Category: Vaccines

Revealed: 7 in 10 ‘Vaccinated’ CDC Employees Got COVID

BY DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA

SEE: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/04/05/covid-infections-in-cdc-employees.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data reveal 70% of vaccinated U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employees got breakthrough COVID infections in August 2021
  • March 3, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky gave a presentation at Washington University, during which she admitted that she had learned about the Pfizer shot’s 95% effectiveness from CNN, which was based on a press release from Pfizer
  • Walensky claims she was unaware the shots might lose effectiveness over time. Yet scientists around the world have long known that coronaviruses are very prone to mutation, and mutations are known to affect a vaccine’s effectiveness
  • Walensky has also accused the public of believing that “science is black and white” when, in fact, “science is gray.” Meanwhile, anyone who has held an opinion that differs from the mainstream narrative has been censored to stifle scientific debate, and Walensky has never spoken out against this effort to prevent a “black and white” presentation of science
  • Walensky has also publicly discredited the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is co-administered by the FDA and the CDC. VAERS reveals the COVID jabs are the most dangerous vaccines ever created

February 2, 2022, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request1 with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, requesting records showing “the number of COVID-19 infections, and of those, the number of breakthrough infections” among CDC employees in August 2021.

Breakthrough infections refer to infections that occur in those who have received one or more COVID jabs. On March 28, 2022, ICAN issued a legal update,2 stating they had received an official response,3 showing approximately 70% of all COVID-19 cases among CDC employees in August 2021 occurred among “vaccinated” employees.

7 in 10 ‘Vaccinated’ CDC Employees Got COVID

Following are the official numbers for June, July, and August 2021, listed in the FOIA response:4

Number of Positive Reports Number of Breakthrough Cases
June 2021 4 0
July 2021 18 10
August 2021 36 25

As reported by ICAN:5

“Now, we don’t know the percent of CDC employees that were vaccinated as of August 2021, but if the CDC’s vaccination rate reflects that of adults in the United States, it was far less than 70%.

But even if more than 70% of CDC employees were vaccinated, the fact that by the end of Summer 2021, 70% of its COVID-19 positive employees were vaccinated should have been a shocking figure and should have served as a wake-up call to the CDC about the failure of these vaccines to prevent infection.”

‘CYB Excuses’

According to ICAN, the CDC’s response included “a whole bunch of caveats, meaning, ‘cover your butt’ excuses” for why the breakthrough infections rate was so high, including that many CDC employees were telecommuting at the time and not required to report their vaccination status and/or any test results.

According to U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, who questioned CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky about the percentage of vaccinated CDC employees during a November 4, 2021, Senate hearing (above), an estimated 75% of CDC employees were working remotely during the pandemic.

Walensky claimed she did not know the true number, and the FOIA response also did not specify how many were actually working remotely. Either way, “These excuses are unpersuasive,” ICAN says, adding:6

“There is no reason to believe that CDC employees would not disclose their vaccination status. There is also no reason to believe those vaccinated would be more likely to report being COVID-19 positive. If anything, those vaccinated would have been less likely to report being COVID-19 positive given that, as the CDC itself says, ‘persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested.’”

Walensky Didn’t Realize COVID Jab Effectiveness Might Wane

Interestingly, on March 3, 2022 — the same day the CDC replied to ICAN’s FOIA request for data on breakthrough infections among CDC employees — Walensky gave a presentation to medical students at Washington University during which she admitted that she had learned about the Pfizer shot’s effectiveness from CNN.7

CNN’s report, in turn, was based on a press release from Pfizer, which stated that the jab was 95% effective. Walensky was not told, she said, that the shots might lose effectiveness over time (and a short amount of time, at that).

These are truly shocking admissions. Writing in The Disinformation Chronicle, investigative journalist Paul Thacker discussed the timeline of events that led to Walensky believing the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.8

He concluded Walensky was likely referring to a November 18, 2020, CNN report9 by Maggie Fox and Amanda Sealy, who appear to have done little to augment the story after pulling information from a Pfizer press release published the same day.10

So, what we have here is a remarkable instance where a story in CNN, regurgitated from a press release, appears to have influenced Walensky’s thinking about the injections and the future guidance from the CDC. As noted by Thacker:11

“The Pfizer press release ... became CDC pandemic policy ... [Y]ou rarely get such direct evidence of a corporation influencing federal policy by laundering their press release through media outlets like CNN. Further, republishing press releases seems a pervasive practice in how the media covers COVID-19 vaccines — meaning, they don’t do much reporting. This has been obvious since late 2020.”

Does the CDC Rely on Science at All?

Walensky’s apparent ignorance about the potential for waning effectiveness is equally shocking. Scientists around the world have long known that coronaviruses are very prone to mutation, and mutations are known to affect a vaccine’s effectiveness.

Nearly every scientist in the world expected the virus to mutate because that’s what viruses do. Yet Walensky did not consider this possibility,12 despite having been a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School with years of experience dealing with viruses.13

Even those with no expertise in virology suspected mutations might impact the shot’s effectiveness. For example, two days after Walensky’s speech at Washington University, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson wrote,14 “She’s right. Nobody could possibly have known variants might be a problem.”

Underneath, he reposted a tweet dated January 20, 2021, in which he had stated, "Spoiler alert: the vaccines probably don't work against at least one new variant and they're going to want you to get vaccinated again next fall."

By August, Twitter had permanently banned Berenson for “repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.”15 Ironically, the tweet that put Twitter over the edge compared the COVID jab to a “‘therapeutic’ with a limited window of efficacy ...” — a statement that I and many other experts would agree is 100% factual and true.

Gaslighting at Its Finest

During her Washington University appearance, Walensky also alluded to people in the media who “reject evidence,” saying,16 "There are a lot of people who are using their voice that may or may not be helpful for public health,” and that this “decreases public health in general.” For this reason, “we have to be clear” about our messaging, she added.

However, Walensky’s admissions during that talk really make one wonder who is making our public health decisions, and why. It’s difficult to imagine that one of the largest and most powerful health care agencies in the U.S. is led by a director who is basing her decisions on CNN reports and drug company press releases — and by doing so, is misleading the public. Consider that during this talk, she:

  • Admitted learning about the Pfizer 95% efficacy — information which was then used to formulate CDC guidelines — from a CNN report, which was nothing more than a republished press release from Big Pharma.
  • Claimed the CDC is transparently publishing data in a “pedal-to-the-metal” scenario17 even though The New York Times, only days earlier, had revealed the CDC is withholding crucial data from the public.18
  • Claimed “no one told her” that the virus might mutate and render the vaccine ineffective,19 yet during a Pfizer earnings call, held February 2, 2021, a financial analyst was astute enough to ask Pfizer how the 95% efficacy rate might change in light of mutations.20

Walensky also accused the public of believing that “science is black and white,” when in fact, “science is gray.” Meanwhile, anyone who has held an opinion that differs from the mainstream narrative has been censored and fake "fact-checked" so the debate over science would never see the light of day. Walensky has never spoken out against this effort to prevent a “black and white” presentation of science.

Her colleague, Dr. Anthony Fauci — who as director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has been the face of COVID-19 for the White House — has even gone on record claiming that HE is the science and that attacking his recommendations is an attack on science itself.21 Walensky, for some reason, never corrected him either.

Walensky Has Tried to Undermine Confidence in VAERS

Walensky has also publicly discredited the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is co-administered by the FDA and her own agency, the CDC.22 During her January 11, 2022, testimony before the Senate,23 Walensky stated that any death after a vaccine could be reported to VAERS.

Specifically, she used the example of an individual who gets vaccinated and then gets hit by a car and dies. She clearly implied that such a death would be recorded in VAERS and logged as an adverse reaction to the vaccine. But this is patently false.

First of all, adverse events are not automatically reported and, certainly, obvious accidents are not entered into the system as a suspected vaccine side effect.

As reported by Health Impact News,24 there are about 18 reports in VAERS that include “road traffic accident,” but most if not all relate to an adverse event, such as a heart attack, occurring while driving. They were not hit by someone else and then entered into the system. As noted by Pam Long in a January 12, 2022, Twitter thread:25

“If anyone in public health utters ‘a person can get hit by a car & report their death to VAERS’ you need stop them, in any public meeting, and demand they explain what motive would a physician have to inflate VAERS reports with car accidents or any unrelated mortality?

Despite Walensky’s & Fauci’s cliché testimony to Congress, not one person ‘got hit by a car’ & reported their own death to VAERS as a vaccine injury. Most reports are filed by medical professionals, using diagnostic language about drug reactions.”

VAERS was designed and created as an early warning system, and it works well for that. While it’s true that anyone can file a report, it’s time-consuming, requires knowledge of medical details that a patient oftentimes won’t have, and there are penalties for filing a false report. There’s absolutely no reason to suspect, let alone assume, that people are filing false reports just to make the shots look bad.

The fact of the matter is that VAERS is showing that COVID shots are the most dangerous vaccines ever created. It’s hard to imagine why Walensky would want to undermine confidence in this system — unless she wants everyone to simply ignore the warning signals it’s giving us.

CDC Has Had a Clear Pro-Pharma Agenda

During the November 4, 2021, Senate hearing, featured in the video at the top of this article, Cassidy also highlighted another area where the CDC has acted as if it’s intentionally disregarding basic science, namely that of natural immunity.

Cassidy cited research showing 92% of those who recover from COVID have T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies that provide robust immunity for at least six to eight months. Yet the CDC has refused to acknowledge natural immunity, saying those who recover still need to get a COVID shot.

Cassidy noted that the CDC has access to tens of thousands of electronic health records (EHRs) and patient identifiable data as to who tested positive and had a symptomatic infection. With that data, they could easily confirm or disprove claims that natural infection confers adequate protection against reinfection. And, if confirmed, those who have had symptomatic infection could then be excluded from vaccine mandates.

So, why has the CDC not done any prospective studies when they have patient identifiable EHRs that they can use to precisely determine who gets reinfected and who doesn’t? According to Cassidy, the only reason we don’t know whether natural immunity is as good as the COVID jab is “because we decided not to look.”

Walensky’s replies to Cassidy’s questions are as telling as the admissions in her Washington University presentation. There’s an awful lot she and the CDC apparently don’t know, including core basics.

Can a virus mutate? Walensky “wasn’t told” it could and therefore didn’t think it would. Can a mutation affect the effectiveness of the jab? Walensky wasn’t aware of such a possibility and CDC recommendations have reflected that ignorance.

How many CDC personnel are working remotely? She has no idea. How many of the CDC’s employees have been jabbed? She has no clue. Why has basic research not been done to determine whether natural immunity is as adequate as the jab? She provides some circular argument about not having unbiased correlative data, even though Cassidy just told her how the data they already have could be used to find this answer.

She pats herself on the back for her agency’s transparency, while evidence is presented showing the CDC is intentionally withholding crucial vaccine data. She says science is a gray zone while simultaneously accusing people of spreading misinformation when they don’t agree with her.

She lies about the types of adverse events that are reported to VAERS in what appears to be a blatant effort to undermine this valuable safety tool and admits to making public health decisions based on Pfizer press releases instead. The fact that 7 in 10 vaccinated CDC employees got breakthrough infections didn’t even clue Walensky into the possibility that the COVID jab might be useless.

On a side note, more evidence of this was recently revealed by Princess Cruises, which reported an outbreak onboard the Ruby Princess in March 2022, despite a 100% vaccination rate among both crew and passengers, plus proof of a negative COVID test prior to boarding.26

Just how are we supposed to trust the CDC when they seemingly know nothing about anything that matters, don’t follow the science, and protect Big Pharma to the point of undermining confidence in their own safety tools? I’ll let you be the judge.

Did NIH Researcher Steal Taxpayer Funds?

BY DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA

SEE: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/04/04/nih-researcher-stole-taxpayer-funds.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • U.S. federal law prohibits the use of “official resources,” such as federal funds or one’s job title, for private gain. A recent investigation has unveiled evidence showing Dennis Carroll, former director of the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Pandemic Threat Program, may have done just that
  • It appears that while Carroll oversaw the USAID PREDICT program, PREDICT funds were used to promote and further the Global Virome Project that Carroll cofounded. The goal of the Virome Project is to collect and catalog 1 million viruses from wildlife in an effort to predict which ones might cause a human epidemic
  • Emails released under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) suggest Carroll’s work on the Virome Project began in March 2017, and that his work as USAID’s leader in viral surveillance and as the chair of the Global Virome Project overlapped for three years
  • The USAID PREDICT program also funded laboratory equipment for the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China through grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, and Shi Zhengli, a top coronavirus researcher at the WIV, not only worked with PREDICT but was also slated to work with the Global Virome Project
  • Metabiota, a core partner in the USAID PREDICT program, is funded by Rosemont Seneca (an investment fund co-managed by Hunter Biden) and In-Q-Tel (a CIA venture capital firm that specializes in high-tech innovations for U.S. intelligence agencies). The U.S. Department of Defense’s Threat Reduction Agency has also funded Metabiota to operate biolabs in the Ukraine

U.S. federal law prohibits the use of “official resources,” such as federal funds or one’s job title, for private gain, be it your own gain or someone you know. A recent investigation has unveiled evidence showing Dennis Carroll, former director of the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Pandemic Threat Program, may have done just that. As reported by investigative journalist Paul Thacker:1

“While at USAID, Dennis Carroll oversaw a federal program called PREDICT, from which funds were used to launch another organization called the Global Virome Project. After leaving USAID, Carroll then became chair of the Global Virome Project’s board.

‘It would appear that Dennis Carroll violated federal law that prohibits the use of official resources for private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which he is associated personally,’ Craig Holman of Public Citizen said when shown emails2 made public by the nonprofit US Right to Know.

‘Official resources — including government means of communications, government-funded travel or even the use of one’s official title — may not be used to promote private interests, such as the Global Virome Project.’”

U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) obtained the incriminating documents3 through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to USRTK,4 it appears Carroll first designed the PREDICT program as a proof of concept for the Global Virome Project, and while he was receiving six-figure paychecks ($166,500 in 2019) from the USAID, he then founded, promoted, and raised funds for the Global Virome Project, in some instances using USAID funding to do so.

Goals of the PREDICT Program and Global Virus Project

The USAID PREDICT program involved identifying viruses with pandemic potential. Contractors funded through this program have included the EcoHealth Alliance, headed by Peter Daszak who, incidentally, in the last year has also gotten into hot water over potential violations of law.

According to Thacker, in early March 2022, Congressional members sent a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), asking the agency to investigate EcoHealth for potential “contract irregularities and anonymous private donations, in violation of a federal statute.”

The Global Virome Project was launched to hunt down and catalog previously unknown viruses around the globe. According to USRTK, the Global Virome Project is currently trying to obtain $1.2 billion to fund the collection and identification of more than 1 million viruses from wildlife, with the goal of predicting which ones might evolve to infect humans.

Virus Researcher May Have Siphoned Taxpayer Funds

As detailed by USRTK and Thacker, USAID appears to have funded overseas travel to promote and fundraise for the Global Virome Project using PREDICT program monies — all while Carroll was still heading the USAID.

What’s more, emails suggest Carroll may have used his position as USAID director of pandemic threats to build credibility for the controversial Virome Project and get it off the ground. As just one example, in an August 2017 fundraising pitch, one of the Global Virome Project board members stated that the idea for the project was “championed by the USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats Division.”5

Based on the emails obtained, it appears the USAID Pandemic Threats Division, under Carroll’s direction, funneled at least $270,969 to the Global Virome Project.6 However, it could potentially be hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

One email states that the Virome Project’s budget was overdrawn by $118,000 and that a $116,000 unobligated sub-award earmarked for Columbia University was offsetting the overdraft.

That email also referenced a $341,000 sub-award that would be given to Metabiota for a cost-benefit analysis once “the balance of our Y5 [year 5] obligation is received from USAID, but please let me know if this is unacceptable, and I’ll see what can possibly be done (creative accounting required).”7

Walter Shaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics called the evidence “troubling,” as Carroll’s use of a USAID email address is prohibited if the Global Virome Project is not a government project, but his own.8 Kedric Payne, senior director of ethics with the watchdog group Campaign Legal Center, also commented, telling USRTK:9

“The law is clear that officials cannot use government resources to benefit themselves or prospective employers. If Carroll was involved in decisions benefitting GVP while he was at USAID, it is likely that he needed approval from the agency’s ethics officials. The public has a right to know if their public officials comply with conflict of interest laws.”

Similarly, Scott Amey, general counsel for another watchdog group called the Project on Government Oversight, stated, “There’s [sic] numerous conflict of interest laws that should be investigated here to ensure that Carroll didn’t violate the laws on the books.”10

Carroll’s Work on the Two Projects Overlapped for Years

While Carroll has publicly stated that he founded the Global Virome Project after he retired from USAID, this does not appear to be the case. While it’s still unclear when Carroll actually retired from USAID, the Los Angeles Times reported that PREDICT was shut down in September 2019, and according to The New York Times, Carroll retired when PREDICT shut down.

In February 2020, several news outlets reported that Carroll had stepped in as chair of the Global Virome Project.11 However, USRTK claims12 the emails show Carroll’s work on the Virome Project began in March 2017, and “indicate that Carroll’s work as USAID’s leader in viral surveillance and as the chair of the Global Virome Project overlapped for years.”

“Carroll organized calls and meetings on the project’s work with other co-founders, sought donations and helped refine fundraising pitches, pushed favorable messages in the press, and consulted on its application for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service — all while still working for USAID,” USRTK reports.13

Public Citizen Craig Holman told Thacker:14

“Whether or not Carrol is currently receiving lucrative compensation as chair of the Project is beside the point. [He] can still be held liable, even though he has left federal service. The Inspector General’s office should investigate whether the law was broken and, upon finding probable cause, refer the case to the Department of Justice for prosecution.”

On a side note, the FOIA documents also reveal a connection to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. It appears the USAID PREDICT program funded laboratory equipment for the WIV through grants to the EcoHealth Alliance.

Of course, we also know that EcoHealth Alliance funneled funding from the National Institutes of Health to the WIV by subcontracting research to them. According to USRTK, Shi Zhengli, a top coronavirus researcher at the WIV, not only worked with PREDICT but was also slated to work with the Global Virome Project.

In one March 2019 email from Daszak to someone at USAID (the recipient’s name has been redacted), Daszak notes that lawyers had flagged the overlap in Carroll’s role at USAID and the Virome Project as potentially problematic, and had suggested changes to a board of directors’ letter.

The details of what were changed have been redacted, but Daszak’s comment seems to imply that they’re aware that what they’re doing is not quite right. Daszak wrote: “I realize this isn’t the language you wanted, but it’s safer for us at this sensitive point where we still receive USAID funding ... for GVP related activities.”15

Lofty Goals That Have Resulted in Nothing

While Carroll has described the Global Virome Project as “the beginning of the end of the pandemic era,”16 critics have pointed out that the premise behind it brings more risk than reward. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota told USRTK:

“If I thought there was a kind of ‘viral smoke alarm,’ I would invest everything imaginable in that, but this project doesn’t give us that ... Deep knowledge about Zika and Nipah has still not led to proven vaccines against them ...

Show me one thing they’ve done that has made a difference, where they could even make a case that they supposedly prevented a pandemic. Which one did they prevent? Did they find anything that helped us with this coronavirus?”

Other critics include University of Sydney evolutionary biologist and virologist Edward C. Holmes, University of Edinburgh virologist Andrew Rambaut, and Scripps Research virologist Kristian G. Andersen. In a 2018 Nature article17 titled “Pandemics: Spend on Surveillance, Not Prediction,” the trio wrote that the Global Virome Project is unlikely to predict or prevent future pandemics because animal viruses rarely cause epidemics in humans:

“Around 250 human viruses have been described, and only a small subset of these have caused major epidemics this century. Advocates of prediction also argue that it will be possible to anticipate how likely a virus is to emerge in people on the basis of its sequence, and by using knowledge of how it interacts with cells (obtained, for instance, by studying the virus in human cell cultures). This is misguided.”

Curious Biden-China-Ukraine Connections

Other curious connections that are emerging from this story revolve around Metabiota, which was a core partner of the USAID PREDICT project, and later contracted to perform a cost-benefit analysis for the Global Virome Project. As detailed by the Daily Expose:18

•One of Metabiota’s investors is Rosemont Seneca,19 an investment fund co-managed by Hunter Biden.20

In an exclusive report,21 the Daily Mail recently reported that evidence found on Hunter’s laptop confirms that he helped secure “millions in funding” for Metabiota, a U.S. contractor in Ukraine “specializing in deadly pathogen research,” which is what the Russian government on March 24, 2022, had claimed during a press conference.

•Neil Callahan is a cofounder of Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, and he not only sits on Metabiota’s board of advisers, but he also co-founded Pilot Growth Management, which is Metabiota’s primary investor.

•Another Metabiota funder is In-Q-Tel, a CIA venture capital firm that specializes in high-tech investments that support or benefit the intelligence capacity of U.S. intelligence agencies.

•Metabiota is also funded by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to operate biolabs in Ukraine.

The founder of Metabiota, Nathan Wolfe, also has ties to the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is driving The Great Reset agenda. He’s a WEF Young Global Leader graduate and was awarded the WEF’s Technology Pioneer award in 2021.

Wolfe has served on the EcoHealth Alliance’s editorial board since 2004. In 2017, he co-wrote a study on coronaviruses in bats together with Daszak (EcoHealth). Wolfe has also received more than $20 million in research grants from Google, NIH, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others.

According to the Daily Expose, Wolfe also has ties to deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. In his 2012 book, “The Viral Storm,” Wolfe thanked friends for their support, including Epstein and Boris Nikolic. Nikolic, a biotech venture capitalist, was named “back-up executor” in Epstein’s will.

Take Action

There are many things here that we, the American people, need to get to the bottom of, starting with the misuse of taxpayer funds. To that end, if you live in the U.S., I would suggest you contact members of Congress and ask them to investigate22 the potential unlawful actions of Carroll during his time at USAID.

The U.S. Congress has the power to conduct investigations into potential criminal conduct, and if malfeasance is found, they can then refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and prosecution, if appropriate.23 To find out who your Congressman is, and their contact information, see USA.gov.

The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids

BY DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA

SEE: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/04/03/comirnaty-emergency-use-authorization.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The reason our children are being targeted by COVID mandates is that vaccine makers want to get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule
  • Once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety issues and withholds that information
  • Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization: There must be an emergency; a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective; the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product, and there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained
  • According to a U.S. federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not interchangeable
  • Comirnaty is not fully approved and licensed. It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce, and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not yet available in the United States. They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, to get the liability shield

In this interview, Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty.

Mayer, board president of Children's Health Defense — California Chapter, is herself vaccine injured; not from the COVID jab, but from a series of vaccines she received 20 years ago. (Incidentally, Mayer grew up in the Oscar Mayer family in the 5th generation descended from the original Oscar Mayer, a German immigrant who started as a butcher boy. Despite Mayer’s vaccine injury, her family does not share her views on vaccine safety issues.)

Mayer graduated from Duke University with a BA and from Northwestern University with an MBA in finance and management strategy. She worked for Apple in the mid-1990s. When she was 29, Apple promoted her to acting manager of worldwide customer research.

In preparation for a family trip to Bali, her doctor recommended getting six vaccines: hepatitis A vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and oral typhoid, which she did. Eventually, 13 years later, she finally realized it was these shots that triggered her health problems.

“They gave me brain damage and total disability,” she says. “I spent three years in my early 30s being 80% housebound, and I really I didn't know if I was ever going to get better.

I went through a whole bunch of diagnoses: lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease. Ultimately, none of those made sense and none of the treatments made me any better, until we put the pieces together and figured out that I was actually vaccine injured.

It's literally just a cause and effect. If you look back at my history and lay out my vaccine schedule, you can see that my health declined two weeks after I got the vaccines.

I had encephalitis and encephalopathy ... digestive issues, hypersomnia — sleeping 16 hours a day — flu-like symptoms, a 24/7 migraine, joint pain. I really had no life at all in my early 30s until I went on a gluten-free diet. That started my health recovery.

I then became an award-winning medical journalist with a bunch of different blogs, and then a health consultant. In 2018, I retired from all that and joined Children’s Health Defense.”

The COVID Jab Tragedy

While many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID.

What’s more, while lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being highlighted by the COVID jabs.

Many now know of someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot in turn highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children.

According to Mayer, the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries.

Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability

The COVID shots currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:

“I put together a slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what's really going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the behaviors [we’re now seeing].

They’re falling all over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start to clarify it right now.

This presentation is all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government are never going to let go of ... These are the things they're guarding with their lives.

First of all, they need to guard the emergency ... so they cannot have any early treatments. Those cannot exist. They're also going for full liability protection, and children will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.

Vaccine makers love EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you're injured by an EUA vaccine, you can't sue the manufacturer, you can't sue the person who gave it to you, you can't sue the institution where you got the shot.

You have to go through something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where they'll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for pharmaceuticals and lost wages.

Now, if you're vaccine injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you sicker. You'll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you're going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that's going to get you better if you're vaccine injured is natural treatments ...

That's the kind of treatment you're going to need, and that's not even covered, even if you were to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it's a child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme disease, they're paying $50,000 out of pocket per year.

If you can't work and you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don't know how you ever get by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”

Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the end, rarely provides adequate compensation.

“If you do end up getting compensation ... they don't pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually going to die of their injuries before they get compensated.

That's been said to me a bunch of times by people who've been through this horrible process. Now, the CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation, but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]

Stages of Liability: EUA

In her slide show, Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.

“Investigational is a synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on [without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical treatment.

[The Nuremberg Code] is not a law, but it's a code under which the whole world is supposed to be operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as well ... So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it's basically the same as an outright mandate.

It's illegal medical segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.] So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that's medical segregation.

That is illegal and I do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn't either. Any access privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a bracelet ... that's also illegal because that creates segregation and medical apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]”

Importantly, mass violation of the law does not make something legal.

“If we all drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it's not going to happen. Mass violation of the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn't make it legal. It's all illegal ...

Now, they know full well that it's illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows it's illegal. But what they're counting on is that the court cases overturning their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it's worked.”

Stages of Liability: Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling

The next stage is full licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.

To get immunity against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow the government to mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:

“This is the holy grail if you're a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children's schedule.”

DOJ Redefines Medical ‘Consequence’

In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2 the court held that service members could refuse an EUA product without punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments. Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing an EUA product, other than the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease.

However, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences” just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a person refuses an EUA vaccine.

“But this type of consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says. “That's not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of authority.

They also stated twice — and this is so hard to understand because it's just beyond reason — that the right to accept or refuse an EUA product is 'purely informational.'

Literally, you can read that you could die by taking it, but it's purely informational. You cannot act on it. That's what the DOJ says. Again, it's not adjudicated, so it doesn't mean anything. It's an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”

Four Standards for EUA

There are four standards that must be fulfilled for an EUA. If any of these criteria are not met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market. And that doesn't just mean vaccines. It also includes PCR tests and even surgical masks.

The second standard is evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order to qualify. For an EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.

Now, you probably heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3

For example, if a study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in 1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.

The take-home message here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up. Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well.

“I remember an analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.

The third standard is that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good.

The fourth and last standard that must be met is that there can be no adequate, approved, and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the market.

“This is a four-legged stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your EUA products off the market ... by law. I put [state of] emergency and [treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy.

This means that every variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the emergency going to keep their products on the market.

You would think this emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90% vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t] go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full liability shield.”

Comirnaty’s Quasi Approval

With regard to Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:

“Comirnaty’s quasi approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn't have to do with Pfizer, and this is why I'm doing this presentation because I'm going to explain what’s going on with that.

This is the race to get liability protection. Remember, that's the other stranglehold that they want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability.

There's all this confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate legal? It's all the same answer. No, no, no, no.

The FDA issued an intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty. It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying it's ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it's ‘legally distinct.’

In that same approval, they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they did this BS dual approval.

So, [Comirnaty] is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not available in the United States. It's available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not available in the United States because they're really scared of liability.

Now, are you ready for this one? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for approval.’5 It doesn’t say it's approved anywhere in the document. And they buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more.

Here's what they said; ‘We're deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16. For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed.’

Why did they do this? Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18. That's a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country. Why 16?

The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children's vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That's why this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”

Comirnaty Is Not Fully Licensed

This confusion is clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it's also legally distinct. Courts have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They're not interchangeable. That means Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn't have full approval and it's not on the market.

“Military members involved in lawsuits are challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate. They filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are interchangeable. So, we're still hammering on this legally, but a court has ruled that they're not interchangeable.

[Editor’s note: This information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]

So, how do we know that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it's an EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn't have liability protection. Third, if it were available, it's an alternative [treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market.

No. 4, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children's recommended schedule. That's how we know it's not fully approved and on the market.

Here is the label for Comirnaty. It says it's emergency use authorization. It doesn't say it's fully approved, because it's not. But look at the safety information they are recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who've received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males.

So, this is saying that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and children in schools have died of heart attacks. That's what's going on here.

And the reason they have to declare this is because they know it. They know it's happening. And the only way they can be sued is if they know there's a problem with their vaccine and they don't declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as if it's not that big of a deal, but it's a very big deal. Young people are dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID ...

The holy grail is to get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they're going after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate ...

Every medical intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn't calculate for kids at all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don't prevent transmission. They don't prevent cases. They don't prevent hospitalization or death.”

How You Can Help

Children’s Health Defense has sued the FDA over the approval of Comirnaty, alleging that this is a “bait and switch” to convince people they are receiving a licensed vaccine, when in fact they are getting an EUA vaccine that cannot be lawfully mandated. Unfortunately, these kinds of legal cases can take a long time, and children are being needlessly harmed while we wait for legal clarification.

They also have a couple of dozen other legal cases underway. If you want to help, please sign up to become a member of childrenshealthdefense.org. It’s only $10 for a lifetime membership.

“That really helps us with standing in our legal cases, because the more people we represent, the stronger our cases are,” Mayer says. If you're in California, you can join the local chapter at ca.childrenshealthdefense.org. You can also help by purchasing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.”

This book is an absolute must-read and you know people are enjoying it as it has been No. 1 on Amazon for the last month, which is very unusual for a book. It will likely be one of the top bestsellers of the entire year. So, get your copy before Sen. Elizabeth Warren convinces Amazon to ban it!

Brighteon-Dr. Tenpenny: Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Being Threatened for the Next Pandemic

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny of https://www.tenpennyimc.com/ and https://vaxxter.com/ joins The Alex Jones Show to break down what she sees for the future of humanity under medical tyranny rule.

https://www.infowars.com/posts/world-council-for-health-slams-whos-pandemic-treaty-threat-to-sovereignty-inalienable-rights/

The Pandemic Treaty Is a Spreading Plague

BY DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA

SEE: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/30/who-pandemic-treaty.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The globalist cabal wants to monopolize health systems worldwide, and a stealth attack is already underway in the form of an international pandemic treaty, proposed by the World Health Organization
  • The treaty is a direct threat to a nation’s sovereignty to make decisions for itself and its citizens and would erode democracy everywhere. Not only would the treaty empower the WHO to mandate COVID jabs and vaccine passports globally, but it could potentially also expand the WHO’s power to dictate all health care policy worldwide
  • The treaty would also give the WHO the power to censor health information worldwide. This would be disastrous, as the WHO has a long history of corruption and health policy failures that are intrinsically linked to conflicts of interest
  • When people are harmed by the WHO’s health policies, there’s no accountability because the WHO has diplomatic immunity
  • Bill Gates, the second-largest funder of the WHO, has also been funding pandemic exercises, including Event 201 and the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s exercise on international response to deliberate biological events. This scenario involved a deliberate release of a genetically engineered bioweapon — a pneumonic plague — for which there is no available treatment. Both exercises were held in 2019

The globalist cabal wants to monopolize health systems worldwide, and a stealth attack is already underway in the form of an international pandemic treaty.1 The negotiations for this treaty began on March 3, 2022.2 As reported by The Pulse (video above):

“Coming off the back of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization is proposing a new pandemic treaty they’re hoping will be accepted by enough member countries to become a reality by 2024.”

According to Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “me-first” approaches “stymie the global solidarity needed” to address global threats. His solution? Give the WHO all the power.

Over the past two years, in the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalists have justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties, and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment. Now, the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership permanent, and to extend it into the health care systems of every nation.

Treaty Threatens National Sovereignty

As noted by The Pulse, “there are a number of things in the treaty that the people of the world need to consider before going down this path.” In the featured video, The Pulse’s Joe Martino interviews Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, a member of the steering committee of the World Council for Health, who points out that the treaty gives the WHO:

“... an inordinate amount of power to make decisions in sovereign countries as to how people live and how they deal with pandemics, from lockdowns to mandates over treatment.”

In short, it would create a one-size-fits-all approach to disease, without regard for all the varying situations found in individual countries, and this is something we already know doesn’t work. The treaty is a direct threat to a nation’s sovereignty to make decisions for itself and its citizens and would erode democracy everywhere.

At the same time, it would cost each member country millions of dollars to participate in this process. As explained by Mohamed, the treaty will need to go through a voting process at the World Health Assembly in 2023. They need a majority for it to pass and, if passed, all member countries will be bound by it.

The Treaty Is ‘Invalid and Unlawful’

Another concern raised by Mohamed is that many countries don’t even know about this treaty as of yet, and it’s possible that the WHO might try to push for earlier implementation than 2024 — all without public participation or input. “It is undemocratic, it is unconstitutional and therefore it makes the treaty invalid and unlawful,” she says.

She also highlights the WHO’s history of corruption and many health policy failures, which are “intrinsically linked to conflicts of interest.” In an open letter on the WHO’s pandemic treaty, the World Council for Health writes, in part:3

“The proposed WHO agreement is unnecessary, and is a threat to sovereignty and inalienable rights. It increases the WHO’s suffocating power to declare unjustified pandemics, impose dehumanizing lockdowns, and enforce expensive, unsafe, and ineffective treatments against the will of the people.

The WCH [World Council for Health] believes that the people have a right to participate in any agreement that affects their lives, livelihoods, and well-being.

However, the WHO has not engaged in a process of public participation, which is evidence that its priority is capturing more power for itself and its corporate accomplices, than serving the interests of the people. Without an unbiased democratic process, any agreement by the WHO, acting via the United Nations, will be unlawful, illegitimate, and invalid.

Historically, the WHO leadership has failed the people. Among many examples, it approved the injurious H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine for a controversially declared pandemic.

Equally, the WHO failed during the COVID-19 chapter as it encouraged lockdowns, suppressed early preventive treatments, and recommended product interventions that have proven to be neither safe nor effective.

The WHO cannot be allowed to control the world’s health agenda, nor enforce biosurveillance. While it receives funding from public sources belonging to the people, it is caught in a perpetual conflict of interest because it also receives substantial funding from private interests that use their contributions to influence and profit from WHO decisions and mandates.

For example, the Gates Foundation and the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine promotion alliance, contribute over $1 billion a year.”

Another concern is the fact that when people are harmed by the WHO’s health policies, there’s no accountability because the WHO has diplomatic immunity. According to Mohamed, “the WHO should not be making ANY decisions about world health in the future.”

The Ultimate Power Grab

As noted by Martino, while the treaty claims to be focused on pandemic planning and responses, there’s serious concern that it could be expanded to cover other areas of health as well. Mohamed agrees, saying that it could potentially be expanded, using the WHO’s constitution as the basis for that expansion. Article 2 of the WHO’s constitution states:

“In order to achieve its objective, the functions of the Organization shall be: a) to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work ... k) to propose conventions, agreements and regulations, and make recommendations with respect to international health matters ...

s) to establish and revise as necessary international nomenclatures of diseases, of causes of death and of public health practices ... v) generally to take all necessary action to attain the objective of the Organization.”

Its power is already very significant, and the goal to turn the WHO into a global health dictatorship is virtually written into its constitution. Also, remember that the WHO removed the specificity of mass casualties from the definition of a pandemic, so now a pandemic can be just about any disease that occurs in multiple countries. Even obesity could theoretically qualify. So, the WHO could claim power over health care systems in any number of ways, given the chance.

Treaty Would Grant WHO Power to Mandate Vaccine Passports

While most of the world is more than ready to move on, the WHO seems unwilling to let go. A WHO official recently told the Ottawa Citizen that the COVID pandemic is still “far from over.”4

The reason for this reluctance to declare the pandemic over is likely because the WHO hopes to gain the power to mandate vaccine passports and COVID jabs worldwide. It’s already working on the creation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity program. As reported by WEBLYF:5

“Under the guise of a ‘trust network,’ another initiative called Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) is also gaining momentum.

Partnering with big tech companies, big corporations, and big universities, VCI describes itself as ‘a voluntary coalition of public and private organizations committed to empowering individuals with access to verifiable clinical information including a trustworthy and verifiable copy of their vaccination records in digital or paper form using open, interoperable standards.’

VCI’s SMART Health Cards, as reported by Off-Guardian, are already implemented by ‘25 states in America, plus Puerto Rico and DC, and have become the US’s de-facto national passport.’ As explained in the article:

‘The US government, unlike many European countries, has not issued their own official vaccine passport, knowing such a move would rankle with the more Libertarian-leaning US public, not to mention get tangled in the question of state vs federal law.

The SMART cards allow them to sidestep this issue. They are technically only implemented by each state individually via agreements with VCI, which is technically a private entity. However, since the SMART cards are indirectly funded by the US government, their implementation across every state makes them a national standard in all but name.’”

United Tribes of New Zealand Denounce the WHO Treaty

As noted by NZDSOS,6 “Is this the way we want to live our lives? Constantly at the behest of shadowy individuals and corporations who monitor our every move and determine what we can and can’t do, down to buying food?”

In a formal letter of notification to the WHO and the Executive Board of the World Health Assembly, the government of Aotearoa Nu Tireni in New Zealand strongly denounced this and any other treaty that challenges national sovereignty:7

“... you are thereby formally notified that the Wakaminenga Māorigovernment of Aotearoa Nu Tireni/New Zealand does not consent in any shape of form to any type of international pandemic treaty under the WHO or its assembly. Any such construct shall be void ab initio.

We, as United Tribes and Hereditary Chiefs, represent the only current legitimate government in New Zealand. The current NZ government represented by Jacinda Ardern is an illegitimate government because it is a corporation (SEC CIK #0000216105) listed on the US Security & Exchange Commission as Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand.8,9

In accordance with the Clearfield Trust Doctrine, a corporation does not have any implied right to govern a sovereign people. We hereby register our vote of no confidence in the actions or authority of the corporation unlawfully posing as a government in our territory.

This unlawful Ardern government and its ministers stand charged by the Nga Tikanga Māori Law Society and the Wakaminenga Maori Government of Nu Tireni with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity related to their wilful disregard for the suffering and loss of life resulting from their unlawful response to the engineered bioweapon known as COVID-19 and the unlawful forced administration of a poison to our people and forced medical experimentation.

Also charged with serious crimes related to a pandemic response, the WHO and Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus have no standing or authority to form any binding agreement related to a pandemic response, in any jurisdiction and we command that these attempts shall cease and desist immediately pending the outcome of these charges under Rome statutes 6, 7 and 8, filed in the international Criminal Court 6 December 2021 ...

You are hereby directed to cease and desist discussions or negotiations with the unlawful Arden Government, a NZ Corporation, known as Her Majesty Queen in Right of New Zealand. The Wakaminenga Maori Government of Aotearoa Nu Tireni reserves the right to discuss/negotiate with any international partner(s) of its choice, including the World Council for Health (WCH).”

Treaty Would Create Global Censorship of Health Information

The treaty would also give the WHO the power to censor health information worldwide. On the European Council’s web page discussing the pandemic treaty, under the headline “Restoring Trust in the International Health System,” it states:10

“The agreement ... will set the foundation for better communication and information to citizens. Misinformation threatens public trust and risks undermining public health responses. To redeem citizen trust, concrete measures should be foreseen to improve the flow of reliable and accurate information as well as to tackle misinformation globally.”

In other words, under this treaty, we can expect even greater censorship than what we’ve experienced so far. Tech companies have already proven where their allegiance lies, and it’s not with the public.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others have de-platformed just about everyone who posts health information that runs counter to what the WHO is saying, real-world data and verifiable facts be damned. Financial platforms have also banned people for the same reason. Now imagine there is a binding international law that makes all that censorship mandatory.

Their Playbook Was Revealed in 2019

Officially, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second-largest funder of the WHO, second only to the U.S. government,11 but the combined contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO as of 2018.12

Gates has also been funding pandemic exercises, including Event 201,13 held October 18, 2019, which gained notoriety for its extraordinary accurate “predictions” of the COVID pandemic mere months before it was declared. Other co-sponsors included the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

However, earlier that year, on February 14, 2019, Gates also funded the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s (NTI) pandemic exercise for senior global leaders on international response to deliberate biological events, which took place in Munich, Germany.14,15

NTI was founded to assess and reduce threats associated with the proliferation of nuclear weapons,16 but they’ve since expanded to include biological threats.17 Gates has also given grants to the NTI for vaccine development in relation to biological threats.18

While Event 201 featured a fictional coronavirus outbreak, the NTI exercise involved a response to “deliberate, high consequence biological events.” In other words, a deliberate release of a genetically engineered bioweapon — in this case, a pneumonic plague — for which there is no available treatment. This exercise scenario was the first of its kind. The video above features a summary of the four-phase exercise.

Curiously, in mid-November 2019, The Guardian, The New York Times,19 The Washington Post20, and others reported that two people in China had in fact been diagnosed with pneumonic plague.21

In addition to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the NTI event was sponsored by the Wellcome Trust, the “philanthropic arm” of GlaxoSmithKline and an investor in Vaccitech, which owns the patents to AstraZeneca’s COVID jab.22 Both Gates and Wellcome are part of the technocratic globalist network that is pushing The Great Reset forward.

Another sponsor was Georgetown University,23 which also curated the World Economic Forum’s library of COVID-19 treatments (primarily focused on antivirals and COVID gene transfer injections).24

Curation was done by three Georgetown University professors and Rebecca Katz, director of the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security.25 Katz is also listed as an author on the NTI paper,26 “A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event,” published June 2019, in which they review the conclusions reached from that February 2019 exercise.

‘A Spreading Plague’

Together, these two pandemic exercises — both of which were sponsored by Gates — form a playbook for how to set up a biological attack and then hide the truth from the world so that you can not only profit from it in the short term but also centralize power, permanently transfer wealth and change the social and financial order to your own liking in the process.

Not surprisingly, a number of Event 201 participants also partook in the NTI’s exercise,27, and hold positions within technocratic institutions like Wellcome, the WHO, and the World Economic Forum.

Event 201, in particular, focused not on finding remedies and saving lives, but on how to control “misinformation.” A vast majority of that exercise centered around the creation of effective propaganda and censorship. Similarly, “A Spreading Plague” also includes the recommendation to enlist private companies as “assets” to carry out the globalists' bidding:28

“In 2019 and 2020, international organizations, including the WHO, UNODA [United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs], and the World Economic Forum, should convene private sector companies to identify gaps and concrete next steps to strengthen the capability of companies to provide assets to assist with international response for deliberate biological attacks and other high-consequence biological events.”

In the NTI scenario — in which a fictional country called Carta is found to have engineered and released a biological weapon into the neighboring country of Vestia — we also see curious parallels to current-day accusations by Russia, which claims biological weapons research was being conducted in Ukraine, necessitating defensive action.

All in all, the NTI tabletop exercise only adds to the evidence pile that suggests the COVID pandemic was premeditated and preplanned for financial and geopolitical purposes. It was a power grab.

The pandemic treaty with the WHO is precisely what the World Economic Forum and its allies now need, as it will put the technocratic cabal firmly in charge of the biosecurity of the whole world, and empower them to implement the rest of The Great Reset agenda.

You can learn more about The Great Reset on the World Economic Forum’s website29,30 and in Klaus Schwab’s book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset”31 (but you might want to review the overwhelmingly negative comments on Amazon first).

As noted in a July 21, 2020, World Economic Forum article,32 the economic devastation caused by COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns “has the potential to hobble global prosperity for generations to come.” The answer, according to the World Economic Forum, is for countries to make sure the economic system is “built back better.”

Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound. Part of the “building back better” is to shift the financial system over to an all-digital centrally controlled currency system that is tied to a vaccine passport and/or digital identity system.

Together, they will form a pervasive system of social control, as desired behaviors can be incentivized and undesired ones discouraged through loss of various “privileges,” including access to your own finances. Digital currency can even be programmed by the issuer so that it can only be used for certain types of purchases or expenses.

While it’s going to be very difficult to stop this runaway train that is The Great Reset, part of our defense is to oppose and prevent the WHO’s pandemic treaty from becoming reality, as we’ll lose our national sovereignty if it does.

Blood of COVID-vaccinated people found to contain strange artifacts (graphene oxide?)

The real pandemic – Covid-19 or Graphene Oxide? Poisonous Nano-Material found in Covid Vaccines ...

CONFIRMED! Graphene Oxide Main Ingredient In Covid Shots | The Liberty Beacon

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-03-29-covid-vaccinated-peoples-blood-contains-strange-artifacts.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) There is a strange and disturbing phenomenon occurring that suggests covid-“vaccinated” people now have tainted blood.

Strange “artifacts” are being reported by doctors who are using a darkfield microscope to analyze blood samples from people who have been jabbed. Steve Kirsch is calling these artifacts “land masses” because of how they appear on slides.

Only vaccinated patients have these land masses, which appear as foreign objects amid normal blood cells.

Kirsch spoke with Dr. Ryan Cole, whom we have written about before. The duo is unsure what these artifacts truly are, though there is speculation that they might be graphene oxide particles.

‘There are people who think the sheets are graphene oxide, but they haven’t proved [sic] it,” Kirsch writes.

“Some people think you can do the identification using mass spectroscopy, but other experts say that graphene oxide is just carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen so it isn’t going to be easily detectable.”

There are “clever ways,” Kirsch says, to look for graphene oxide in the vials themselves, but obtaining one without its contents having to get injected into someone’s body first is difficult.

If the artifacts are graphene oxide, then they could be creating nano-level tracking and control bio circuits in people’s bodies

Someone named Phil Walsh who spent several decades as a microscopist and tissue culture specialist says that these artifacts were never seen pre-covid. They are an entirely new phenomenon, he contends.

“My best guess is that these are, indeed, atom-thick layers of graphene oxide/hydroxide which will easily fold multiple times into one ‘land mass’ structure,” Walsh writes.

“I believe the reason for keeping the vials at such low temperatures before use is because the tiny nanometer-sized graphene flakes will begin to self-aggregate into larger and larger hexagonal honeycomb-like sheets at room temperature and above.”

If true, this would explain the micro-coagulation observed in the delicate capillary vessels, as well as the concomitant rise in troponin levels observed in the “fully vaccinated.”

“I’d suggest repeating the blood examination and viewing immediately before desiccation occurs,” Walsh suggests to anyone trying to figure out the situation scientifically. “You also might want to bring a magnet close to the slide to see if any movement can be detected.”

Graphene oxide possesses what Walsh describes as “interesting paramagnetic properties.” If the artifacts are, indeed, graphene oxide, then these sheets could be present for the purpose of constructing nano-level bio circuits and sensors to be used by the world’s overlords for tracking and control of the “vaccinated” herd.

“The state-of-art of this type of tech is thoroughly mind-blowing,” Walsh warns.

“Accessible information in the public sector is alarming enough. What DARPA and other entities have come up with over many decades is probably beyond what any of us can even imagine.”

Drs. Carrie Madej and Robin Wakeling are also investigating covid “vaccine” vial contents, speculating as to how the potential inclusion of graphene oxide could be for the purpose of triggering the creation of self-assembling foreign structures inside people’s bodies.

“I can’t figure out why people aren’t up in arms over being poisoned almost daily,” wrote one perplexed reader at Kirsch’s Substack blog in response to the revelation.

“I feel cheated, lied to, and my life is over because I took the vax,” expressed another in distress. “Biggest mistake of my life. I don’t want to die and leave behind my wife and kids.”

Others suggested remedies for possibly detoxifying the body of these chemical poisons. Among the recommendations were NAC (n-acetyl-l-cysteine), black seed oil (nigella sativa), turmeric, and pine needle tea.

More related news about the damage being caused by Fauci Flu shots can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources include:

SteveKirsch.substack.com

NaturalNews.com

___________________________________________________________________

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ABOUT GRAPHENE OXIDE (OR DIOXIDE) IN COVID VACCINES:

https://ratherexposethem.org/?s=GRAPHENE+OXIDE

Police arrest one of Reiner Fuellmich’s grand jury lawyers, place her in custody in effort to block investigations into global vaccine crimes

France : D’autres nouvelles de Virginie de Araujo-Recchia ...

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-03-28-police-arrest-reiner-fuellmich-grand-jury-lawyer.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Virginie de Araujo-Rechhia, a French lawyer on Reiner Fuellmich’s Grand Jury team, has reportedly been arrested at her home and taken into custody.

On Mar. 22, 2022, de Araujo-Rechhia was picked up by police amid her work with three different citizens’ associations in France that are trying to bring criminal charges against politicians who voted for an Aug. 5, 2021, law that brought in a wave of repressive Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) restrictions.

The full circumstances surrounding de Araujo-Rechhia’s arrest remain unknown. Most of the news outlets reporting on it say that her current whereabouts are unknown.

“We don’t fully know the circumstances under which such a measure was decided and what she is being charged with,” one report explained. “We have been trying since this morning to determine where she has been taken.”

“All our efforts in this regard have so far been in vain. Thanks for circulating this message, without changing a single word. We’ll keep you informed as soon as possible.”

Governments conspire with the media to spread “panic propaganda 24/7,” Fuellmich says

In case you missed it, Fuellmich assembled a coalition of lawyers and judges to prosecute the crimes against humanity that were committed in the name of “public health.”

Dubbed the Peoples’ Court of Public Opinion, this coalition recently gathered in Germany, where Fuellmich is from, to compile all of the details about what corrupt leaders have done under the directive of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

“This case, involving the most heinous crimes against humanity committed under the guise of a corona pandemic, looks complicated only at first glance,” Fuellmich said in his opening statement.

“One, there is no corona pandemic, but only a PCR test ‘plandemic’ fueled by an elaborate psychological operation designed to create a constant state of panic among the world’s population. This agenda has been long-planned.”

One of the people who joined Fuellmich was de Araujo-Rechhia, who is now apparently being targeted by the state, potentially in retaliation for her work on the project.

In France, conditions degraded quickly under the authoritarian leadership of Emmanuel Macron, who imposed harsh restrictions on the French people, including Fauci Flu “vaccine passports.”

There were massive protests against Macron’s fascism, but ultimately France was still plunged into a tyrannical nightmare under his directives.

A similar situation occurred in Germany, Fuellmich’s homeland, where leaders similarly imposed harsh measures aimed at stopping society from living any kind of normal life.

“[Covid’s] ultimately unsuccessful precursor was the swine flu some 12 years ago, and it was cooked up by a group of super-rich psychopathic and sociopathic people who hate and fear people at the same time, have no empathy, and are driven by the desire to gain full control over all of us, the people of the world,” Fuellmich says about how this was all tried before.

According to Fuellmich, governments work together with the corporate-controlled media to spread “panic propaganda 24/7.” This is what he, de Araujo-Rechhia and others involved with the fight are trying to stop.

As we learn more about the situation with de Araujo-Rechhia, we will keep you informed about it in follow-up articles.

“Does this jury have real power to enforce their decisions? Only if the military and police forces of many countries listened to them,” commented someone at Natural News about Fuellmich’s Peoples’ Court of Public Opinion.

“In the modern world, neither national nor international law is functioning anymore. For modern rulers, an agenda is more important than any law or established convention.”

The latest news about the ongoing fight against the plandemic tyrants can be found at Pandemic.news.

Sources for this article include:

HumansAreFree.com

NaturalNews.com

SCOTUS Rules Against Navy SEALs in Vax Mandate Case

SCOTUS Rules Against Navy SEALs in Vax Mandate Case

BY VERONIKA KYRYLENKO

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/scotus-rules-against-navy-seals-in-vax-mandate-case/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The United States Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Navy can make its own decisions on whether to deploy sailors, including SEALs, who refuse to receive a Covid shot.

The Supreme Court’s decision reverses the decisions of a district judge in Texas, where a case brought by 35 special warfare service members (26 of whom were SEALs) was originally filed, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in early January saying that the Navy must allow members of the elite special operations community to opt-out of the vaccination mandate if they have religious objections. The injunction also prohibited commanders from making any changes to the SEALs’ military assignments based on a refusal to be vaccinated.

In late February, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an emergency stay of a preliminary injunction filed by the Department of Defense, arguing,

The Navy has not accommodated any religious request to abstain from any vaccination in seven years, and to date it has denied all religiously based claims for exemption from COVID-19…. But evidence … suggests that the Navy has effectively stacked the deck against even those exemptions supported by Plaintiffs’ immediate commanding officers and military chaplains.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who ordered all troops to get vaccinated against Covid back in August 2021, had urged the nation’s highest court to remedy what he claimed was “an extraordinary and unprecedented intrusion into core military affairs.”

A sworn declaration in the case was filed by Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral William K. Lescher. According to NPR, Lescher claimed “that the illness of even one member of a small SEAL team due to COVID-19 could compromise a mission.” He added that it would be a dereliction of duty “to allow unvaccinated personnel into an environment in which they … risk the lives of others.”

Notably, the DOD did not seek to block the part of the federal judge’s ruling that said service members cannot be disciplined or discharged as a result of refusing the Covid shot.

Still, the SCOTUS listened, with three justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas — dissenting. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion in which he said, “Under Ar­ticle II of the Constitution, the President of the United States, not any federal judge, is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.” The justice concluded there was “no basis in this case for employing the judicial power in a manner that military commanders believe would impair the military of the United States as it defends the American people.”

Echoing the Biden administration’s narrative on the dangers associated with being unvaccinated, Kavanaugh also argued that “ordering unvaccinated person­nel into an environment in which they endanger their lives, the lives of others, and compromise accomplishment of es­sential missions,” is, basically, a “dereliction of duty.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justices Alito and Gorsuch wrote that the court “does a great injustice to the 35 respondents” who “appear to have been treated shabbily by the Navy.”

The SCOTUS “essentially gives the Navy carte blanche to warehouse respondents for the duration of the appellate process, which may take years” by issuing a “partial stay” on the lower court’s order and by using the “language proposed by the government,” wrote the justices. They assumed that this decision would be “career-ending” for the plaintiffs.

To succeed, the administration must show that it can defeat the servicemen’s rights granted by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and their free-exercise claims. Yet, “it cannot make that showing,” argued Alito and Gorsuch.

The justices pointed out that “all the evidence available at this stage suggests that the Navy gave no real consideration to respondents’ requests, and the Navy had no compelling need to proceed in that fashion.” They described how the Navy established a 50-step exemption procedure, and

Only at step 35 was someone in this chain [of reviewers] told to read the exemption requests, but it appears that this individual was not given an opportunity to recom­mend that a request be granted.… Instead, this person’s sole task was to record pertinent information on a spreadsheet and send the package on to the vice admiral.

The result of such a procedure was “not surprising,” said Alito and Gorsuch. “Although more than 4,000 exemption requests had been submitted by February 15, 2022, not a single one had been approved when the complaint, in this case, was filed.”

Military.com notes that the SCOTUS’s Friday decision will likely impact other legal challenges against the Defense Department over the Covid vaccine mandate, “including a potential class-action suit filed in Florida by 30 unnamed officers and service members seeking relief from the order.” In that case, the judge ruled in early March that the Navy could not remove one of the plaintiffs, a destroyer commander, for refusing the shot.

In mid-February, a federal judge in Georgia issued a similar hold for an Air Force officer, arguing that the officer’s constitutional and statutory religious rights should be respected.

According to the Navy’s official website, 4,462 active components and 3,265 Ready Reserve service members remained unvaccinated as of March 23.

So far, the service has granted a total of 13 permanent medical exemptions and 220 temporary medical exemptions, while also granting zero permanent religious exemptions and nine temporary religious exemptions.

The deadline for active-duty Navy service members to be fully vaccinated was November 28, 2021. Ready Reserve Navy service members were given until December 28, 2021. 

The Navy has already booted 652 servicemen for refusing the Covid shot.

According to USA Today, at least 98.5 percent of the Navy’s active and reserve members have been immunized against Covid.

Frontline Flash™ Daily Dose: ‘THE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SHOT’ with Dr. Peterson Pierre

Sources:

https://normanpilon.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/covfr_manuscript_supplement_v2.pdf

https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Seneff_costBenefit.pdf

https://openvaers.com/covid-data/child-reports

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-vaccine-for-ages-5-to-11

Dr. David Martin: We are allowing human organisms to become bioweapon factories

Dr. David Martin: We Are Allowing Human Organisms To Become Bioweapon Factories https://rumble.com/vy9wm1-dr.-david-martin-we-are-allowing-human-organisms-to-become-bioweapon-factor.html

The Covid mandates are tools for desensitizing people to extensive gene editing and manipulation via the ‘vaccine’. Dr. David Martin, a speaker at the upcoming Let’s Go Brandon rally in Florida, joined the Stew Peters Show Wednesday to expose the dangers of the jab-induced toxic spike protein, water contamination, and more. Dr. Martin detailed how Big Pharma acknowledges the illegality of their injections, yet they continue to test them on the masses, killing thousands.

BRIGHTEON VIDEO MIRROR SOURCE:

US Government Paid News Media $1 Billion to Promote Vaccines

BY DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA

SEE: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/25/us-government-paid-media-to-promote-vaccines.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by TheBlaze shows Health and Human Services spent $1 billion for a media campaign to build public confidence in, and uptake of, COVID-19 vaccines using mainstream news outlets
  • News outlets that did respond to TheBlaze assured them the editorial staff are not influenced by advertising money, but it's not hard to imagine management would not look kindly on editorial staff who write content that doesn't align with the advertising narrative
  • Mounting evidence demonstrates why the government is paying for a good press since insurance companies reported a rise in all-cause mortality in late 2021
  • The first batch of Pfizer documents the FDA used to approve Comirnaty (Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine) was released March 1, 2022; mRNA technology inventor Dr. Robert Malone believes these papers show a break in the indemnification clauses, exposing Pfizer to potential civil and criminal liability

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released information to TheBlaze1 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The information showed that the federal government had purchased advertising to the tune of $1 billion taxpayer dollars as part of a media campaign to build vaccine confidence.

HHS2 has billed the campaign as a “national initiative to increase public confidence in, and uptake of, COVID-19 vaccines while reinforcing basic prevention measures such as mask-wearing and social distancing.” Data don’t support these measures, but the media campaign was likely hiding something more sinister.

HHS Paid News Media to Build Vaccine Confidence

Within the documents sent from HHS, TheBlaze3 found that hundreds of organizations in the news media were paid to produce TV, print, radio, and social media advertising timed to coincide with the increasing availability of the genetic therapy shots.

The government also collaborated with social media influencers whose audience included “communities hit hard by COVID-19” and also engaged “experts” to be interviewed and promote the mass vaccination campaign in the news.4 One of those experts was the director of NIAID and chief medical adviser to the White House, Dr. Anthony Fauci.

In other words, Fauci, the man who has been the “face” of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021,5 who publicly disparaged anyone who questioned the data he was using to support his recommendations, and who blithely referred to himself as “the science,”6,7 was, in fact, a shill.

Virtually every one of the news organizations paid by HHS, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the New York Post, covered stories about the vaccines and did not disclose they had accepted taxpayer dollars to support the vaccine effort. It is common practice for the editorial teams to function separately from the advertising departments, so it appears the organizations felt there was no need to disclose their funding.

The advertising took several forms, including an amusing social media campaign featuring Elton John and Michael Caine, fear-based ads that featured survivor stories, and straightforward informational ads promoting the safety and efficacy of the current mRNA shot for COVID-19.

Shani George, vice president of communications for The Washington Post made a statement about the funding they received for media advertising from the federal government, saying:8

"Advertisers pay for space to share their messages, as was the case here, and those ads are clearly labeled as such. The newsroom is completely independent from the advertising department.”

A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Times also responded to TheBlaze and gave a similar response. Other publications either did not respond or declined to comment. However, it is important to note that the reporters and editorial staff responsible for news also likely read their own publications or watch the online videos.

It’s not hard to imagine that a large news organization promoting vaccinations through their advertising department would not look kindly on editorial staff who choose to report facts that do not align with large sums of money spent by advertisers. You can guess what the editorial staff may be told to write. TheBlaze offered several examples of thinly disguised advertising published as “news,” including:

  • An October BuzzFeed9 article featured "essential facts" about eligibility for the vaccine and unbalanced, pro-vaccine statements from health agency experts such as CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and epidemiologist Dr. George Rutherford.
  • Articles in the Los Angeles Times10 featured "experts" advising people how to convince their vaccine-hesitant friends and relatives to change their minds.
  • A Washington Post article covered "the pro-vaccine messages people want to hear."11
  • A Newsmax article in November ran the headline "Newsmax Opposes Vaccine Mandate, Here's Why."12 The article, obviously an opinion piece, began by saying the mandate was a "dangerous overreach" and then proceeded to support the vaccine campaign with statements like, "The vaccine …has been demonstrated to be safe and effective" and "Newsmax has encouraged citizens, especially those at risk, to get immunized."

Journalistic Objectivity Likely Impossible

The U.S. government is not the only entity to recognize the power behind controlling the news media. Bill Gates is another. Using more than 30,000 grants, Gates has contributed at least $319 million to the media, which senior staff writer for MintPress News Alan McLeod revealed.13

Recipients included CNN, NPR, BBC, The Atlantic, and PBS. Gates has also sponsored foreign organizations that included The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, and Al Jazeera. More than $38 million has also been funneled into investigative journalism centers.

Gates’ influence within the press is far-reaching, from journalism to journalistic training. This ultimately makes true objective reporting about Gates or his initiatives virtually impossible. MacLeod writes:14

“Today, it is possible for an individual to train as a reporter thanks to a Gates Foundation grant, find work at a Gates-funded outlet, and to belong to a press association funded by Gates. This is especially true of journalists working in the fields of health, education and global development, the ones Gates himself is most active in and where scrutiny of the billionaire’s actions and motives are most necessary.”

It is important to note that Gates has an intense interest in health, specifically vaccinations.15 And with this power to control the media and his strong connections with health organizations such as Johns Hopkins, with whom he collaborated for Event 201,16 it’s not hard to imagine that his influence can be seen in many of the stories you read or watch each day.

This government overreach into the Fourth Estate is not unique to the U.S. Leaked documents17 have demonstrated that the BBC News and Reuters have also been involved in a covert operation in which the U.K. sought to infiltrate Russian media and promote a U.K. narrative using a network of Russian journalists.

Multimillion-dollar contracts were used to advance these aims, which included 15,000 journalists and staff. The campaign closely follows a U.S. clandestine CIA media infiltration campaign launched in 1948 called Operation Mockingbird.18,19 About one-third of the CIA budget, or $1 billion each year, was spent on bribes to hundreds of American journalists, who then published fake stories at the CIA's request.

While it may sound like ancient history, there's evidence to suggest it continues today. Although the messages have changed with the times, the basic modus operandi of dissemination remains the same. Other reports20,21,22 have also highlighted the role of intelligence agencies in the global effort to eliminate "anti-vaccine propaganda" from public discussion, and the fact that they're using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools to do so.

Facts Reveal Reason Government Is Paying News Media

All-cause mortality and death rates are difficult statistics to change. People are either dead or they're not. There is only one reason a person is included in the National Death Index Database: They have died regardless of the cause. Evidence is mounting that all-cause mortality is rising to levels greater than were seen during 2020 at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OneAmerica,23 a mutual insurance holding company, announced the death rate in working-age Americans from 18 to 64 years in the third quarter of 2021 was 40% higher than pre-pandemic levels. Other insurance companies are also finding similar results and citing higher mortality rates.24

The Hartford Insurance Company announced mortality had increased 32% from 2019 and 20% from 2020 to 2021. Lincoln National also reported claims increased by 13.7% year-over-year and were 54% higher in the fourth quarter compared to 2019. Funeral homes are posting an increase in burials and cremations in 2021 over 2020.25

The overall mortality increase noted after the global release of the COVID shot is also being reported in other countries. A large German health insurance company reported their data26,27 were nearly 14 times greater than the number of deaths reported by the German government. The health insurance company gathered the data directly from doctors who were applying for payment from a sample of 10.9 million people.

A reporter from The Exposé28 notes that while the world has been distracted by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the U.K. government quietly released a report29 that confirmed 9 in every 10 deaths from COVID-19 in England were in people who were fully vaccinated.

Each week the U.K. Health Security Agency publishes a surveillance report. The February 24, 2022, report shows 85% to 91% of adults who are infected, hospitalized, or died from COVID-19 were fully vaccinated.

Pfizer Documents Show Vaccines Not Fully Safe

Four days after the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine for ages 16 and older, a group of public health professionals, doctors, scientists, and journalists submitted a FOIA request to release the data Pfizer used for the approval of Comirnaty.30 The nonprofit group of professionals is called the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT).31

Despite the FDA’s claim that the organization was committed to transparency,32 the agency first requested 55 years33 to release the data that supported the approval of Comirnaty after the FOIA was filed and then asked for another 20 years to fully comply.34 All told, the FDA wanted 75 years to release documentation that supported their approval of a genetic therapy being promoted for mass vaccination.

When the FDA did not release the data, the PHMPT sued the FDA since it is the FDA’s statutory obligation35 to publish the documentation within 30 days of approving a drug. Although they asked for 75 years, on January 6, 2022, the court ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages of the documents each month so they would be completed within 8 months.36

March 1, 2022, the first of those documents were released and have been posted for public view on the PMHPT website.37 What’s included in these documents may answer the question of why the government felt $1 billion was required to boost vaccine confidence.

An initial review of some of the papers by one Trial Site News reporter revealed many errors and anomalies. In an interview with Stephen Bannon, mRNA technology inventor Dr. Robert Malone talked about the documentation and the need to develop a team to comb through the information and catalog it for reference. He said:38

“So, all this information comes piped through pharmacovigilance what's called the pharmacovigilance shop at Pfizer and BioNTech. I presume Pfizer. And then that's been summarized and submitted to the FDA as a series of documents. So this is a window into what FDA actually knows, which is by inference what CDC knows.

When they tell us there’s no risks and we should go ahead and start mandating or forcing vaccination on our children, what we have for instance, in that section you're referring to of the listed adverse events is a huge list of what is considered to be adverse events of interest, which means that they're not just one-offs.

It happens multiple times throughout the world and what we're finding is embedded throughout this huge volume of documents that the judge has forced Pfizer and the FDA ... remember our government tried really hard to keep this information from us and fortunately the courts have called their bluff and forced them to disclose it. Now it's up to us to comb through it."

Malone went on to describe the trouble that will likely arise in the coming weeks and months for Pfizer and the FDA from the information that is now freely available to the public when Bannon asked, why is it so important that the courts demanded the information be released now?

"The courts have forced Pfizer and the FDA to comply with the law which is that after licensure is granted these documents must be made available. Previously they're considered confidential.

And remember that as Naomi's [Naomi Wolfe] about to discuss, and the truckers are so upset about, we have been forced to take these vaccines and we have been told that they're fully safe and effective. What this documents is the government has been well aware that they are not fully safe and has hidden this information from us.

What that really matters for Pfizer is that the indemnification clauses require Pfizer disclose known adverse events and this documentation demonstrates they didn't do so. A lot of the lawyers are licking their chops over this because it seems to indicate a break in the veil that may allow legal action basically due to fraud and concealment of these risks from the general public.

This is why you have not been able to have full informed consent, is they’ve hidden all this information from you and they’ve used all the propaganda and censorship tools — which you’re about to cover — and paid media, to keep all this information from you and spin it, so that you think the left is right and the down is the up and the moon is made of green cheese.”

How the COVID Vaccine Altered These People’s Lives

BY DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA

SEE: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/24/covid-vaccine-altered-peoples-lives.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Some people who have received COVID-19 shots experience a range of debilitating symptoms or death
  • Healthy teenagers, athletes, and doctors are among those who have died within hours or days of receiving COVID-19 shots
  • Others have experienced stroke-like symptoms, paralysis, tics, partial blindness, and seizures following the shots
  • Increasing numbers of people are becoming compelled to speak out and share their stories of how COVID-19 shots altered their lives

Despite assurances of safety from health officials, it’s what the long-term effects of COVID-19 shots will be. Spike proteins from the shots can circulate in your body after injection, causing damage to cells, tissues, and organs. “Spike protein is a deadly protein,” Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and trained epidemiologist, said.1

Experimental and observational evidence shows that the human immune response to COVID-19 shots is very different than the response induced by exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and people who’ve received COVID-19 shots may have damage to their innate immune system that’s leading to a form of vaccine acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (VAIDS), due to the impairment in interferon signaling.2

Further, likely due to monocyte activation by the spike protein from the vaccine, some people who have received COVID-19 shots experience a range of debilitating symptoms similar to those found in long haul COVID-19 syndromes, such as headaches, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, joint pain, and chest pain.3

For some, however, the shot’s adverse effects occur quickly, resulting in life-changing debilitation. You can see 10 powerful examples below, ranging from deaths to lives upended due to illogical quarantine rules that illustrate the absurdity of COVID-19 tyranny.

These are real people with real stories to share, and the more people who see them, the more awareness can grow to provide those who survived with the help and medical care they deserve — while warning others of the potentially deadly consequences of COVID-19 injections.

If you find these stories helpful and motivating then I would encourage you to visit our breaking news blog on our site as this is where the stories below were initially posted. The blog posts stay up continuously and are not removed after 48 hours.

10 People Whose Lives Changed After COVID-19 Shots

1. Jim Ashby — Learning to Walk Again

Ashby was forced to get a COVID-19 shot by December 3, 2021, or his employer would consider him “voluntarily resigned.” Eight days after receiving the Pfizer jab, he had a major hemorrhagic stroke.

He’s been in rehab since October 2021, suffering from complete paralysis on the left side of his body. He still has a long way to go in recovery, and still can’t feel or use his left arm or walk without assistance. His rehab is excruciatingly painful, he says, and he spends up to six hours a day learning how to walk again.

What’s worse, his employer isn’t covering the medical bills for the costs of this stroke. “My life has been totally changed, all because of the vaccine mandate … my old life is dead,” he says, “and I have started my new life as a paraplegic.”

2. Athletes Collapsing and Dying

Healthy athletes around the world are dying of heart attacks and strokes. The numbers are exploding, with athletes suffering neurological problems, too. What’s happened in the last six months to a year that’s different? Is there anything in common that’s changed that hooks all these athletes together? They all have had COVID-19 shots. Among them:

  • Abou Ali, 22-year-old football (soccer) player, who suffered from cardiac arrest in Denmark on September 11, 2021
  • Caddy Alberto Olguin collapsed and died from a heart attack on the golf course on October 9, 2021
  • 30-year-old Venezuelan marathon champion Alexaida Guedez, 30, died of a heart attack during a 5,000-meter race on August 22, 2021
  • Andrea Astolfi, 45, sports director of Calcio Orsago in Italy, died of a heart attack on September 11, 2021, after returning from training
  • Ava Azzopardi, 14, collapsed on a soccer field in the U.S. on October 15, 2021, suffering from cardiac arrest; she had to be put in a medically induced coma to survive

3. Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, Died From Myocarditis

Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla fell asleep four days after he got a COVID-19 booster shot — and died from a heart attack. The autopsy stated myocarditis — inflammation of the heart muscle that’s a recognized adverse effect of mRNA COVID-19 shots.4 A CEO of a major health clinic, he was only 48 years old and had never had heart problems in his life.

4. Faith Ranson, 16-Year-Old Plagued by Convulsions and Tics

A happy, healthy 16-year-old girl in Australia who got the Pfizer COVID-19 shot is now crippled with convulsions, persistent nausea, and visible tics. The problems began three days after her second shot and have been ongoing for months. Health officials actually admitted, “there is no question Faith has had a delayed reaction to the second Pfizer vaccination” and is suffering adverse reactions from the shot. Her story even made it to mainstream news.

5. Nurse With COVID Told to Go Back to Work

In this video, a “triple vaxxed” nurse from New York explains how she tested positive for COVID-19, and her employer told her to come back to work even though she hadn’t been in quarantine for five days — against CDC recommendations.

Since she was asymptomatic, she was cleared to go to back to work in a health care setting, but told she still had to quarantine in all other aspects of her life. In short, she can go to work to care for patients while actively positive for COVID-19, but she can’t go to a grocery store or a gas station. Not to mention, her kids were quarantined for 10 days, but she was expected to go back to work in less than five.

6. Stroke-Like Symptoms in a Healthy Woman

Complaints of neurological problems and stroke-like reactions continue to pile up. Immediately after receiving the AstraZeneca COVID-19 shot, this previously healthy woman experienced headaches and dizziness and blacked out “a few times.”

Within days, she started experiencing numbness to the point that she couldn’t stand up. Eight days later, she’s in the hospital with a loss of feeling in her left arm, left leg, and face. She states that 19 women were brought into her hospital ward with the same symptoms over the span of one weekend.

7. Two Teenage Boys Die From Myocarditis in Their Sleep

Video may not work on all browsers

Epidemiologists have confirmed that two teenage boys from different U.S. states died in their sleep of myocarditis days after getting the Pfizer shot. Both had received second doses of the shot, and McCullough said that in his view, the shots led to the deaths of the teenagers. In a study that examined the autopsy findings, it’s reported that the “myocarditis” described in the boys’ deaths is “not typical myocarditis pathology”:5

“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy. Understanding that these instances are different from typical myocarditis and that cytokine storm has a known feedback loop with catecholamines may help guide screening and therapy.”

8.59-Year-Old Woman Dies Hours After Shot

A 59-year-old front-line health care worker in the U.K. took the COVID-19 shot and died a few hours later. In the video, her acquaintance states, “Now I know it’s a given the vaccine’s going to have some casualties — but people are threatened they are going to lose their jobs if they don’t take it … You have the right to take that risk, but you should have the right to refuse it as well — without jeopardizing your job or your freedom of entry or freedom from discrimination.”

9. Vaccine Advocate Nearly Goes Blind

Video may not work on all browsers

The man in this video describes himself as a believer in “science” and a “vaccine advocate,” but this didn’t spare him from the shot’s adverse effects. Five days after his first Pfizer COVID-19 shot, he started having blurry vision in his left eye. Within three days, he had lost 60% of his vision in that eye.

After several medical examinations, doctors, optometrists, and retina specialists diagnosed him with central serous retinopathy (CSR), in which a small vein ruptured, leading fluid to accumulate under the retina, causing retinal detachment and partial blindness.

Other cases of CSR have also been reported following COVID-19 shots, he says, and in a case report published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology it’s stated, “Acute CSR may be temporally associated with mRNA Covid-19 immunization.”6 The man’s doctor told him that the risk of getting additional COVID-19 shots outweighs the potential benefit for him and tried to help him get an official exemption from further shots, but it was denied. He states:

“I have been deprived of my human rights as a citizen … I try to gather all my strength so many times during the past few months to just go and receive my second dose in order to follow the laws.

But the fact that the science says there is an above-average chance that I may lose more of my sight has driven me to anxiety attacks, night terrors and disabling depression … This is a direct violation of my constitutional rights as a citizen and a human being.”

10. Young Woman Suffers From Seizures, Nearly Dies

Caution: This video contains language that may offend some people

Beginning her story by stressing she is NOT anti-vaccine or pro-conspiracy theory, this young woman describes what happened to her after she received a Moderna COVID-19 shot, which she decided to get so she and her husband could join some friends on a cruise.

The day after the shot she started feeling “weird,” delirious, and “disassociated from herself,” she says. Soon after, she blacked out in the bathroom, and when her husband tried to revive her, she began seizing. She had three seizures between the time her husband called 911 and when the ambulance got her to the hospital.

She was intubated and suffered other severe effects, she says. She spent days in the hospital and is now taking anti-seizure medication while living with ongoing anxiety about her near-death experience, which she believes was caused by the shot. “Go out there and do your research so you can make an informed decision,” she says. “Because you don’t want to put something in your body that could potentially harm you.”

Let Your Voice Be Heard

If you or a loved one has been injured by a COVID-19 shot, I will help you share your testimony. Vaccine mandates have led to injuries, devastation, and deaths — while the brainwashing “get your vaccine now” campaign is being used to divide and conquer. One spark is all that is required to start a fire. There is a revolution building — a revolution for freedom to live your life without medical mandates or dictators calling the shots.

Please share your story with us, and encourage others you know who have a story to share theirs. It’s never been more important than now, for you and your family, to take control of your health.

Moderna Requesting That the FDA Authorize Covid Shot for Children Aged Six Months to Under Six Years, Other Age Groups

Moderna Requesting That the FDA Authorize Covid Shot for Children Aged Six Months to Under Six Years, Other Age Groups

BY VERONIKA KYRYLENKO

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/moderna-requesting-that-the-fda-authorize-covid-shot-for-children-aged-six-months-to-under-six-years-other-age-groups;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The pharmaceutical company Moderna announced it is set to request an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its Covid shot for children ages six months to six years old. The vaccine’s efficacy is estimated to be less than 44 percent for infants, and less than 38 percent for children aged two to six.

According to the announcement posted on Moderna’s website, Phase 2/3 of the so-called KidCOVE study showed “a robust neutralizing antibody response” and “a favorable safety profile” of the two-shot dose that contained a quarter, or 25 μg, of the adult mRNA dose.

KidCOVE tested Moderna’s shot on children in two age groups: from six months to under two years, and from two years to under six years of age. 

The U.S. federal government took part in the trials. Per Moderna, the trials on children are being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

The company will be sending the documents to the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and “other global regulators” in the coming weeks, per the announcement.

Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, noted that there is “the need for a vaccine against COVID-19 in infants and young children,” and that his company will be submitting the data “as soon as possible.” The top pharma executive added that he believes the vaccine for infants and young children “will help end this pandemic.”

Despite the fanfare, the announcement provides that Moderna’s shot efficacy in children six months to two years old was just 43.7 percent. It was even lower in the older age group, with a 37.5-percent efficacy rate in children two to under six years old.

Moderna does not see it as a problem, and says that the “majority” of Covid cases in participants “were mild, and no severe COVID-19 disease was observed in either age group.”

“The absence of any severe disease, hospitalization, or death in the study precludes the assessment of vaccine efficacy against these endpoints,” concludes the biotech giant.

In an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Jacqueline Miller, Moderna’s senior vice president for infectious diseases, said, “What we have seen is a successful trial.”

“What I will say is 37.5 percent and 43.7 percent are higher than zero,” she added. “If I were the parent of a young child, I would want there to be some protection on board, especially if we see another wave of infections.”

Some biotech experts, such as French-American consultant Marc Girardot, argue that the immune protection against coronaviruses in humans is never “zero,” since people have always been surrounded by them and have developed a certain level of immunity.

For Moderna, it is obviously not the case.

As do their colleagues at Pfizer, Moderna believes that to generate a higher immune response in children, they would need to take three instead of two doses.

“Similar to adults, Moderna is preparing to evaluate the potential of a booster dose for all pediatric populations, including those aged 6 months to under 6 years, 6 to under 12 years, and adolescents,” the company says, adding that one of the booster candidates would include the omicron variant booster.  

According to a study published by the New York State Department of Health in late February, Pfizer-BioNTech’s two-dose Covid shot, which, like Moderna’s, uses mRNA technology, provided abysmal protection for children aged five to eleven during the wave of omicron infection in New York. As reported by The New American on the matter,

During the Omicron surge from December 13, 2021 through January 30, 2022, the effectiveness against infection plunged from 68 to just 12 percent for children in that age group. Protection against hospitalization dropped from 100 to 48 percent during the same period.

Moderna also indicated that it has initiated the submission of the document needed for the FDA to authorize its 50-μg, two-dose shot for children aged six to under 12 years.

Finally, the company is updating its request to authorize its shot for those aged 12 to 17. That request, which was filed last summer, was put on hold in October 2021 because the FDA asked the company to provide more data on such side effects associated with the shot as myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart.

As reported by The New American at that time, the Nordic countries have suspended administering Moderna’s Covid “Spikevax” vaccine over an increased risk of side effects such as inflammation of the heart muscle in younger recipients, and have recommended that men under the age of 30 not take it.

On January 31, 2022, the FDA granted full approval for Moderna’s shot, marketed as “Spikevax,” to be used on people aged 18 and older. The agency also shortened the recommended interval between the initial inoculation and booster shot from six to five months.

Moderna and the NIH share ownership of the shot’s patent.

No Insurance Payments: The Next COVID Shot ‘Mandate’?

BY DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA

SEE: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/22/unvaccinated-surcharge-health-insurance.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Delta Air Lines charges a $200 monthly surcharge to employees on the company health plan who do not get a COVID-19 shot
  • The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) announced that public employees in Nevada, along with their adult dependents, would be charged a surcharge on their state health insurance plan if they don’t get a COVID-19 shot by July 2022
  • Mercyhealth, which runs hospitals and health clinics in Wisconsin and Illinois, deducts $60 per month from employees’ wages if they choose not to get the shot
  • By making COVID-19 injections a requirement of a wellness program, companies may be able to skirt legal issues, as they’re “rewarding” members who participate in the program by letting them avoid the premium surcharge hoisted on the unvaccinated
  • While health insurance companies have long charged higher premiums based on factors like smoking, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires that penalties not be so large as to be coercive

Those who choose not to get a COVID-19 shot may face higher costs for health care related to COVID-19. For the first 1.5 years of the pandemic, health insurance companies routinely paid for all costs related to COVID-19, waiving deductibles and copays across the board.1 Policies have since changed, with many private insurers no longer picking up the tab for hospitalizations and other costs related to COVID-19.

However, those who haven’t received COVID-19 shots could end up paying the most. While health insurance companies cannot deny health insurance to someone because they don’t get a COVID-19 shot, it’s possible that they could face increased costs — similar to smokers, who also pay a premium for health insurance coverage.

Delta Airlines Paved the Way for Increased Costs

August 25, 2021, Delta Air Lines announced that employees who are on the company health plan who do not get a COVID-19 shot will have a $200 monthly surcharge added. In the two weeks after Delta made the announcement, 20% of Delta’s unvaccinated employees got the injection, raising the company’s injection rate from 74% to 78%.2

The surcharge took effect on November 1, 2021, and by October 29, Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian stated that more than 90% of employees had received the shot.3 In an employee memo, Bastian defended the significant premium hike for unvaccinated employees, stating, “The average hospital stay for COVID-19 has cost Delta $50,000 per person. This surcharge will be necessary to address the financial risk the decision to not vaccinate is creating for our company.”4

Other companies have since followed suit. In January 2022, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) announced that public employees in Nevada, along with their adult dependents, would be assessed a surcharge on their state health insurance plan if they don’t get a COVID-19 shot by July 2022.5

A September 2021 survey by SHRM found that close to 20% of corporations were considering raising health insurance premiums for employees who don’t get the injection. Among organizations, 13% were considering such a move while less than 1% had actually raised premiums for unvaccinated employees at that time.6

In another example, Mercyhealth, which runs hospitals and health clinics in Wisconsin and Illinois, started deducting $60 per month from employees’ wages if they choose not to get the shot. While Alen Brcic, Mercyhealth vice president of people and culture, called the so-called “risk pool fee” a nominal amount, it drove the health system’s vaccination rate among employees up to 91%, from its previous 70%.7

“A ‘couple of handfuls’ of people quit over the policy and roughly 9% of employees are now contributing to the risk pool. Mercyhealth did provide a very small number of medical exemptions, but no religious exemptions,” NPR reported.8

Wellness Program Loophole Allows Increased Costs for Some

A number of federal statutes — including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) — prohibit group health plans and insurers from discriminating against individuals based on health factors.

While short-term health plans, which aren’t subject to ACA regulations, can deny coverage to someone because they didn’t get a COVID-19 vaccine, private health insurers cannot. Further, insurers that are part of the individual marketplace cannot charge penalties to those who are not vaccinated.9

However, wellness programs provide a workaround. By making COVID-19 injections a requirement of the company’s wellness program,10 Delta, for instance, may be able to skirt legal issues,11 as they’re “rewarding” members who participate in the wellness program by letting them avoid the premium surcharge hoisted on the unvaccinated.

JPMorgan Chase and Harmons have also used wellness program guidelines as a tool to raise health care premiums for workers who don’t get a COVID-19 shot. “According to federal law, companies are allowed to charge employees different amounts for health care as long as they do it through a program designed to promote healthy behaviors and prevent disease,” NPR reported.12

A wellness program can include virtually anything, from reaching a set number of steps daily to quitting smoking or staying within a certain BMI range. Sabrina Corlette, founder and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, told NPR, "Your wellness program could simply be: I'm going to encourage all of my employees to get vaccinated, full stop.

Most employers are doing this to try to have a healthier and more productive workforce ... and to spend less on overall health care costs."13

There are a few caveats. For instance, ACA regulations state that surcharges in employer wellness programs for things such as COVID-19 vaccination status are allowed, as long as they don’t discriminate against people with disabilities.14 NPR broke down wellness program waivers this way:15

“Under federal law, the wellness program must be ‘reasonably designed,’ meaning there's a reasonable chance the program will improve the health of or prevent disease in the participants. To ensure that wellness programs do not violate discrimination laws, companies must provide waivers for individuals who have medical reasons for not meeting the stated targets or alternative ways for them to satisfy the requirements.

As part of its policy, the Utah grocer Harmons says its insurance premium surcharge of up to $200 per month applies to ‘unvaccinated associates who don't qualify for an exemption or who chose not to complete a vaccine education series.’"

Rewards and penalties of wellness programs may not exceed 30% of the cost of employees’ health care plans, “calculated as the amount paid by the employee and the employer combined,” except in cases that involve tobacco use — then the penalty may reach 50% of costs.16

Fines for Vaccination Status a Slippery Slope

Governments around the globe have also rolled out fines for the refusal of COVID-19 shots. Greece announced it would fine anyone aged 60 years and over who doesn’t get the injection, at a rate of approximately $114 a month.17 The Canadian province of Quebec also announced plans to fine the unvaccinated a “significant” amount.18

“There comes a point where these incentives [are getting] higher and higher and higher until people just can’t afford to not get the vaccine,” Julie Downs, Ph.D., a social psychologist and associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, told AAMC. “It does work, but it comes at a cost … [and it’s] very hard in this political environment.”19

Dr. Mark Fendrick, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design, described penalties for not getting vaccinated as “legally murky,”20 while others have described it as coercion. While health insurance companies have long charged higher premiums based on factors like smoking, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires that penalties not be so large as to be coercive.21

One of the principles of the Nuremberg Code is that humans must give voluntary consent when participating in medical experiments, and that consent must be given, among other things, “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion.”22

Given the emergency use authorization, not approval, the mass jab administration constituted a research trial. While the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 jab received FDA approval August 23, 2021, the injection’s approval represents the fastest approval in history,23 granted less than four months after Pfizer filed for licensing May 7, 2021.24 So for all intents and purposes, it’s still in the research phase.

Daniel Polsky, Ph.D., an economist with the Johns Hopkins Blomberg School of Public Health and Carey Business School, further noted that penalties based on vaccination status should not dictate health care coverage, which also should not impose fines that suggest a person is at fault for getting sick. He told AAMC:25

“[For example,] we have this obesity crisis and some people would say, ‘Maybe we shouldn’t pay for care, it’s the person’s fault for being obese or for being an addict. If someone got sick from COVID — we should withhold paying for care.’… That is a slippery slope and not somewhere we should go.”

Natural Immunity Is Ignored

If you’ve had COVID-19, the research is strong that you’re well protected against reinfection. New data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention even show that prior COVID-19 infection, i.e., natural immunity, is more protective than COVID-19 injections.26

Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently upheld a vaccine mandate at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The mandate affects 10.4 million health care workers employed at 76,000 medical facilities,27 making no exceptions for those who have natural immunity to COVID-19 due to prior infection.

“You can think about a mandate as the strongest form of incentive,” Dr. Kevin Volpp, director of the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, told AAMC. “What we’ve seen so far in employer settings where there is a mandate related to keeping your job is that very few employees have not complied.”28

Yet, when researchers reviewed studies published in PubMed, they found that the risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 decreased by 80.5% to 100% among people who had previously had COVID-19.29 Additional research cited in their review found:30

  • Among 9,119 people who had previously had COVID-19, only 0.7% became reinfected.
  • At Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, the incidence rate of COVID-19 among those who had not previously been infected was 4.3 per 100 people; the COVID-19 incidence rate among those who had previously been infected was zero per 100 people.
  • The frequency of hospitalization due to a repeated COVID-19 infection was five per 14,840 people, or .03%, according to an Austrian study; the frequency of death due to a repeated infection was one per 14,840 people or .01%.

In short, if you’ve had COVID-19, you’re largely protected from reinfection, and a COVID-19 shot is not only unnecessary but, according to some experts, especially dangerous.31 Penalizing people who refuse a COVID-19 shot they don’t want or need becomes particularly atrocious in such cases. Unvaccinated individuals must have the freedom to remain so, if that’s what they choose, and not be forced into this medical decision by financial threats and coercion.

Military doctor says she was ordered to cover up wave of covid “vaccine” injuries in servicemen

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-03-21-military-doctor-ordered-to-suppress-vaccine-injuries.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Dr. Theresa Long, a medical officer with the United States military, has testified in court that she was ordered by a superior to suppress Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” injuries following the Biden regime’s mandate.

Long and two other medical professionals observed a spike in cancer cases, neurological disorders, and miscarriages immediately after Biden’s jab mandate was enacted. They were told, however, to keep this damning information under wraps.

The other two who supported Long in arriving at these findings are Dr. Samuel Sigoloff and Lt. Col. Peter Chambers, who are being represented by Thomas Renz, a member of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) legal team.

“I have so many soldiers being destroyed by this vaccine,” Long said in court.

“Not a single member of my senior command has discussed my concerns with me … I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking about it. I’m okay with that because I am watching people get absolutely destroyed.”

Liberty Counsel is currently representing 30 members of the military who are fighting back against the military’s jab mandate. They recently presented their case to Judge Steven Merryday, who granted a preliminary injunction to two military plaintiffs, allowing them to sidestep the injection mandate.

Judge in case says DoD’s position is “frail;” government agency “acting as though they are above the law”

During the hearing, which took place on March 10, the Department of Defense (DoD) requested for this injunction to be waived while the case is being appealed. Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver also says the DoD is refusing to send witnesses to be cross-examined, which points to a possible cover-up.

“They send these declarations that some JAG attorney writes, and somebody in the military signs off on them,” Staver says.

He also explained that the DoD is presenting information in court that is flat-out “outdated, wrong, and would really be subject to dismantling under cross-examination.”

Judge Merryday, Staver claims, has already chastised the DoD, saying the government agency has a “frail case” and is “acting as though they are above the law.”

Out of 3,212 applications in the Marines requesting a religious exemption, only two have been accepted, according to reports. When pressed for information as to why this number is so dismally low, Capt. Andrew Wood responded with:

“Due to privacy considerations, we are unable to discuss the specifics of any individual requests.”

Some 45 Marines, meanwhile, were discharged last week after refusing to submit to the experimental injections. In total, there have now been 334 discharges over refusal to get jabbed.

In a statement about this, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger parroted Big Pharma talking points:

“You have to ask each individual Marines their reason why,” Berger said during an appearance at the Aspen Security Forum.

“But I think we’re challenged by disinformation … that still swirls around about where the genesis, how did this vaccine get approved, is it safe is it ethical – all that swirls around on the internet and they see all that they read all that.”

In other words, the Marines, and the rest of the Armed Forces, for that matter, have been turned into “appendages for the hellish Orwellian technocracy that is rising due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” to quote one source.

“In the past, this would have been enough to stop all vaccinations,” noted a commenter at Natural News about the torrent of jab injuries being reported.

“Instead, the ‘stupids’ insist on pushing forward with the shots. Those who have been permanently harmed by these vaccines will expect rightly so government help. This alone will destroy the United States economy. What kind of country will be left after these payouts will be anybody’s guess.”

More related news about Biden’s covid jab mandates can be found at Fascism.news.

Sources for this article include:

BigLeaguePolitics.com

NaturalNews.com

Science papers now subject to extreme censorship if they question the “official” narrative on anything: COVID, AIDS, vaccines, climate, virology and more

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-03-20-science-papers-now-subject-to-extreme-censorship.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The “moderators” at Cornell University‘s arXiv server, an open-access archive and free distribution service for scientific material, have been censoring scientific studies that they claim contain “inflammatory content and unprofessional language.”

A “preprint server” for preliminary versions of scientific studies that are moderated but not yet peer-reviewed or published, arXiv is supposed to be neutral when it comes to what gets published. The reality, however, is that arXiv is selectively censoring studies and even banning scientists for publishing work with “controversial” viewpoints.

In one instance, researchers tried to publish a study presenting an opposing viewpoint to another study about room temperature superconductivity. Those researchers aligned with the opposing point of view study are reportedly now “in hot water” on arXiv for daring to buck the “consensus.”

The server also proceeded to ban University of California San Diego (UCSD) theoretical physicist Jorge Hirsch from posting anything on the platform for six months as punishment for his conflicting viewpoints.

“Hirsch was the author of a number of the papers that sought to represent a different point of view on a particular topic – from a paper published in October 2020 in Nature, authored by a team led by University of Rochester physicist Ranga Dias,” reported Reclaim the Net.

“As scientists do, Hirsch was skeptical of the results of the study and asked for raw data from Dias, some of which was, after many rejections, eventually provided by a co-author. The relationship between the scientists soured, and it became evident in their subsequent papers.”

Hirsch would go on to produce two papers of his own based on the data, only to have both of them blocked by arXiv administrators, who also removed another one by Dias. Many studies have also been retracted due to fake peer reviews.

“The explanation for the latter was ‘inflammatory content’ and bad language – but Hirsch says both he and Dias should not be prevented from publishing papers, since that means preventing scientists from working,” Reclaim the Net added.

“Hirsch thinks the bans and removals are ‘very unfair’ and has called on arXiv not to put its ‘arbitrary self-righteous decorum standards’ above scientists’ right to conduct unstifled debate and have their arguments ‘judged on their merits.'”

How much published “science” is actually real science?

In its defense, arXiv, which hosts over two million preprints, and its 200 moderators say that censorship is necessary to ensure that only papers with the “correct” conclusions get published.

“If we allow this stuff, what is the difference between arXiv and Twitter?” asked University of Oxford physicist Paul Fendley, who sits on arXiv’s advisory committee.

Concerning fraudulent peer reviews and other problematic elements of modern “science,” Dr. Marcia Angell, M.D., gave a lecture unpacking how special interests tamper with “science” to ensure that only certain narratives go public.

Angell attended Harvard Medical School and is a retired editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). She has been blowing the whistle on this subject for many years, even when it was unpopular and “conspiratorial” to do so.

“Science these days is more about the art of lying than about verifiable truth and facts,” wrote someone at Natural News.

“So much for the belief in peer review and the honesty and integrity of journals,” expressed another.

As for arXiv, that repository is following in the footsteps of Big Tech by flat-out censoring “controversial” science while apparently propping up status quo pseudoscience.

The moral of the story: be careful what you accept as “science” because it might not be what it seems.

You will find more stories like this one at Censorship.news.

Sources include:

ReclaimTheNet.org

NaturalNews.com

YouTu.be

Brighteon: Dr. Wolf Shows CDC Committed Fraud and Pfizer Doc Dump Proves More Fraud~Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

The CDC falsely reported deaths of children from Covid-19. Pfizer Documents show extreme harm from the vaccine, yet CDC and FDA falsely claimed it was safe and effective.

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

For researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organization Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. Read the full investigation: Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n...

1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 60