At School?
Fake News + Bad Journalism = New Normal
“You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward — reversing cause and effect. I call these the ‘wet streets cause rain’ stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
You forget what you know…
Every single person reading this article has subjects they know well — extremely well. Therefore, I invite you to start consuming content through this lens. Let’s say your thing is birds and you cringe when some major media outlet botches an article about blue jays.
Keep this reality in mind when you read anything on a topic you don’t know well. There is JUST AS GOOD A CHANCE that some journalist did a half-assed job on that article, too. Suggestions:
Don’t develop Gell-Mann Amnesia.
Read everything with a critical eye.
Stop trusting “experts.”
Take time to research and self-educate.
Make your own fact-checking the norm.
If corporations, artificial intelligence, and government overseers want to manipulate us 24/7, let’s give ‘em a run for their money.
There were 31% higher deaths in the vax group in the "gold standard" Phase 3 clinical trials. How do we know that none of those deaths were caused by the vaccine? Because Pfizer didn't think so!
I believe that the vaccine pushers knew that the inadequately tested and unnecessary covid jab was going to kill huge swathes of populations around the world.
I now believe that the deaths and the maimings weren’t side effects at all – they were the main effects. And in addition to the deaths and the serious health problems (heart disease for example) the jabs have caused serious brain damage and a new population of zombies. It is because of this brain damage that so many people readily accept digital currencies, the banishment of cash and other steps towards total slavery. The vaxxed are different to the rest of us: they don’t notice what is happening. In the land of the vaxxed, the cretin is king.
Evidence For The Truth Of The Bible: The Destruction Of Jerusalem (Video)
This entire COVID thing has introduced an award system for being non-autonomous. I implore all NOT to comply.
Guard your freedom. Guard your rights. Guard your cash. Guard your land. Guard your farms. Guard your animals. Guard your family. Tight.
Do not go against your own heart. Fight The HoHoHo (and all the bad guys including the ones within) by being you.
Madonna Looks Demonic and Unrecognizable at Satanic Grammy Awards Show (VIDEO)
“A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. You will only look with your eyes and see the recompense of the wicked.” -Psalm 91:7-8
‘Non-binary’ gay singer Sam Harris wore a hat with devil horns and performed ‘Unholy’ on stage with transgender dancers in a lake of fire.
And the devil worship was all sponsored by Pfizer.
WATCH:
Madonna, 64, looked demonic and hardly anyone recognized her.
THE LEVEL OF INSANITY JUST SKYROCKETED
The WHO published the “Zero Draft” of their proposed “Pandemic Treaty” on February 1, 2023
In my humble opinion, the “Zero Draft” of the WHO CA+ is a skillfully crafted decoy that is designed to take attention away from the proposed amendments to the IHR.
The proposed “Pandemic Treaty” is a real thing, but I have been saying for nearly a year that it is also designed to function as a decoy.
Please realize that the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations are a clear and present danger.
I will offer an analysis of the “Zero Draft” in this article, but then I will immediately refocus my attention on efforts to raise the world’s awareness of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and the need to #ExitTheWHO.
I encourage you to do the same.
The changes included in the “Zero Draft” are so egregiously bad, it should certainly cause a firestorm of outrage, but I fear that such outrage against the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” will divert attention away from the proposed amendments to the IHR and the need to #ExitTheWHO.
Don’t fall for the decoy and allow the discussion to be diverted.
Direct your outrage wisely.
Click on the hashtags below for additional information:
#StopTheTreaty
#StopTheAmendments
#ExitTheWHO
Canada Criminalizes Dissent
SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/canada/
The freedom convoy commission has delivered the verdict: Canada has criminalized dissent! Find out about the ruling and what it means for Canadians and freedom lovers the world over on this important edition of The Corbett Report.
How vaccine advocates think
An mRNA skeptic went to the World Vaccine Congress last week to find out. What he saw will disturb you.
APR 13, 2023
Last week, Dr. Madhava Setty, an anesthesiologist, decided - in his words - to go in “the belly of the beast” and attended the World Vaccine Congress, which bills itself as the “largest, most established meeting dedicated to vaccines.”
Setty didn’t find any conspiracy to depopulate the world or use nanochips to control humanity.
Instead, he discovered widespread ignorance about the data on mRNA Covid shots - combined with a deep arrogance among conference leaders toward anyone who questioned those jabs.
As Setty explained in an email to me:
It was supposed to be a fact-finding mission but within the first few hours I couldn't hold my tongue and began to ask simple but thoughtful questions of the presenters who were clearly ignorant (willfully or not) of the vast body of evidence that demonstrates that these shots are neither safe nor effective.
He has now published what he saw in a Substack that is equally enlightening and disturbing (and well worth your time).
Remember, these are supposed to be the most informed scientists and physicians, the ones who help set policy on the jabs and communicate it to the world. But for the most part, they’re still stuck in November 2020, when Pfizer and Moderna released the clinical trial results purporting to show the jabs prevented 95 percent of Covid cases. (Dr. Paul Offit is one of the few who has publicly changed his views.)
The insiders at the vaccine companies surely are better informed - but they are in no position to admit the truth publicly.
In his note to me, Setty counted himself as somewhat optimistic:
I feel that there are huge strides that can be made towards clarity if we stop calling every single person on their side a mass murderer. They know not what they are doing and are beginning to understand what is transpiring. I think we can hasten the inevitable fall of the narrative if we handle this right.
I hope he’s right, but am not so sure.
Obviously, name-calling is counterproductive (and the paranoid speculations of some of the loudest mRNA vaccine skeptics, like Dr. Michael Yeadon, do not help those of us trying to raise more serious objections), but it is very hard to talk to people who don’t even know what they don’t know, unless they have some interest in finding out.
UK government tacitly admits the COVID vaccines are killing working age people in the UK in record numbers
This John Campbell video was posted 3 months ago showing a stunning rise in excess deaths from 4,700 to 26,300. That’s a 5.6X increase. That is not statistical noise. Something caused that. But the UK authorities are silent on this. There is only one thing that could potentially cause this: the COVID vaccine. This is also consistent with the silence from authorities.
Executive summary
This video, Excess deaths in young adults, 2022 data by John Campbell, aired 3 months ago.
Here are some of the highlights:
2:46 - 3:11 The mortality of ages 20-44 is 7.8% vs. 2.5% increase for the elderly (75 to 84)… John says “this is just a HUGE difference” because young people aren’t supposed to die and it’s unusual when the increase in their deaths is 3X higher than the increase for the elderly. Then he says, “the government MUST give an explanation for this; it’s just incredible.” That’s right! But they are silent. And that’s the problem.
3:50 - 4:45 There were 31,000 excess deaths in 2022. The distribution was very very odd. The majority of these deaths were not from COVID. The distribution was 4,700 in the first half and 26,300 in the second half. So deaths were 5.7X higher in the second half. That’s huge and MUST be caused by something. What is it? The authorities are SILENT.
6:57 - 7:18: “This led to more excess deaths in the second half of 2022 than in the second half of any year since 2010”
7:15 - 8:05: John compares the 7,000 excess deaths in the most recent 3 week period with a terrorist attack. If 7,000 people in the UK were killed by a terrorist attack, would there be no coverage? Why is this different? “Not a squeak” he says.
Since the video aired, there have been no explanations by the UK authorities or anyone else for that matter. Not even Susan Oliver’s dog Cindy has dared to comment on this.
Here it is graphically so you can see the deaths weren’t caused by COVID. Also, after years of excess deaths, you always expect to see a death deficit following that when the source of the death is removed. Here we see excess deaths continuing, but they aren’t COVID deaths.
That tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?
Introduction
The UK is set up to make the COVID vaccine successful no matter how many people have to be killed.
The UK MHRA used to be the drug regulator in the UK.
Today, their role has shifted to being a vaccine enabler, precisely the opposite of their previous role as a regulatory authority.
When they see huge numbers of reports into the UK Yellow Card system (their version of VAERS), they actually think that it means that the reporting system is working (rather than the drug is unsafe).
Think I’m kidding? Watch this 17-minute video segment from UK Professor Norman Fenton (he just posted it 2 hours ago so you can be one of the first to see this). Fenton really should be doing the subtitles for all future MHRA videos so people can properly interpret what is being said.
You can also read this article on the yellow card system dropping 159,000 reports.
Next, check out the Ofcom site. They are the government censor organization that regulates media companies in the UK and will give them heavy fines if they go against the narrative. Check out what they did to Mark Steyn. OfCom was instrumental in having Mark Steyn fired. In their memo, they said Steyn was wrong, yet they didn’t show the correct number. In other words, they can declare you are wrong without telling you the CORRECT number. Convenient isn’t it?
This is why Neil Oliver has been effectively silenced. It’s not because Neil Oliver thinks the vaccines are safe all of a sudden.
Ofcom of course will not penalize you for spreading misinformation if it comports with the government narrative. So watch this video which is clearly false and misleading. The video says if you got the AstraZeneca vaccine, you cannot die or be hospitalized for any reason for the next 14 days. It basically makes you immortal. They are thinking of injecting Ukrainian soldiers with AZ since they cannot die for the next 14 days. No Ofcom sanctions on that one.
Also, John Campbell is now at 2 strikes on YouTube. One more strike and YouTube will obliterate everything he’s ever posted and ban him for life for spreading misinformation.
Because that’s the way science works in the UK where there isn’t a constitutional right to free speech like there was in America.
The Population Controllers
In the past, I have written about the Carnegie Institution in 1904 founding a eugenics experimental station at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. In 1912, elitists like Winston Churchill and Harvard University president Charles Eliot attended the first International Congress of Eugenics. About the same time, John D. Rockefeller II introduced Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger to other elitists who could provide funding for her efforts, including publication of her BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW, which in the early 1930s published an article by Hitler’s eugenics specialist Ernst Rudin. By 1952 John D. Rockefeller III and Senator Prescott Sheldon (President George W. Bush’s grandfather and member of Yale’s secret fraternity Skull & Bones) founded the Population Council to further population control. Later, I wrote a NewsWithViews column titled “The Alethea Report” about a step-by-step plan to use the press/media to promote eugenics.
Do you remember children talking about the "Lifeboat game" in school where they had to decide whom to throw overboard (kill) for the survival of the rest? Among the testimonies given to the U.S. Department of Education from March 13-27, 1984, when I was a Senior Associate there, was that of a Mrs. Dellinger as recorded in CHILD ABUSE IN THE CLASSROOM (edited by Phyllis Schlafly). Mrs. Dellinger testified: "A survival game which my 7th grade son participated in required him to eliminate five out of ten whom they did not have room for on a spaceship. This is a subtle way to accept genocide, to become desensitized to euthanasia and infanticide, and to destroy religious beliefs (for the clergyman is always the oldest, or nearly the oldest, and he is certainly to be eliminated)." And do you remember the infamous federally funded MACOS program which included a lesson presenting a positive image of some Eskimos who leave their elderly out on the ice to die of starvation or worse? The authors of THE ALETHEA REPORT even anticipated parental resistance to this type of education (p.34).
You may recall my also writing about former Planned Parenthood medical director Dr. Richard Day in 1969 describing their plan for the future as including legalization of abortion, creating hard-to-cure diseases, etc. (to see the full quote look at page 439 of the 2nd edition of my book, NOW IS THE DAWNING OF THE NEW AGE NEW WORLD ORDER (the quote was transcribed by my mother, Peggy Cuddy, whose research was used by me to a large extent in writing this book). In the same year of 1969, on March 11, Planned Parenthood-World Population vice-president Frederick Jaffe’s “Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S.”) which originally appeared in a memorandum to Population Council president Bernard Berelson, which included “Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, by Universality of Selectivity Impact,” in which one finds: “restructure family, encourage increased homosexuality, educate for family limitation, encourage women to work, compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three, confine childbearing to a limited number of adults, stock certificate type permits for children, payment to encourage sterilization, abortion and contraception, and fertility control agents in the water supply. It is noteworthy to point out that according to the Fluoride Action Network “Fluoride Affects Sperm Quality.” Note that in my NewsWithViews series and book titled “The Power Elite and the Secret Nazi Plan,” I wrote that the Nazis put a miniscule amount of a type of fluoride in the water of conquered countries (like Czechoslovakia). It narcotized a part of the brain making the people more docile and less resistant to Nazi control.
By Dennis Cuddy, Ph.D
https://newswithviews.com/the-population-controllers/
Parents’ Bill of Rights
I’m loath to use the term “Bill of Rights” lightly, for two very good reasons. First, the overuse of any term tends to diminish its value. Second, just because something claims to be a “Bill of Rights” doesn’t mean it actually is one. The bill may be very good, but that doesn’t mean it’s truly a Bill of Rights.
By Paul Engel
https://newswithviews.com/parents-bill-of-rights/
The ICC Wants to Start Arresting Politicians! I Think That's A GREAT Idea!
by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
April 23, 2023
As long-time followers of The Corbett Report will know by now, the International Criminal Court is that ridiculous, UN-spawned kangaroo court in The Hague that dispenses victor's justice at the behest of its Western backers, spending its time exclusively prosecuting Africans and asking the hard questions about Gaddafi and Viagra while studiously ignoring US and UK and Israeli war crimes.
Well, guess what? Embracing the "diversity, equity and inclusion" mantra that's all the rage in Western institutions these days, the ICC has finally gone out and issued an arrest warrant for a major European leader!
. . . If you count Russia as a European nation, that is.
That's right. In case you haven't heard by now, the illustrious international court of criminals has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of being "allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children)" and of facilitating the "unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation."
Now, while your average news consumer is busy trying to figure out why the ICC can't stop bracketing the word "children," I, for one, am too busy applauding to ponder such peculiarities of punctuation.
Yes! Arrest the politicians! What a brilliant idea!
But now that we're taking the ICC's idea and running with it, we're faced with a new dilemma: who should we arrest?
So today, let's put on our thinking caps, don our Saturnalian robes of justice and slip into our international law pants and come up with a list of politicians who should be rounded up and locked away forever for their crimes against humanity. Are you ready?
THE SPIKE & CENSORSHIP: Sounding the Alarm
Journalist Clayton Fox’s superb article in Tablet this week begins like this:
“Those raising evidence-based concerns about the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines are often labeled purveyors of misinformation, and derided as anti-scientific conspiracy theorists and paranoid kooks.”
Wow. Yep. Sounds familiar. That’s happened to us—and likely as well to all the physicians, scientists and researchers around the world who are courageously raising their voices in dire warning about the dangers to human health of the spike protein found in COVID infection and in the vaccines.
Our Dr. Paul Marik, who was interviewed for the piece, told Mr. Fox that that the only substance he’s aware of as toxic as the SARS-CoV-2 spike is cyanide. “Cyanide kills you quickly,” said Dr. Marik. “Spike kills you over a prolonged period of time.”
Overwhelming medical evidence shows that the spike can be deadly— affecting myriad bodily systems including cells, blood vessels, the lungs, and the heart. These may lead to maladies such as Parkinson’s Disease, myocarditis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jacob (an always fatal brain disease) and more.
But there are those who would prefer that you hear none of this. Dare to talk about it out loud and weak-kneed minions of the Official COVID Narrative Gang (OCNG) will be instantly dispatched to see to it that you are censored, publicly shamed, mocked, defamed, or threatened with the loss of your credentials, licensures and livelihoods, or altogether canceled.
Why? Because rigorous scientific evidence, observational studies and clinical expertise that deviate from the OCNG will clog up the flow of trillion$ of dollar$ from the vaccines and the designer molecules meant to line the pockets of OCNG members who care not one whit about your health. Big Pharma, Big Tech, public health agencies, elected officials, and major media—all are complicit.
The fix was in from the start. In early 2020, the OCNG prevented the FLCCC from widely sharing a lifesaving protocol (MATH+)—a protocol that was proven effective months after we pleaded with the media and government officials to let the world know that people did not have to die from COVID. In the interim, millions perished unnecessarily.
In the fall of 2020, when Dr. Marik first identified the data signal from numerous studies showing the efficacy of ivermectin in every phase of COVID illness, the FDA— a key cog in the OCNG wheel — called it “horse paste” because they were frightened out of their wits that this organic, cheap, globally available, repurposed drug would derail the roll-out of the vaccine$. Turns out, in the countries where ivermectin was blessed by public health authorities, millions upon millions of lives were saved. Millions of others died—again, unnecessarily.
Now, we are imploring you to learn all you can about spike protein and therapies you can employ to moderate its effects. There is help for conditions caused by spike protein. The OCNG doesn’t want you to lose faith in the vaccines, so they will attempt to convince you that this is just more “hooey” from fringe doctors. It’s not. Falling for their evil trickery again will only lead to more suffering and dying.
The Solution Series: Securing Your Privacy from Big Tech with Rob Braxman
I Have A Question For You: How Do You Know The Government Is Behind The Conspiracies? Who Drives the Narratives?
conspiracy
kən-spîr′ə-sē
noun
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
A group of conspirators.
An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
Jeremiah 11:9
9 Then the Lord said to me, “There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem.
Dr. John Coleman: The Club Of Rome & The Satanic Trans-Delusional Agenda (Video)
20+ years ago, predicted everything that happened in the last 3 years and currently ongoing. Watch Video ←
BREAKING: Former VP at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon, says there is a plan to kill millions, if not billions of people.
Dr. Yeadon ends by correctly stating that we must all “withdraw our consent,” which is another way of saying Do NOT comply:
Democrats Threaten Journalists With Prison
MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER AND LEIGHTON WOODHOUSE
·
APR 21
Watch now (5 min) | Democrats Threaten Journalists Last month, Matt Taibbi and I testified to Congress about the existence of a Censorship Industrial Complex. The night before, the US government’s Federal Trade Commission sent a letter to Twitter owner Elon Musk demanding that he “identify all journalists” involved in reporting on the Twitter Files.
The key area of action is the European Union. It is seeking sweeping new powers to regulate social media companies. And if it acts, it may change how social media companies operate worldwide, given the EU’s economic power and influence globally.
Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, large tech companies must share their data with “vetted researchers” from non-profits and academia, which would cede content moderation to NGOs and their state sponsors.
The US’s RESTRICT Act, sponsored by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), threatens 20 years in prison or a $250,000 fine for accessing blacklisted websites through “virtual private networks,” or VPNs, which are ways to create a private connection between a computer or phone and the Internet.
There has been no moment similar to this one in the roughly 30 years of widespread public Internet usage in Western societies.
Officials have introduced these policies mostly in the dead of night with little publicity or outcry. There has been a virtual blackout of what’s happening by mainstream news media corporations, with many appearing to support the new laws.
As shown with the Twitter Files, the Censorship Industrial Complex is as much about discrediting accurate facts, true narratives, and content creators who threaten its power while boosting the ones that do.
We are thus witnessing the emergence of a governmental apparatus with the power to control the information environment in ways that determine what people believe to be true and what is false.
As such, it is no exaggeration to say that the West is on the cusp of a new and much more powerful form of totalitarianism than either Communism or Fascism, which were limited in their reach by geography.
If we are to defeat it, we must understand it. Why are governments seeking to crack down on freedom of speech from New Zealand to the Netherlands and Brazil to Canada? Why now? And why are they getting away with it?
Pharma seeks to obliterate humanity and love itself
A meditation on intersubjectivity in the midst of a mass poisoning event
The toxicological component of autism then becomes even more troubling — is it possible that some chemicals, EMF, pharmaceutical products, etc. are interfering with our senses, interfering with how we relate to one another, literally making it more difficult for people to get along with each other? For me, the political economy of autism became an extraordinary case study in intersubjectivity and that’s what I studied for the next four years.
Here’s what especially interests me now, 8 years after I began to explore this topic.
We have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Pharma and its enablers in government and the media are engaged in a mass poisoning of society that interferes with the regions of the brain that are necessary to process empathy, connection, meaning, understanding, and love.
I’ve posted this video before and it’s just one ingredient (used somewhat less now) but it illustrates the point. Mercury kills the dendrites in the brain necessary to process subtle social cues between people. I imagine one could make similar videos for other vaccine ingredients such as aluminum — at which point one would instantly lose all of one’s research funding and get fired.
So Pharma and its enablers are not just killing people (although they are doing that at a prodigious rate) but they are engaged in a war against empathy, connection, meaning, understanding, and love itself. Now that we in the midst of this mass poisoning event all intersubjective relationships — friends, family, lovers, colleagues — are affected. Pharma, via the mass injections of poisons, is warping, on the cellular level, how we relate to each other.
If one wants to increase healthy intersubjectivity in society, one must stop the mass poisoning of the populace and heal bodies and brains that have been poisoned.
Tell Your Children
A new study out of Denmark has the most disturbing findings yet about the link between cannabis and schizophrenia
Cannabis now causes up to 1 in 4 cases of newly diagnosed schizophrenia in young men, Danish researchers have found.
Based on their analysis, cannabis is now by far the highest non-genetic risk factor for schizophrenia, a devastating mental illness.
Schizophrenia’s best-known symptoms are paranoia and hallucinations, but the illness also damages motivation and even reduces overall intelligence. And people with schizophrenia are at high risk of committing violence.
The study new suggests the United States, which has much higher cannabis use than Denmark, could already be seeing a rise in schizophrenia cases. But since the United States does not even try to count new schizophrenia diagnoses, knowing for certain is nearly impossible.
AI army at 29:00?
‘Godfather of AI’ quits Google with regrets and fears about his life’s work
Geoffrey Hinton who won the ‘Nobel Prize of computing’ for his trailblazing work on neural networks is now free to speak about the risks of AI
https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/1/23706311/hinton-godfather-of-ai-threats-fears-warnings
I went on a bit of a rampage this morning against the health authorities (the CDC and the California Department of Public Health)
I’ve collected the tweets here for your convenience.
Click the image to go to the tweet and give it a like and retweet.
My favorite comment was on my Turtles book tweet:
UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris engaged on my VAERS excess death post, but he’s not accepting my Twitter Spaces challenge for some reason. Someone is afraid of being embarrassed it seems.
And I want to preserve for you one more tweet that you are simply not going to believe
And Dr. Barrett sends this as his reply:
In other words, Dr. Barrett truly believes that masks, vaccines, and other mitigation measures can drop the flu cases from 38M a year to just 1,675 in 2020-2021.
This is astonishing that anyone could believe this. He should really turn in his license to practice medicine in my opinion.
He’s an embarrassment to the entire medical community and every doctor in America should be calling him out on this. But they’ll just stay silent.