The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Monday granted full approval of Moderna’s Spikevax COVID vaccine for people 18 and older. Similar to the agency’s licensing last year of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, the approval raised a number of legal questions.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Monday granted full approval of Moderna’s Spikevax COVID vaccine for people 18 and older.
Similar to the agency’s licensing last year of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, the approval raised a number of legal questions related to mandates and product availability.
Spikevax is a two-dose primary series, approved also for administration as part of a heterologous (“mix and match”) single booster dose for individuals who previously completed their original series of vaccinations with the Pfizer or Johnson & JohnsonCOVID vaccines.
According to the FDA, Spikevax “has the same formulation as the [Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)] Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine and … can be used interchangeably with the EUA Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.”
However, in its approval letter, the FDA said Spikevax is “legally distinct” from the Moderna EUA vaccine:
“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”
The FDA made the same distinction between the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine and the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, which the agency fully licensed in August, 2021, a move that raised questions about liability and the legality of vaccine mandates.
After Monday’s announcement, media outlets were quick to reassure the public the two Moderna vaccines are the same and that this was just a marketing ploy, where Moderna simply “rebranded” what is otherwise the same vaccine.
No ‘fully licensed’ COVID actually available
While Moderna’s Spikevax vaccine is now fully licensed, the original Moderna vaccine will remain under EUA. Indeed, the FDA on Jan. 7 reissued the EUA.
The FDA has also made it clear the Spikevax vaccine will not be available to the American public, announcing:
“Although SPIKEVAX (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) are approved to prevent COVID-19 in certain individuals within the scope of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine authorization, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.”
These claims parallel the chain of events that followed the FDA’s full approval of the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine in August 2021.
At the time, Pfizer and the FDA claimed Comirnaty was not yet available, as there were sufficient stocks of the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine still available to be administered.
As of this writing, the FDA states, via its website, that Comirnaty products are “not orderable at this time.”
The FDA has not indicated when, or if, the Spikevax and Comirnaty vaccines will be available for distribution in the U.S.
Are EUA and fully licensed vaccines really interchangeable?
As reported by The Defender, there is a significant legal distinction between products authorized under EUA and those fully licensed by the FDA.
EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Under the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations, no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment.
Specifically, under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines.
That’s an issue military members, unable to find any vaccination sites that offer the fully licensed Comirnaty vaccine, cited in variouslawsuits challenging vaccine mandates.
Notably, on Nov. 12, 2021, a federal judge rejected an argument by the U.S. Department of Defense, in defending the military’s vaccine mandate, that the Pfizer Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are “interchangeable.”
U.S. law also requires the EUA designation be used only when “there is no adequate, approved and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing or treating such disease or condition.”
This means that, in legal terms, all EUA products should be withdrawn once alternative products have received full approval.
Perhaps the most significant legal distinction, however, pertains to the legal protections afforded vaccine manufacturers, depending on how their product is classified.
Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness (PREP) Act, EUA-approved vaccines enjoy a significant liability shield. Specifically, vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers, and government officials involved in the policymaking, approval, and distribution process are immune from any legal liability.
Under such regulations, the only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct.
Conversely, fully licensed vaccines, such as Spikevax and Comirnaty, do not have a liability shield, and are instead subject to the same product liability laws as other products.
This means the Spikevax and Comirnaty vaccines could expose pharmaceutical companies to significant financial claims if individuals injured by the vaccines chose to sue the vaccine makers.
The rush to get COVID vaccines authorized for all ages — a ploy to avoid liability?
There’s another reason Pfizer and Moderna don’t want their fully licensed vaccines to be available yet — they’re waiting for the vaccines to be authorized, then licensed, for children as young as 6 months old.
Why? Because once a vaccine is fully licensed by the FDA, the only way its manufacturer can be shielded from legal liability is if the vaccine is added to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s childhood vaccination schedule.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed into law in 1986, provides a legal liability shield to drugmakers if they receive full authorization for all ages and the vaccine is added to the mandatory schedule.
Reporting on the FDA’s approval of Spikevax, investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel wrote:
“Are Pfizer and Moderna waiting for full authorization for children’s shots to distribute Comirnaty and Spikevax to the masses? There’s plenty of litigators who have suggested that this is exactly what is going on in Big Pharma world.”
By creating the public perception that the Pfizer and Moderna EUA vaccines are fully approved, businesses, schools and other institutions are emboldened to impose vaccine mandates that violate existing law and allow the vaccines to be administered without informed consent.
It has also been argued that by relabeling the product, any previous data regarding vaccine injuries and side effects identified in association with the EUA vaccine are not counted in the safety studies for the approved vaccine.
The FDA approval of the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, its subsequent lack of availability and the continued administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine led Children’s Health Defense (CHD) to file a lawsuit against the FDA and its acting director, Dr. Janet Woodcock, for their allegedly deceptive and rushed approval of the Comirnaty vaccine, arguing that the approval represented a classic “bait and switch” tactic.
CHD further alleged in its lawsuit that the FDA violated federal law when it simultaneously licensed Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine and extended Pfizer’s EUA — as the agency has now done with Moderna and Spikevax — for a vaccine that has the “same formulation” and that “can be used interchangeably,” according to the FDA.
FDA admits no safety data for Spikevax use among pregnant women
Beyond the legal questions raised by the FDA’s approval this week of Spikevax, the approval also raises safety questions.
For instance, the FDA admitted Spikevax was insufficiently tested on pregnant women, stating that “[a]vailable data on SPIKEVAX administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”
Furthermore, Spikevax was approved without having been tested for its ability to provide protection against the Omicron variant, which is reported to account for 99.9% of current U.S. COVID cases — it was approved only for providing protection against mutations that are no longer circulating.
And yet, the FDA cited the Omicron variant as the reason behind its decision to pull its EUA for monoclonal antibody products. The FDA claims that these products have not been shown to provide protection against the Omicron variant.
Drowning in the former, much more of the latter is needed at the most perilous time in world history.
Things will keep worsening without mass rebellion against made-in-the-USA war against humanity with unparalleled draconian aims in mind.
Ruling US/Western regimes and their vassal state counterparts want countless millions and billions of unwanted people eliminated at home and abroad.
They want what remains of free and open societies eliminated worldwide.
They want what no one should tolerate anywhere.
Never before have so many people in so many places been assaulted by nonstop fake news over truth and full disclosure on any issues over a longer duration than on kill shots and all else flu/covid related.
For over two years, it’s been the most predominantly reported of all issues with Big Lies drowning out vital to know hard truths.
What should be explained is suppressed.
What’s reported by official sources and MSM is all fake news all the time — truth and full disclosure perhaps on the cusp of being banned.
According to fake news by the Pharma-controlled WHO, half of Europe could contract flu/covid before end of winter 2022 from what it dubiously called a “tidal wave sweeping across the” continent (sic).
Its Europe director Hans Kluge falsely claimed that “over seven million (flu/covid) cases (occurred) in the first week of 2022 (sic).”
Pushing health-destroying kill shots, including boosters, he defied science by falsely claiming that they’re remarkably effective at preventing severe illness and death (sic).
He lied claiming that in Denmark, unjabbed individuals hospitalized for flu/covid are sixfold higher than for their jabbed counterparts (sic).
He fear-mongered unacceptably about the more scariant than variant omicron — a made-in-the-West scam.
Like his counterparts throughout the US/West, he failed to explain that it’s virtually identical to other flu/covid strains.
That they’re all virtually alike.
That numbers of strains don’t matter.
That pre-2020, fear-mongering mass deception unacceptably created public hysteria about seasonal flu-now called covid.
That everything going on since early 2020 has nothing to do with protecting public health.
That it’s all about destroying it and what remains of free and open societies — along with letting Pharma cash in big on a bonanza of profits from kill shots.
Kluge and his counterparts throughout the US West consistently leave unexplained that virtually all reported outbreaks based on PCR test results are false positives.
The test isn’t designed to detect illness.
It’s been used to falsely diagnose healthy people as ill.
The vast majority of claimed flu/covid outbreaks are either among the jabbed or based on PCR false positive results.
The real number of cases is a tiny fraction of what’s officially reported.
Former Pfizer chief scientist for allergy and infectious diseases, Dr. Michael Yeadon, is an unsung, truth-telling global hero on flu/covid jabs.
They’re designed “to harm people,” not protect them, he explained.
Experimental, improperly tested, rushed to market mRNA technology used in Pfizer and Moderna kill shots are extremely hazardous.
All vaccines risk harm. None protect as falsely claimed.
Flu/covid jabs were designed to inflict maximum harm on maximum numbers of people.
“By choosing this design, the range of outcomes is probably 1,000 times worse than it would be for a conventional vaccine,” Yeadon stressed.
What’s going on is a state-sponsored, MSM proliferated conspiracy against public health.
There’s “clear evidence of fraud,” said Yeadon, adding:
“This is a conspiracy led by the central banking clique and their clients to take over the world.”
“Once they’ve done that, destroyed the economy…a great financial reset which will have us using our vax passes and digital ID, and central bank digital currency…you won’t like those, you really won’t.”
“It’ll be the end of cash and any privacy for any transactions.”
Without vax passes, you’ll be treated like a pariah, ostracized from society, maybe involuntarily interned, criminalized.
The diabolical “setup is so perfect” for pursuing depopulation on a never before imagined scale, saud Yeadon.
“(C)urrent so-called ‘good’ (kill shot) batches could be batches with code to activate longterm adverse events” — killing jabbed individuals slowly.
Inventor of mRNA technology Dr. Robert Malone called state-approved, MSM proliferated rubbish “full-on media warfare, information warfare, political warfare…like we’ve never seen before, and coordinated globally.”
“The other thing for me has been the personal journey of coming to terms with what the (diabolical) World Economic Forum really represents…”
“It is a full-on globalist totalitarian vision with money in control.”
It’s beyond totalitarian rule to full-blown tyranny with the worst of diabolical aims in mind.
They include elimination of billions of unwanted people, transforming societies to ruler/serf ones worldwide, and eliminating what remains of greatly eroded freedoms.
No one understands mRNA technology better than Malone, its inventor.
“(N)obody should (be mandated to be jabbed with what’s) experimental” and unsafe based on indisputable evidence.
What’s happening throughout the US/West, Australia, apartheid Israel and elsewhere is in flagrant breach of “the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Agreement, the Common Rule, the Belmont Report, etc.”
It’s state-sponsored “lawless behavior” going on unchecked.
Malone never expected that his scientific invention would land him in the eye of the storm — because of how it’s being misused.
“(A)symmetric…guerrilla warfare” is ongoing is most parts of the world, he said.
What’s crucially needed is “a great awakening” to counter the most diabolically destructive scheme ever concocted by dark forces against humanity in world history.
People crowd along a street of Barcelona to buy books and roses at makeshift stands as Catalans celebrate the day of their patron saint, Sant Jordi. Emilio Morenatti | AP
The corporate media is not our friend. Its coverage of the pandemic is not there to promote the public good. It is there to feed our anxieties, keep us coming back for more, and monetize that distress. The only cure for this sickness? A lot more critical thinking.
When I criticize meddling in Syria by Britain and America, or their backing of groups there that elsewhere are considered terrorists, it does not follow that I am, therefore, a cheerleader for the dictatorship of Bashar Assad or that I think that Syrians should be denied a better political system. Similarly, when I criticize Joe Biden or the Democratic party, it does not necessarily follow that I think Donald Trump would have made a better president.
A major goal of critical thinking is to stand outside tribal debates, where people are heavily invested in particular outcomes, and examine the ways debates have been framed. This is important because one of the main ways power expresses itself in our societies is through the construction of official narratives – usually through the billionaire-owned media – and the control and shaping of public debate.You are being manipulated – propagandized – even before you engage with a topic if you look only at the substance of a debate and not at other issues: such as its timing, why the debate is taking place or why it has been allowed, what is not being mentioned or has been obscured, what is being emphasized, and what is being treated as dangerous or abhorrent.
If you want to be treated like a grown-up, an active and informed participant in your society rather than a blank sheet on which powerful interests are writing their own self-serving narratives, you need to be doing as much critical thinking as possible – and especially on the most important topics of the day.
Learning curve
The opportunity to become more informed and insightful about how debates are being framed, rather than what they are ostensibly about, has never been greater. Over the past decade, social media, even if the window it offered is rapidly shrinking, has allowed large numbers of us to discover for the first time those writers who, through their deeper familiarity with a specific topic and their consequent greater resistance to propaganda, can help us think more critically about all kinds of issues – Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Israel-Palestine, the list is endless.
This has been a steep learning curve for most of us. It has been especially useful in helping us to challenge narratives that vilify “official enemies” of the west or that veil corporate power – which has effectively usurped what was once the more visible and, therefore, accountable political power of western states. In the new, more critical climate, the role of the war industries – bequeathed to us by western colonialism – has become especially visible.
But what has been most disheartening about the past two years of Covid is the rapid reversal of the gains made in critical thinking. Perhaps this should not entirely surprise us. When people are anxious for themselves or their loved ones, when they feel isolated and hopeless, when “normal” has broken down, they are likely to be less ready to think critically.
The battering we have all felt during Covid mirrors the emotional, and psychological assault critical thinking can engender. Thinking critically increases anxiety by uncomfortably exposing us to the often artificial character of official reality. It can leave us feeling isolated and less hopeful, especially when friends and family expect us to be as deeply invested in the substance – the shadow play – of official, tribal debates as they are. And it undermines our sense of what “normal” is by revealing that it is often what is useful to power elites rather than what is beneficial to the public good.
Emotional resilience
There are reasons why people are drawn to critical thinking. Often because they have been exposed in detail to one particular issue that has opened their eyes to wider narrative manipulations on other issues. Because they have the tools and incentives – the education and access to information – to explore some issues more fully. And, perhaps most importantly, because they have the emotional and psychological resilience to cope with stripping away the veneer of official narratives to see the bleaker reality beneath and to grasp the fearsome obstacles to liberating ourselves from the corrupt elites that rule over us and are pushing us towards ecocidal oblivion.
The anxieties produced by critical thinking, the sense of isolation, and the collapse of “normal” is in one sense chosen. They are self-inflicted. We choose to do critical thinking because we feel capable of coping with what it brings to light. But Covid is different. Our exposure to Covid, unlike critical thinking, has been entirely outside our control. And worse, it has deepened our emotional and psychological insecurities. To do critical thinking in a time of Covid – and most especially about Covid – is to add a big extra layer of anxiety, isolation, and hopelessness.
Covid has highlighted the difficulties of being insecure and vulnerable, thereby underscoring why critical thinking, even in good times, is so difficult. When we are anxious and isolated, we want quick, reassuring solutions, and we want someone to blame. We want authority figures to trust and act in our name.
Complex thinking
It is not hard to understand why the magic bullet of vaccines – to the exclusion of all else – has been so fervently grasped during the pandemic. Exclusive reliance on vaccines has been a great way for our corrupt, incompetent governments to show they know what they are doing. The vaccines have been an ideal way for corrupt medical-industrial corporations – including the biggest offender, Pfizer – to launder their images and make us all feel indebted to them after so many earlier scandals like Oxycontin. And, of course, the vaccines have been a comfort blanket to us, the public, promising to bring ZeroCovid (false), to provide long-term immunity (false), and to end transmission (false).
And as an added bonus, vaccines have allowed both our corrupt leaders to shift the blame away from themselves for their other failed public health policies and our corrupt “health” corporations to shift attention away from their profiteering by encouraging the vaccinated majority to scapegoat an unvaccinated minority. Divide and rule par excellence.
To state all this is not to be against the vaccines or believe the virus should rip through the population, killing the vulnerable, any more than criticizing the US war crime of bombing Syria signifies enthusiastic support for Assad. It is only to recognize that political realities are complex, and our thinking needs to be complex too.
To be clear, I haven't 'changed my view'. I've kept an open mind throughout. I scorn the media's silencing of dissenting scientists, the general celebration of vaccine profiteering, the unscientific discounting of natural immunity, and the divisive use of mandates to scapegoat https://t.co/83L1UXR4ga
These ruminations were prompted by a post on social media I made the other day referring to the decision of the Guardian – nearly two years into the pandemic – to publish criticisms by an “eminent” epidemiologist, Prof Mark Woolhouse, of the British government’s early lockdown policies. Until now, any questioning of the lockdowns has been one of the great unmentionables of the pandemic outside of right-wing circles.
Let us note another prominent example: the use of the term “herd immunity,” which was until very recently exactly what public health officials aimed for as a means to end contagion. It signified the moment when enough people had acquired immunity, either through being infected or vaccinated, for community transmission to stop occurring. But because the goal during Covid is not communal immunity but universal vaccination, the term “herd immunity” has now been attributed to a sinister political agenda. It is presented as some kind of right-wing plot to let vulnerable people die.
I've had run-ins with Off-Guardian of late, but they're right to highlight the WHO mucking about with the established definition of 'herd immunity'. This kind of thing does nothing but undermine trust in science and scientists https://t.co/SgEMqnptZu
This is not accidental. It is an entirely manufactured, if widely accepted, narrative. Recovery from infection – something now true for many people – is no longer treated by political or medical authorities as conferring immunity. For example, in the UK, those who have recovered from Covid, even recently, are not exempted, as the vaccinated are, from self-isolation if they have been in close contact with someone infected with Covid. Also, of course, those recovered from Covid do not qualify for a vaccine passport. After all, it is not named an immunity passport. It is a vaccine passport.
Emmanuel Macron, the French president, has at least been open about the “reasoning” behind this kind of discrimination. “In a democracy,” he says, apparently unironically, “the worst enemies are lies and stupidity. We are putting pressure on the unvaccinated by limiting, as much as possible, their access to activities in social life. … For the non-vaccinated, I really want to piss them off. And we will continue to do this, to the end. This is the strategy.”
Notice that the lies and stupidity here emanate from Macron: he is not only irresponsibly stoking dangerous divisions within French society, he has also failed to understand that the key distinctions from a public health perspective are between those with immunity to Covid and those without it and those who are vulnerable to hospitalization and those who are not. These are the most meaningful markers of how to treat the pandemic. The obsession with vaccination only serves a divide and rule agenda and bolsters pandemic profiteering.
Crushing hesitancy
The paradox is that these narratives dominate even as the evidence mounts that the vaccines offer very short-term immunity and that, ultimately, as Omicron appears to be underscoring, many people are likely to gain longer-term immunity through Covid infection, even those who have been vaccinated. But the goal of public “debate” on this topic has not been transparency, logic, or informed consent. Instead, it has been the crushing of any possible “vaccine hesitancy.”
Dr John Campbell is always worth listening to. The bottom lines of the latest omicron research are positive: a) It's likely to be more like a cold b) It'll spread so quickly there's a good chance we'll have herd immunity within months, at minimal suffering https://t.co/GIpGYbXZOX
I have repeatedly tried to highlight the lack of critical thinking around the exclusive focus on vaccines rather than immune health, the decision to vaccinate children in the face of strong, if largely downplayed, opposition from experts, and the divisive issue of vaccine mandates. But I have had little to say directly about lockdowns, which have tended to look to me chiefly like desperate stop-gap measures to cover up the failings of our underfunded, cannibalized, and increasingly privatized health services (a more pressing concern). I am also inclined to believe that the balance of benefits from lockdowns, or whether they work, is difficult to weigh without some level of expertise. That is one reason why I have been arguing throughout the pandemic that experts need to be allowed more open, robust, and honest public debate.
It is also why I offered a short comment on Prof Woolhouse’s criticisms, published in the Guardian this week, of national lockdown policies. This evoked a predictably harsh backlash from many followers. They saw it as further proof that the “Covid denialists have captured me,” and I am now little better than a pandemic conspiracy theorist.
Framing the debate
That is strange in itself. Prof Woolhouse is a mainstream, reportedly “eminent” epidemiologist. His eminence is such that it also apparently qualifies him to be quoted extensively and uncritically in the Guardian. The followers I antagonize every time I write about the pandemic appear to treat the Guardian as their Covid Bible, as do most liberals. And they regularly castigate me for referring to the kind of experts the Guardian refuses to cite. So how does my retweeting of a Guardian story that uncritically reports on anti-lockdown comments from a respectable, mainstream epidemiologist incur so much wrath – and seemingly directed only against me?
The answer presumably lies in the short appended comment in my retweet, which requires that one disengage from the seemingly substantive debate – lockdowns, good or bad? That conversation is certainly interesting to me, especially if it is an honest one. But the contextual issues around that debate, the ones that require critical thinking, are even more important because they are the best way to evaluate whether an honest debate is actually being fostered.
Either Prof Mark Woolhouse has arrived at this view very late in the day, or corporate media like the Guardian have until now effectively gagged eminently qualified scientists critical of lockdown policy. Either way, it looks like we've been screwed over pic.twitter.com/Gmj1RjXrBe
My comment, intentionally ambiguous, implicitly requires readers to examine wider issues about the Guardian article: the timing of its publication, why a debate about lockdowns has not previously been encouraged in the Guardian but apparently is now possible, how the debate is being framed by Woolhouse and the Guardian, and how we, the readers, may be being manipulated by that framing.
Real, live conspiracy
Interestingly, I was not alone in being struck by how strange the preferred framing was. A second epidemiologist, Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician at Harvard who serves on a scientific committee to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), saw problems with the article too. Unfortunately, however, Prof Kulldorff appears not to qualify as “eminent” enough for the Guardian to quote him uncritically. That is because he was one of three highly respected academics who brought ignominy down on their heads in October 2020 by authoring the Great Barrington Declaration.
Like Woolhouse, the Declaration offered an alternative to blanket national lockdowns – the official response to rising hospitalizations – but did so when those lockdowns were being aggressively pursued, and no other options were being considered. The Guardian was among those that pilloried the Declaration and its authors, presenting it as an irresponsible right-wing policy and a recipe for Covid to tear through the population, laying waste to significant sections of the population.
My purpose here is not to defend the Great Barrington Declaration. I don’t feel qualified enough to express a concrete, public view one way or another on its merits. And part of the reason for that hesitancy is that any meaningful conversation at the time among experts was ruthlessly suppressed. The costs of lockdowns were largely unmentionable in official circles and the “liberal” media. It was instantly stigmatized as the policy preference of the “deplorable” right.
This was not accidental. We now know it was a real, live conspiracy. Leaked emails show that Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president, and his minions used their reliable contacts in prominent liberal media to smear the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. “There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet – is it underway?” a senior official wrote to Fauci. The plan was character assassination, pure and simple—nothing to do with science. And “liberal” media happily and quickly took up that task.
The Guardian, of course, went right along with those smears. This is why Prof Kulldorff has every right to treat with disdain both the Guardian’s decision to now publish Prof Woolhouse’s criticisms – so very belatedly – of lockdown policy and Prof Woolhouse’s public distancing of himself from the now-radioactive Great Barrington Declaration even though his published comments closely echo the policies proposed in the Declaration. As Prof Kulldorff observes:
Hilarious logical somersault. In the Guardian, Mark Woolhouse argues that [the] UK should have used focused protection as defined in the Great Barrington Declaration, while criticizing the Great Barrington Declaration due to its mischaraterization by the Guardian.”
Hilarious logical somersault. In @guardian, Mark Woolhouse argues that UK should have used focused protection as defined in the Great Barrington Declaration, while criticizing the Great Barrington Declaration due to its mischaraterization by @guardian. https://t.co/lJfKVbzgaC
If we put on our critical thinking hats for a moment, we can deduce a plausible reason for that mischaracterization.
Like the rest of the “liberal” media, the Guardian has been fervently pro-lockdown and an avowed opponent of any meaningful discussion of the Great Barrington Declaration since its publication more than a year ago. Moreover, it has characterized any criticism of lockdowns as an extreme right-wing position. But the paper now wishes to open up a space for a more critical discussion of the merits of lockdown at a time when rampant but milder Omicron threatens to shut down not only the economy but distribution chains and health services.
Demands for lockdowns are returning – premised on the earlier arguments for them – but the formerly obscured costs are much more difficult to ignore now. Even lockdown cheerleaders like the Guardian finally understand some of what was clear 15 months ago to experts like Prof Kulldorff and his fellow authors.
What the Guardian appears to be doing is smuggling the Great Barrington Declaration’s arguments back into the mainstream but trying to do it in a way that won’t damage its credibility and look like an about-face. It is being entirely deceitful. And the vehicle for achieving this end is a fellow critic of lockdowns, Prof Woolhouse, who is not tainted goods like Prof Kulldorff, even though their views appear to overlap considerably. Criticism of lockdowns is being rehabilitated via Prof Woolhouse, even as Prof Kulldorff remains an outcast, a deplorable.
In other words, this is not about any evolution in scientific thinking. It is about the Guardian avoiding reputational damage – and doing so at the cost of continuing to damage Prof Kulldorff’s reputation. Prof Kulldorff and his fellow authors were scapegoated when their expert advice was considered politically inconvenient, while Prof Woolhouse is being celebrated because similar expert advice is now convenient.
This is how much of our public discourse operates. The good guys control the narrative so that they can ensure they continue to look good, while the bad guys are tarred and feathered, even if they are proven right. The only way to really make sense of what is going on is to disengage from this kind of political tribalism, examine contexts, avoid being so invested in outcomes, and work hard to gain more perspective on the anxiety and fear each of us feels.
The corporate media is not our friend. Its coverage of the pandemic is not there to promote the public good. It is there to feed our anxieties, keep us coming back for more, and monetize that distress. The only cure for this sickness? A lot more critical thinking.
There has been an unfortunate shift in Western educational practices in the past few decades away from what we used to call “critical thinking.” In fact, critical thinking was once a fundamental staple of US colleges and now it seems as though the concept doesn’t exist anymore; at least not in the way it used to. Instead, another form of learning has arisen which promotes “right thinking”; a form of indoctrination which encourages and rewards a particular response from students that falls in line with ideology and not necessarily in line with reality.
It’s not that schools directly enforce a collectivist or corporatist ideology (sometimes they do), it’s more that they filter out alternative viewpoints as well as facts and evidence they do not like until all that is left is a single path and a single conclusion to any given problem. They teach students how to NOT think by presenting thought experiments and then controlling the acceptable outcomes.
For example, a common and manipulative thought experiment used in schools is to ask students to write an “analysis” on why people do not trust science or scientists these days. The trick is that the question is always presented with a built-in conclusion – That scientists should be trusted, and some people are refusing to listen, so let’s figure out why these people are so stupid.
I have seen this experiment numerous times, always presented in the same way. Not once have I ever seen a college professor or public school teacher ask students: “Should scientists today be trusted?”
Not once.
This is NOT analysis, this is controlled hypothesis. If you already have a conclusion in mind before you enter into a thought experiment, then you will naturally try to adjust the outcome of the experiment to fit your preconceived notions. Schools today present this foolishness as a form of thinking game when it is actually propaganda. Students are being taught to think inside the box, not outside the box. This is not science, it is anti-science.
Educational programming like this is now a mainstay while actual science has taken a backseat. Millions of kids are exiting public schools and universities with no understanding of actual scientific method or science in general. Ask them what the equations for Density or Acceleration are, and they’ll have no clue what your are talking about. Ask them about issues surrounding vaccination or “climate change”, and they will regurgitate a litany of pre-programmed responses as to why the science cannot be questioned in any way.
In the alternative media we often refer to this as being “trapped in the Matrix,” and it’s hard to think of a better analogy. People have been rewarded for so long for accepting the mainstream narrative and blindly dismissing any other information that when they are presented with reality they either laugh at it arrogantly or recoil in horror. The Matrix is so much more comfortable and safe, and look at all the good grades you get when you say the right things and avoid the hard questions and agree with the teacher.
Given the sad state of science in the West these days surrounding the response to covid as well as the insane and unscientific push for forced vaccinations, I thought it would be interesting to try out this thought exercise, but from an angle that is never allowed in today’s schools:
Why don’t people trust the science and scientists anymore?
This is simple: Because many scientists have been caught lying and misrepresenting their data to fit the conclusions they want rather than the facts at hand. Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not conspiracy theory, this is provable fact.
That’s not to say that all science is to be mistrusted. The point is, no science should be blindly accepted without independent examination of ALL the available facts. This is the whole point of science, after all. Yes, there are idiotic conspiracy theories out there when it comes to scientific analysis, but there are a number of scams in the world of science as well.
The usual false claim is that the average person is ignorant and that they don’t have the capacity to understand scientific data. I do find it interesting that this is the general message of the trust-science thought experiment. It fits right in line with the mainstream and government narrative that THEIR scientists, the scientists they pay for and that corporations pay for, are implicitly correct and should not be questioned. They are the high priests of the modern era, delving into great magics that we dirty peasants cannot possibly grasp. It is not for us to question “the science”, it our job to simply embrace it like a religion and bow down in reverence.
Most people have the capacity to sift through scientific data as long as it’s transparent. When the facts are obscured or spun or omitted this causes confusion, and of course only the establishment scientists can untangle the mess because they are the ones that created it. Let’s look at a couple of examples directly related to human health…
GMO Crops And The Corporate Money Train
The propaganda surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms is relentless and pervasive, with the overall thrust being that they are perfectly safe and that anyone who says otherwise is a tinfoil hat crackpot. And certainly, there a hundreds if not thousands of studies which readily confirm this conclusion. So, case closed, right?
Not quite. Here is where critical thinking is so useful and where reality escapes the indoctrinated – Who paid for these studies, and do they have a vested interest in censoring negative data on GMOs?
Well, in the vast majority of cases GMO studies are funded by two sources – GMO industry giants like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, or, government agencies like the FDA and EPA. Very few studies are truly independent, and this is the problem. Both the government and corporations like Monsanto have a vested interest in preventing any critical studies from being released on GMO’s.
Monsanto has been caught on numerous occasions hiding the dangerous health effects of its products, from Agent Orange to the RGBH growth hormone used in dairy cows. They have been caught compiling illegal dossiers on their critics. The industry has been caught multiple times paying off academics and scientists to produce studies on GMOs with a positive spin and even to attack other scientists that are involved in experiments that are critical of GMOs. Research shows that at least half of all GMO studies are funded by the GMO industry, while the majority of the other half are funded by governments.
There has also long been a revolving door between GMO industry insiders and the FDA and EPA; officials often work for Monsanto and then get jobs with the government, then go back to Monsanto again. The back scratching is so egregious that the government even created special legal protections for GMO companies like Monsanto under what is now known as the Monsanto Protection Act (Section 735 of Agricultural Appropriations Bill HR 993) under the Obama Administration in 2013. This essentially makes GMO companies immune to litigation over GMOs, and the same protections have been renewed in different bills ever since.
Beyond the revolving door, the government has approved many GMO products with little to no critical data to confirm their safety. Not only that, but in most cases the government has sovereign immunity from litigation, even if they’ve been negligent. Meaning, if any of these products is proven to cause long term health damage the government cannot be sued for approving them unless there are special circumstances.
If they could be held liable, you would be damn sure the FDA would be running every conceivable test imaginable to make sure GMOs are definitively safe without any bias attached, but this is not the case. Instead, the government actively propagandizes for GMO companies and uses hired hatchet men to derail any public criticism.
I, for one, would certainly like to know for sure if GMOs are harmful to the human body in the long term, and there is certainly science to suggest that this might be the case. There have been many situations in which specific GMO foods were removed from the market because of potentially harmful side effects. Endogenous toxins of plants with modified metabolites are a concern, along with “plant incorporated protectants” (plants designed to produce toxins which act as a pesticides).
There is data that tells us to be wary, but nothing conclusive. Why? Because billions of dollars are being invested by corporations into research designed to “debunk” any notion of side effects. If the same amount of funding was put into independent studies with no bias, then we might hear a different story about the risks of GMOs. All the money is in dismissing the risks of GMOs; there’s almost no money in studying them honestly.
The science appears to be rigged to a particular outcome or narrative, and that is lying. Science is supposed to remain as objective as possible, but how can it be objective when it is being paid for by people with an agenda? The temptation to sell out is extreme.
Covid Vaccines And The Death Of Science
I bring up the example of GMO’s because I think it is representative of how science can be controlled to produce only one message while excluding all other analysis. We don’t really know for sure how dangerous GMOs are because the majority of data is dictated by the people that profit from them and by their friends in government. The lack of knowing is upheld as proof of safety – But this is not scientific. Science and medicine would demand that we err on the side of caution until we know for sure.
The same dynamic exists in the world of covid vaccines. Big Pharma has a vested interest in ensuring NO negative information is released about the mRNA vaccines because there is a perpetual river of money to be made as long as the vax remains approved for emergency use by the FDA. It may be important to note that the FDA has said it will take at least 55 YEARS to release all the data it has on the Pfizer covid vaccines, which suggests again that there is a beneficial collusion between the government and corporate behemoths.
In the meantime, anyone that questions the efficacy or safety of the vax is immediately set upon by attack dogs in the media, most of them paid with advertising dollars from Big Pharma. These attacks are not limited to the alternative media; the establishment has also gone after any scientist or doctor with questions about vaccine safety.
There are clear and openly admitted ideological agendas surrounding covid science which have nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with political control. When you have the head of the World Economic Forum applauding the covid pandemic as a perfect “opportunity” to push forward global socialist centralization and erase the last vestiges of free markets and individual liberty, any rational person would have to question if the covid science is also being rigged to support special interests.
Luckily, the covid issue is so massive that it is impossible for them to control every study. Instead, the establishment ignores the studies and data they don’t like.
The virus is being hyped as a threat to the majority of the public and as a rationale for 100% vaccination rates, by force if needed. Yet, the median Infection Fatality Rate of covid is only 0.27%. This means that on average 99.7% of the population at any given time has nothing to fear from the virus. This is confirmed by dozens of independent medical studies, but when was the last time you heard that number discussed by mainstream government scientists like Anthony Fauci?
I’ve never heard them talk about it. But how is it scientific to ignore data just because it doesn’t fit your political aims? Again, deliberate omission of data is a form of lying.
What about the multiple studies indicating that natural immunity is far superior in protection to the mRNA vaccines? What about the fact that the countries with the highest vaccination rates also have the highest rates of infections and their hospitalizations have actually increased? What about the fact that the states and countries with the harshest lockdown and mask mandates also have the highest infection rates? What about the fact that the average vaccine is tested for 10-15 years before being approved for human use, while the covid mRNA vaccines were put into production within months? That is to say, there is NO long term data to prove the safety of the covid vax.
These are easily observable scientific facts, but we never hear about them from corporate scientists or government scientists like Fauci? Instead, Fauci argues that criticism of his policies is an attack on him, and attacking him is the same as “attacking science.” In other words, Fauci believes HE IS the science.
And doesn’t that just illustrate how far science has fallen in the new millennium. Real scientists like Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, call Fauci a fraud, but they are ignored while Fauci is worshiped. I can’t even get into climate change “science” here, I would have to write an entire separate article about the fallacies perpetrated by global warming academics (did you know that global temperatures have only increased by 1 degree Celsius in the past century? Yep, just 1 degree according to the NOAA’s own data, yet, institutions like the NOAA continue to claim the end of the world is nigh because of global warming).
The stringent bottleneck on science today reminds me of the Catholic church under Pope Innocent III when church authorities forbade common people from owning or reading a bible. These laws remained in effect well into the 13th century. Instead, the peasants were to go to church and have the texts read to them by specific clergy. Often the bible readings were done in Latin which most people did not speak, and interpreted however the church wished.
It was only the invention of the printing press in the 1400s that changed the power dynamic and allowed bibles to be widely distributed and information to spread without church oversight. Much like the creation of the internet allows the public to access mountains of scientific data and methodologies at their fingertips. The free flow of information is an anathema according to the establishment; they argue that only they have the right to process information for public consumption.
Cultism requires excessive control of data and the complete restriction of outside interpretations. As information becomes openly available the public is then able to learn the whole truth, not just approved establishment narratives.
Science is quickly becoming a political religion rather than a bastion of critical thought. Conflicting data is ignored as “non-science” or even censored as “dangerous.” Government and corporate paid studies are treated as sacrosanct. Is it any wonder that so many people now distrust the science? Any reasonable person would have questions and suspicions. Those who do not have been indoctrinated into a cult they don’t even know they are a part of.
The year of sickening global psychosis ended with virologist and vaccine-uberspecialist Dr. Robert Malone truth-bombing the Internet with three hours of straight talk about the US health authorities’ campaign to destroy the lives of at least half a million US citizens (so far) and, leading by example, to harm multiples of that number of innocent people across all of Western Civilization. Podcaster Joe Rogan assisted skillfully in an interview that is finally rocking the world out of an epic consensus trance. (Listen.)
By health authorities I don’t just mean Dr. Anthony Fauci, the designated National SARS-CoV-2 Coordinator, or his accomplices in the Dept. of Health and Human Services agencies, CDC, NIH, NIAID, etc., but also the purblind US medical establishment of actual doctors in clinical practice, researchers, hospital administrators, and pharma executives who acted with a collective stupid malevolence not seen since the crematory-stuffers of the Nazi bureaucracy carried out their final solution.
We know what you did. You engineered and patented a gain-of-function virus at the same time you conspired with pharma companies to devise and patent pseudo-vaccines, and then you loosed both of them on the public. You didn’t just fail to adequately test the “vaccines” cooked up by Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, but you deliberately botched the trails and lied about it. You created rich $$ incentives for hospitals to mis-treat Covid patients by failing to use known, safe, effective anti-virals. You conspired with social and news media to suppress information about those common anti-viral drugs that would have informed many patient’s decisions and saved thousands of lives. You treated late-stage patients dying of Covid-induced vascular disorder with the ineffective and toxic drug remdesivir that Dr. Fauci had developed unsuccessfully for an ebola outbreak years ago. (Nurses turned so cynical about the remdesivir protocol that they nicknamed it “run-death-is-near.”) You prompted government officials to lockdown society, force useless masking, and now to coerce “vaccination” by threatening to deprive citizens of their livelihoods.
The US Supreme Court will entertain arguments this Friday, January 7, to enjoin against “Joe Biden’s” mandates to coerce “vaccination” in companies that employ more than a hundred people and a separate mandate forcing vaxxes on staff at Medicare / Medicaid certified “providers” (meaning most hospitals and doctors’ offices). There’s a pretty good chance the court will decide against the mandates. They’re expected to rule Monday, January 10, the day that the mandates are supposed to take effect.
The government’s actions around the Covid-19 event look more and more to be deliberately and maliciously intended to harm lives and cause social and economic breakdown. In the last weeks of 2021, federal public health officers even blocked shipments of monoclonal antibodies around the country, despite their proven efficacy. The CDC scheduled the use of PCR tests for Covid-19 to end on December 31, after declaring them unreliable in August. Why the five-month lag? (To keep case numbers jacked up, that’s why.)
Every effort is being made to extend emergency use authorizations for unsafe and ineffective “vaccines” in order to sustain shields against liability for the benefit of their manufacturers. Pfizer refuses to release in the USA its FDA-approved comirnaty version of the EUA-protected BioNTech product for that reason. The Pentagon has lied and confabulated its use of the two Pfizer products in order to illegally force unapproved BioNTech vaccinations on enlisted men and women. Hospital directors, doctors, and their professional associations continue to persecute colleagues who speak publicly against the “vaccines.” The “vaccine” makers refuse to disclose the exact contents of their products, and were permitted to withhold data on safety trials until a half-century into the future. The obvious conclusion is that they don’t want the public to be informed about any of this. The net effect is that medicine in the USA has destroyed its own authority. Who can trust his doctor knowing that they’ve gone along with all this epic dishonesty?
The country is heading into an agonizing reality-test at a scale and speed never seen before in world history. You can already assume that government has lost control of the Covid-19 story. The Omicron scare is failing miserably. Lots of cases, few deaths, mild symptoms. Government’s credibility is shot. In the months ahead, we’ll learn just how harmful those “vaccines” were — especially among American children — as deaths mount from damage done to people’s organs and immune systems.
The perfidious news media is scrambling now to adjust its narratives, but they won’t escape the record of falsehood they’ve sedulously laid down. They can’t delete or rewrite every story in their archives, and many of these are printed out in hard-copy anyhow. Next, they’ll try apologizing. (“Sorry, but the pandemic drove us a little nuts.”) That’s hardly enough. They have to answer in courts of law — or else we must just declare the USA a lawless state.
The Covid-19 crimes against our fellow citizens amount to only one piece of a package of reality-tests coming our way in 2022. Do you think Special Counsel John Durham skulked off to drink pina coladas in oblivion after indicting a couple of errand boys (Danchenko and Sussman)? He is a hypersonic force orbiting over a well-known cast of political criminals who are headed for prosecution. Next up will be the train wreck of the US economy. Do you think the crimes around the 2020 national election are buried and forgotten? You’re in for some harsh surprises. Things have truly flipped. You just don’t realize it yet.
Document released by Pfizer apparently as a result of a Freedom Of Information court order in the USA reveals a vast array of previously unknown vaccine adverse effects compiled from official sources around the world.
Pfizer concedes this is ‘a large increase’ in adverse event reports and that even this huge volume is under reported.
Over 100+ diseases are listed, many very serious.
This document was compiled by Pfizer in the very early days of the vaccine rollout in NZ but was possibly not supplied to our government.
All of these are minor, requiring little or no treatment other than rest, with the exception of severe allergic reactions, myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart). As a result, most of the many thousands of New Zealanders reporting adverse effects post vaccination have been sent home with little more than advice to take an aspirin and rest. Some have been told that their conditions may be unrelated medical events, psychosomatic, or due to anxiety on their part.
Relying on the short official Pfizer fact sheet as a guide, Medsafe, our NZ medicines regulatory body, has only accepted one out of the 100+ deaths actually reported to them as related to vaccination. Most are listed as unrelated, under investigation, or unknowable. By contrast, the NZ Health Forum and other groups have collected unofficial reports of adverse effects and death proximate to vaccination. Out of 670+ reports of death compiled by the Forum, 270 have already been investigated by medical professionals and closely linked to known adverse effects. Following the publication of the new Pfizer document many more are expected to be connected with vaccination. Reports describe symptoms such as chest pain, brain fog, extreme fatigue, neurological symptoms, tachycardia, stroke, heart attacks, and many more. Collected data suggests that as many as two-thirds of adverse event enquiries made to medical staff by vaccine recipients have not been reported to CARM—the NZ system of adverse event reporting. Medsafe itself estimates in its Guide to Adverse Reaction Reporting that in NZ only 5% of adverse events are reported. As a result the NZ public is completely unaware of the extent of reported possible risks of vaccination.
The just released Pfizer document which is being circulated widely in the public domain and can downloaded from websites is entitled:
5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
Therefore the reported side effects predate the vaccine rollout in New Zealand. The report itself was finalised by Pfizer on 30 April 2021. Did Pfizer supply this information to our government during the early days of our universal vaccination programme? If so the results should have been shared with our medical professionals, politicians, and the public. Many of the new 100+ listed new adverse event types now released by Pfizer in this 38 page document pose long term risks to health. Until very recently, the document was being withheld by Pfizer who maintained it should be kept confidential. There is a strong possibility that very large numbers of New Zealanders will suffer long term injury as a result.
How did this happen without anyone’s knowledge?
Even though the Pfizer vaccine had undergone very short trials and had provisional approval only, Medsafe did not update its CARM adverse event reporting system to make it mandatory rather than voluntary.
Medsafe did not advise GPs and Hospital staff to be on high alert for adverse events and report them rapidly and in detail.
The Government ignored the unprecedented numbers of adverse events being reported to Medsafe and circulating in the community and on social media.
The Government instituted a public relations, promotional, and media campaign advising the public that the Pfizer covid-19 mRNA vaccine was completely safe and free of serious side effects, giving the impression that there were no side effects—not even the known serious effects of heart inflammation that Pfizer had already admitted.
Unaccountably, conditions imposed by the contract that our Government signed with Pfizer for the supply of vaccines have not been made public. We suspect that the contract contains standard clauses similar to those used with drugs that have completed safety trials, such as a provision that public discussion of adverse events may only be undertaken in conjunction with the company supplying the drug. If this is the case, it will have hamstrung Medsafe and our Government in their approach to assessment and public discussion of adverse events.
What are the new risks of vaccination?
Anyone reading the new Pfizer adverse event report compilation will be staggered. The sheer density of the technical medical terms and disease names are nevertheless broken down into recognisable and serious categories of illness—kidney failure, stroke, cardiac events, pregnancy complications, inflammation, neurological disease, autoimmune failure, paralysis, liver failure, blood disorders, skin disease, musculoskeletal problems, arthritis, respiratory disease, DVT, blood clots, vascular disease, haemorrhage, loss of sight, Bell’s palsy, and epilepsy.
How has this affected New Zealand?
Whilst even the official Medsafe record of adverse effects and the unofficial lists show that the immediate risks of covid vaccination could be as much as 50 – 300 times greater than even the most risky of previous traditional vaccines (such as the smallpox jab), and whilst the long term effects are unknown, 90% of eligible New Zealanders have gone ahead with vaccination having accepted the assurances of safety and efficacy from the government, or having been forced to get vaccinated under threat of loss of employment and freedom of movement. Feeling the fear of covid that has been generated by reports in the international and local media, most people completing vaccination heaved a great sigh of relief—that is one huge worry off my mind, now I can get on with my life.
Those finding that no immediate insurmountable reaction had surfaced (the majority) understandably agreed with the government: “What is all the fuss about? Why shouldn’t everyone do this, or be made to do this? It is a social good that will protect everyone”
BUT there is a huge iceberg in the path of the good ship New Zealand hidden under the waves of relief. Thousands are quietly suffering debilitating illness, unacknowledged and in some cases untreated by their doctors. For those who survived vaccination without immediate injury this was not a problem because they didn’t know about it apart from one or two complaints from friends that might just be random coincidences.
This has brought about a division in New Zealand society which the government created in the name of public safety. Thousands of dedicated servants of the nation including teachers, health workers, and others are being stigmatised and forced out of their jobs in a manner horrifyingly reminiscent of the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. The government did this despite knowing that the Pfizer vaccine was neither fully tested, safe, nor particularly effective. Judges handed down decisions in courts supporting the government mandates unaware of crucial mRNA vaccine safety data, all because Pfizer had withheld this information, and the government had not done its due diligence. Had the true position been known, the High Court’s NZ Bill of Rights analysis may well have been different and its provision which guarantees that every individual should be able to make their own medical choices might still be intact.
Pfizer’s conclusions
Pfizer concludes the released document with a statement “Review of the available data for this cumulative PM experience, confirms a favorable benefit:risk balance for BNT162b2.” PM stands for the Post Marketing data set they are evaluating of 42,086 reported adverse events. Pfizer makes this bald claim of benefit despite admitting that “the magnitude of underreporting is unknown”. This document contains no further substantive information in support of this claim of benefit:risk balance other than a mysterious reference to “the known safety profile of the vaccine”.
The benefit:risk argument is in essence saying: covid-19 is a serious illness and our calculations show that more people will be injured by the disease than are being injured by the vaccine, therefore there will be a net benefit. This argument falls over because of at least three very important factors: Firstly treatment options have improved and thereby the risk of serious illness and death from covid has been greatly reduced.
Secondly the risk of covid is not evenly spread. People with comorbidities (other conditions) and the elderly are at very high risk. Most other people are at very low risk. Thus vaccination could subject people at low risk from covid to a higher risk from vaccination. Approaches to preventive health education can reduce the covid risk to people with comorbidities more than vaccination can. For example a study published in the BMJ found that people following a plant based diet have a 73% reduced risk of serious illness. Data from the UK Biobank has been analysed by researchers from Manchester and Oxford Universities and the West Indies who found that shift workers (who typically have disrupted bioclocks) have three times the risk of being hospitalised with covid. Preventive remedies include changes in diet such as the introduction of more fresh fruit, vegetables, and fibre, and reductions in known unhealthy habits such as smoking, excess alcohol consumption, an overly sedentary lifestyle, a predominance of ultra processed foods, and many more.
The third and most significant reason the benefit:risk argument falls over is the sheer range of adverse reaction types observed by Pfizer and kept hidden until now.
How could a single vaccine have such a wide range of effects?
The technical reasons why mRNA vaccines can have such broad effects on human health are understood by those working in gene therapy. Perfectly stable DNA function is critical to life. In turn, cell function integrity is critical to maintaining DNA. Individual cells contain mechanisms to repair their own DNA as many as 70,000 times a day. From this perspective, the in vitro laboratory study recently published in Viruses 2021, 13,2056, is indicative. It suggests a possible mechanism for vaccine harm. The study found that the spike protein localises in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding access of key DNA repair proteins. The findings reveal a potential molecular pathway by which the covid spike protein might impede adaptive immunity. They underscore the potential side effects of the full-length spike-based mRNA vaccines.
Despite a degree of cellular autonomy, the nervous system and the physiology must and does function as a whole. The entire nervous system including the immune system is a ‘part and whole’ network. The whole is in every part, the DNA is in every cell, but cell function is also related to a generalised and interconnected genetic network—the holistic functioning of the physiological network is critical to its efficiency. Thus physiological network stability (health) can be impaired by the introduction of pieces of active genetic code (biologic instructions) like those contained in mRNA vaccines.
An analogy will make this clear. We are familiar with computer networks. A very common backbone of most commercial systems is produced by Microsoft. Each computer contains the Microsoft system and the network also runs under its system. The system is supported by computer code—a set of complex instructions written by Microsoft. Individual computers can perform standalone tasks and can communicate with other computers to keep the organisation running smoothly. This can be compared to our physiology. There are many systems in the body: immune system, circulatory system, digestive system, limbic system, homeostatic mechanisms, musculoskeletal structure, neural networks, and so on. They perform apparently stand alone functions, but all run on the basis of the same genetic code contained in our DNA and communicate with one another during the process of maintaining health. Back to our analogy: office staff sometimes send messages full of spelling errors to one another but this doesn’t harm the network. If however a computer virus written in code is sent by one computer it can overwhelm and crash network function because it affects the operating system. Some networks are protected by good firewalls and others are vulnerable. The Covid vaccine introduces a sequence of information written in genetic code into our physiology. It is no wonder that it could elicit such a very broad range of adverse effects, some of which are so serious as to be analogous to a computer network crash. Some individuals have strong immune systems and are little affected, others experience problems in one or other systems. The fact that a sequence of foreign code has been introduced into the physiology produces major risks to health, risks that those working in gene therapy for the last few decades are very familiar with.
The extremely broad range of adverse effects revealed by the Pfizer document is the physiological signature of a general control system failure, a failure of the body’s overall integration and function. It is not plausible to suggest otherwise. That is why experts in genomics, even as I write, are pondering fundamental questions about the action and safety of mRNA vaccines. They are also urging caution.
Conclusion
The NZ government agreed commercial terms with a single company for vaccine supply. It is possible that vital information was withheld. The public was kept in ignorance of known risks. This has divided our society and undermined our fundamental Kiwi tolerance on the basis of not only incomplete but misleading safety data. The government is asleep at the wheel. Knowing full well that safety trials were incomplete, the government apparently accepted information supplied by multinational commercial interests at face value. This should be a ‘never again’ moment. There are huge lessons to be learned and an apology owed to the whole population. The provisions of the NZ BIll of Rights should be given constitutional status. The vaccine mandates should be withdrawn and those affected by them compensated. The proposed vaccination of 5 -11 year olds should be stopped.
Guy Hatchard PhD is a statistician and former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certificationlaboratory. Guy’s book ‘Your DNA Diet’ is available on Amazon.com.
In a stunning 46-page legal filing to the International Criminal Court on December 6, an intrepid attorney and seven applicants accused Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak, Melinda Gates, William Gates III, and twelve others of numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code. These included various crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined by the Rome Statutes, Articles 6, 7, 8, 15, 21, and 53.
Besides the four kingpins, twelve others were named, including the CEOs of the leading vaccine corporations and the health leaders held accountable for the United Kingdom.
Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer
Stephane Bancel, CEO of AstraZeneca
Pascal Soriot, CEO of Moderna
Alex Gorsky, CEO of Johnson and Johnson
Tedros Adhanhom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO
Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister
Christopher Whitty, UK Chief Medical Adviser
Matthew Hancock, former UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Sajid Javid, current UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
June Raine, UK Chief Executive of Medicines and Healthcare products
Dr. Ravid Shah, President of the Rockefeller Foundation
Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum
Dr. Ravid Shah, having worked for the Gates Foundation since 2001, was named a World Economic Forum “Young Global Leader” in 2007. He now presides over the Rockefeller Foundation, a group funding ID2020 along with the Gates Foundation.
Klaus Schwab, a wickedly intelligent, perhaps diabolical German with double doctorate degrees in Economics and Engineering, is the founder of the World Economic Forum, a club for the wealthiest percentile of the world’s corporate and political elite. He is a power broker who has groomed many presidents, prime ministers, and tech CEOs who now view him with reverence and unswerving loyalty.
Schwab, an economist, and technocrat has befriended many nations, most significantly China’s Xi Jinping, who delivered a key speech at Davos. He praised his vision of a New World Order. On January 25, 2021, Klaus Schwab vowed his support for Xi Jinping with these words, “Mr. President (Xi Jinping) I believe this is the best time to reset our policies and to work, jointly, for a peaceful and prosperous world. We all welcome now, his excellency, Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China.” See mark 2:26.
Many consider Schwab the mastermind behind the current movement towards cryptocurrency, universal identification, and a one-world (fascist) government to be run jointly, in totalitarian fashion, with China.
Attorney Hannah Rose and seven applicants brought the Nuremberg action on behalf of the victims, the entire population of the United Kingdom. She filed the legal proceeding with the International Criminal Court located at The Hague. The Hague is notable for its long history in helping victims seek redress for war crimes and defining appropriate ethical guidelines for conduct during war.
Following the Nazi atrocities committed during World War II, the war crime trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany. Following these, a set of principles was developed, which ultimately led to the development of the Nuremberg Code.
These principles essentially meant that anyone, no matter how wealthy or powerful, even a head of state, was not above the law. The fact that the law of their home nation would permit their action would not relieve the person from justice under international law.
In particular, the medical experiments conducted by the Nazi doctors led to strict rules and ethical principles regarding future human scientific trials, including the doctrine of necessary informed consent and freedom from coercion or threat in submitting to experimental drugs.
As we all know, before receiving a surgical procedure, there is a legal and ethical requirement that the patient be apprised of any significant potential risks, including infection, bleeding, nerve damage, or even death. The patient usually signs the consent form following this explanation. And as we all know, whenever we receive prescription medication, we are notified of the potential risks on a package insert and usually a discussion with the Pharmacist.
The vaccines should be no different, yet they are. A person about to receive the jab is rarely told that there are risks of blood clots, bleeding, cerebral thrombosis, myocarditis, and death, yet those risks exist. See mark 12:58 to 17:40.
Attorney Hannah Rose notes in Point 40 of her brief that the ethical standards of the Nuremberg Code amount to an obligation on physicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers to abide by its principles. Accordingly, any physician or research scientist found to have breached any of the ten principles of the Nuremberg Code would face criminal liability.
She notes in Point 42, “The first principle of the Nuremberg Code is a willingness and informed consent by the person to receive treatment and participate in an experiment. The person is supposed to activate freedom of choice without the intervention, either through force, deceit, fraud, threat, solicitation, or any other type of binding or coercion.”
In Point 43 she argues, “When the heads of the Ministry of Health as well as the Prime Minister presented the vaccine in the United Kingdom and began the vaccination of United Kingdom residents, the vaccinated were not advised, that in practice, they would be taking part in a medical experiment and that their consent is required under the Nuremberg Code. This as a matter of fact is a genetic medical experiment on human beings performed without informed consent under a severe and blatant offense of the Nuremberg Code.”
In addition, Rose argues under Point 44 that there is an obligation for alternative treatments to be discussed, including the risks and benefits of such alternatives. She notes that these were never discussed despite the fact alternative treatments have been proven to be safe and effective “with up to a 100% success rate.”
A key principle of the Nuremberg Code requires that a scientist must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
In Point 46, she argues, “It is known that the mRNA ‘vaccination’ treatments have caused the death of many as well as injury and severe damage (including disablement and paralysis) after the ‘vaccine’ was administered. Despite this fact, the government did not instruct the initiation of an investigation into the matter. It is also questionable that given the experimental nature of these vaccinations, that there are not any full reports available of the numbers of dead or injured, as may be expected in such a medical process for the benefit of the public participating in the experiment.”
The reader is reminded that Nazi physicians conducted experiments on human beings in concentration camps without informed consent, leading to horrific suffering and death.
To dramatically underscore the relevance of Nuremberg to the horrific deaths we now see related to the experimental mRNA ‘vaccination’ program, Rose, in Point 34a, included a statement from a group of Holocaust survivors, those who experienced first-hand both the Nazi experiments and today the vaccine experiment. This is an excerpt from their unique perspective:
We, the survivors of the atrocities committed against humanity during the Second World War, feel bound to follow our conscience…Another holocaust of greater magnitude is taking place before our eyes. We call upon you to stop this ungodly medical experiment on humankind immediately. It is a medical experiment to which the Nuremberg Code must be applied.
Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav issued a statement in Points 34b and 34c:
The stark lesson of the Holocaust is that whenever doctors join forces with government and deviate from their personal, professional, clinical commitment to do no harm to the individual, medicine can then be perverted from a healing, humanitarian profession to a murderous apparatus…What sets the Holocaust apart from all other mass genocides is the pivotal role played by the medical establishment, the entire medical establishment. Every step of the murderous process was endorsed by the academic, professional medical establishment.
As a direct result of the Nuremberg World War II experience, the United Nations asked the International Law Commission to develop the Nuremberg Principles, the key standards to avoid the Nazi doctors’ atrocities. Unfortunately, as Hannah Rose pointed out, many of these ten principles of the Nuremberg Code were systematically violated by the United Kingdom and many other countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition, a permanent international criminal court was established for investigation and enforcement – known as The International Criminal Court. The ICC began full-time operations in 2002 and currently has 123 member nations that have explicitly agreed to be bound by the Rome Statutes.
The United Kingdom is a member while the United States is not. However, under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, even a state that is NOT a member may exercise jurisdiction “by declaration lodged with the Registrar,” meaning that any nation may be subject to the ICC depending upon the circumstances, member nation or not. Keep in mind that Nazi Germany had not consented to jurisdiction.
The ICC bills itself as a “court of last resort” meaning that claims should be decided in the perpetrator’s home nation whenever possible. However, the core principle of impunity drives the ICC, the belief that no one who commits war crimes should enjoy freedom from criminal responsibility. Therefore, the ICC operates as an impartial and omnipotent arbiter of world human rights and will aggressively step in when it sees flagrant Nuremberg-type atrocities without consequence.
That is precisely what Hannah Rose has identified in her legal brief in Point 2,
“We have tried to raise this case through the English police and the English Court system without success, we have been unable even to get the case registered either with the police or with the court after several attempts…This is such a case which is why we are addressing the ICC directly.”
Attorney Rose relied partly upon the expertise of Dr. Michael Yeadon, a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology and former Vice President and Chief Scientist at Pfizer.
In the background section of the brief, she writes in Point 5:
“The Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ do not meet the requirement to be categorized as vaccines and are in fact gene therapy (Appendix 8)…Dr. Mike Yeadon, a joint applicant on this request, asserts that claims calling the Covid-19 injections a ‘vaccine’ is public manipulation and misrepresentation of clinical treatment.
It’s not a vaccination. It’s not prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with it, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.’
MRNA uses the cell’s machinery to synthesize proteins that are supposed to resemble the SPIKE protein of the virus, which is what it uses to enter cells via the ACE2 receptor. These proteins are then identified by the immune system, which builds antibodies against them. The real concern is that these proteins could accumulate in the body, especially in regions of high concentration of ACE2 receptors, such as the gonads. If the immune system then attacks the location where they accumulate, then you could be dealing with an auto-immune condition.”
Dr. Yeadon mentions, in an interview, that our governments have grossly exaggerated the entire threat of COVID-19. He notes that COVID-19 represents a slightly greater risk than influenza if you are older than age 70 but a much lower risk than the seasonal flu if you are younger. See mark 31:00.
“So it’s just absurd that you should be happy or willing to let your economy and civil society be smashed for something which represents for almost everyone working a lower risk than influenza – but that’s true.
Given this virus represents at worst a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than does influenza, and a less risk than for almost everyone else who’s younger and fit, it was NEVER NECESSARY for us to have done anything.
We didn’t need to do anything, lockdowns, masks, mass testing, vaccines – there are multiple therapeutic drugs that are at least as effective as vaccines are…an off-patent drug called Ivermectin, one of the most widely used drugs in the world, is also able to reduce symptoms at any stage of the disease including lethality by about 90%.
So you don’t need vaccines and you don’t need any of the measures that have been introduced at all.” See mark 31:15.
For any reader still under the illusion that these mRNA covid vaccines have helped, please read the following article comparing the countries without vaccination to those with it. The most vaccinated nations have deaths per million up to 100 x greater than the least. Always question what the government tells you.
Yeadon goes on to explain that people need not worry about variants. He explains that our immune system is easily able to deal with ALL mutations of SARS-CoV-2 and explains that 18 years after the first SARS, those people are still protected by their immunity – and this immunity even extends to immunity against SARS-CoV-2, a virus 80% similar but 20% different than the original SARS.
Yeadon’s major point is that if survivors of SARS some 18 years later have immunity against the new virus, which is 20% different, why would we believe that a current viral mutant only 0.3% different would be a threat? See mark 35:40.
“So when your government scientists say that a variant that’s 0.3% different from SARS could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I’m telling you, THEY ARE LYING. If they’re lying and they are, why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up vaccines? They are making them.” See mark 35:55
“You should be terrified at this point. I am, because there is absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. But they’re being made, and the world’s medicine regulators have said…we won’t be asking them to do any clinical safety studies. Let me just say again, the variants are not different enough to represent a threat to you so you do not need top-up vaccines…
The regulators have waved them through. I’m very frightened of that – there’s no possible benign interpretation of this. I believe they are going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. Seriously. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation.
This will provide the tools to do it and plausible deniability – because they will create another story about some sort of biological threat, you’ll line up and get your top-up vaccines, and a few months or a year or so later, you’ll die of some peculiar, inexplicable syndrome, and they won’t be able to associate it with the top-up vaccines.” See mark 36:05 to 37:15.
Yeadon follows this up with his conclusion, “This system (mandatory vaccine passports) is being put in place using lies, and it’s being put in place for some purpose, and I believe that purpose is complete totalitarian control, and I think the purpose of that is going to be mass depopulation.” See mark 45:40.
“Do not allow it to be an interoperable global fixed-format database because that will be the end of human freedom, and I see no way of recovering from that once the system’s up and running.” See mark 46:30
Yeadon explained that few people will hear his words and that this fraud was perpetrated on the world’s population through censorship, fear and propaganda. Dr. Yeadon, an insightful man, notes that the perpetrators have exhaustively planned this all, and they have considered how people might respond. Yeadon notes that if we all respond as expected, we will lose.
“Collectively, we need to do something unexpected.” See mark 48:43.
However, it is likely they didn’t plan on the International Criminal Court coming after them. They also didn’t plan on Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an experienced trial lawyer licensed in Germany and California who founded the Berlin Corona Committee, which heads a group of attorneys with global reach dedicated to dragging this deadly conspiracy into the open and suing it into oblivion.
Fuellmich does an excellent job in this interview of exposing the actions of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, WEF, also known as Davos. The WEF has as its goal the establishment of a New World Order, with the globe to be run by self-selected technocrats like Bill Gates, himself, and other members of Davos.
In 1971 Schwab founded what was to become the WEF in 1987. It has 1,000 members. In general, qualification requires a business to have more than 5 billion dollars per year in revenue. The theme of WEF and Klaus Schwab has recently been “The Great Reset,” which essentially means a new world order. In the following video, Klaus Schwab can be heard discussing this with Henry Kissinger. We hear Dr. Kissinger praising China’s Xi Jinping’s speech and the formation of a new international order. See mark 2:50 to 4:00.
Schwab himself sums up the 2017 Davos Meeting with the following statement, “What a wonderful opportunity to conclude our week here with such concrete proposals and ideas of how we can really create a New World Order.” See mark 26:40.
Professor Andreas Oehler aptly describes the agenda of Schwab and the WEF, “The World Economic Forum seems to be the driver behind and organizer of the global population control operations, be it pandemics, biometric IDs, Great Reset, or public-private partnerships in name of the “common good” (fascist corporatism).” See the following article, “The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse identified, along with the Apocalypse itself.”
Professor Oehler of the University of Bamberg is widely published in credit, banking, finance, and investor protection. He believes that Klaus Schwab and his WEF members, including Bill Gates, planned the COVID-19 pandemic by sponsoring Event 201, a coronavirus pandemic simulation exercise held in New York City on October 18, 2019. WEF has been a proponent of digital biometric identity systems to make societies “more efficient and productive” (and easier to control).
Oehler wrote, “WEF collaborates with the ID2020 alliance, funded by the Gates and Rockefeller foundations to run a program to ‘provide digital ID with vaccines.’ In particular, ID2020 sees the vaccination of children as ‘an entry point for digital identity.’ In reality, this means that anything a person does or is allowed to do (employment, travel, commerce, health care…) will be linked to the person’s digital ID. This will remove any privacy and take total control over each and every activity of any individual on earth.”
For readers who may doubt this, read Klaus Schwab’s book, The Great Reset. One of his chief goals is to have perfect monitoring ability of every human being and to be able to regulate all behavior, even to the point of complete totalitarian control.
The WEF sees times of great turmoil or catastrophes as ideal opportunities to implement this reset, such as during the financial crisis of 2008, and now the COVID-19 pandemic, which Dr. Reiner Fuellmich feels created a perfect opportunity for the WEF to execute its plan. Fuellmich, a world-renowned trial attorney, refers to Schwab and his henchmen collectively as “Mr. Global.”
“Klaus Schwab spells this out in his book, The Great Reset, and demands… a World Government under the UN, which has been brought under control by the WEF. This is to be achieved by creating as much worldwide chaos as possible in the form of pandemics, wars including civil wars and natural disasters so that the world population becomes convinced that the national governments are overwhelmed, and only a world government can help.
At the same time, Schwab calls for the shifting of all wealth to Mr. Global so that in 2030, no one, except Mr. Global, will still own anything, and we will supposedly be happy with that. Cash is to be abolished and replaced by a digital currency. This will be allocated to or taken away from every person in the world who can then also be found anywhere and at any time by various tracking systems. This is to be done by a single central world bank.” See mark 32:45 to 33:56.
Fuellmich and Oehler both describe a series of puppets that the WEF has trained to help carry out these missions under the WEF “Young Global Leader” program, which started in 1993. Such people have gone on to become Presidents, Prime Ministers, and CEOs. These include some of the key players in this pandemic and vaccination effort:
Microsoft founder Bill Gates (1993)
California Governor Gavin Newsom (selected in 2005)
Pete Buttigieg (selected in 2019, candidate for US President in 2020, US secretary of transportation since 2021)
Stéphane Bancel (Moderna CEO; selected in 2009)
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg (2009)
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (2007)
Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page (2002/2005)
Covid Twitter personality Eric Feigl-Ding (a ‘WEF Global Shaper‘ since 2013)
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (since 2017, selected in 2014)
Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt (selected in 2003; former WEF strategy director)
Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland (selected in 2001; former managing director of Reuters)
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a WEF participant but is not a confirmed Young Global Leader
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (selected in 1993, 12 years before becoming Chancellor)
Current German Health Minister Jens Spahn and former Health Ministers Philipp Roesler and Daniel Bahr
EU Commission Presidents Jose Manuel Barroso (2004-2014, selected in 1993) and Jean-Claude Juncker (2014-2019, selected in 1995)
French President Emanuel Macron (since 2017, selected in 2016),
Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (2007-2012, selected in 1993),
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz
Former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi (2014-2016, selected in 2012),
Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (1996-2004, selected in 1993)
Dr. Ravid Shah, President of the Rockefeller Foundation
When we notice the harsh authoritarian and mandatory lockdowns of Australia, Austria, and Canada, perhaps it begins to make better sense when we factor in the names of those in the WEF Young Global Leadership program. See mark 34:25 to 34:58.
Now, against our seemingly hopeless situation, Reiner Fuellmich gives us all every reason to be optimistic:
“Against this background, which increasingly more people are recognizing, very large legal disputes have been set in motion in India, South Africa, the US, Canada, and France. Their goal is to hold those responsible accountable under both civil and criminal law. This also includes that the assets that have been taken away by Mr. Global from the world’s population…are returned…In particular, Anglo-American Law with its powerful tools of class action, pre-trial discovery, punitive damages…provides the tools for very effective justice.” See mark 35:00.
Reiner mentions that he has developed very good evidence that the PCR test was fraudulently used to grossly exaggerate the number of true COVID cases and the courts in Portugal, Austria and Germany, have set excellent precedents in their rulings to that effect.
Fuellmich concludes, “The Berlin Corona Committee already now has extremely incriminating evidence proving that this Corona ‘plandemic’ NEVER had anything to do with health; rather Mr. Global’s actions are aimed solely at these goals:
#1. Destruction of regional economies to make the population dependent on Mr. Global’s global supply chains.
#2. Shifting the wealth of the world’s populations from the bottom to the top – to the super-rich – to Mr. Global.
#3. Population reduction – you can call it genocide.
#4. The installation of a World Government under the UN which is now under the control of the WEF.” See mark 36:13 to 36:56.
He reminds us that we are dealing with megalomaniacs and sociopaths, those who lack a conscience. Fuellmich reminds us that while the mainstream media may censor, hundreds of thousands of people hear the message anyway; they are taking to the streets in protest in England, Germany, Australia, Brazil, etc. Civil servants, medical doctors, lawyers, politicians, nurses, and police officers are refusing the jab.
Key elements include those of compassion and spirituality, as this has indeed become an epic struggle between right versus wrong. Reiner tells the story of a doctor who walked into a bank and was accosted by a person afraid because he was not wearing a mask. He hugged the individual who began to weep because they had not been held in more than a year. Fuellmich reminds us that we can all laugh, cry, and feel while they (the sociopaths) cannot.
Attorney Rose, now a heroic icon, asked the ICC to take immediate action by way of legal injunction in Points 128 and 153:
It is of the utmost urgency, that ICC take immediate action, taking all of this into account, to stop the rollout of covid vaccinations, introduction of unlawful vaccination passports and all other types of illegal warfare mentioned herein currently being waged against the people of the United Kingdom by way of a court injunction.
In closing, Reiner Fuellmich asked us to remember spirituality. We must celebrate our humanity. Like those in the Nazi concentration camps, who remembered to sing and praise God in the face of the most extreme adversity, we too must cling to our roots in religion and love for one another.
Fuellmich is confident that we will prevail. See mark 38:40.
That’s what this is all about, humanity versus inhumanity. We are human. We can laugh, cry, sing, dance and hug. The other side, Mr. Global and his puppets can’t do that. They can only fake feelings and have no empathy at all. This is because the other side has no access to the spiritual side. The US Constitution starts with the words, ‘We the People.’ And when the wall came down between East and West Berlin, 33 years ago, it was the East German people chanting – We the people – that brought it down. Mr. Global’s house of cards will come crashing down the very same way. Without a doubt in my mind, Mr. Global and his puppets will lose this war of good against evil – they will lose their insane war against life and creation itself. There is no other way.
After hearing him speak, I am confident as well. Dr. Pierre Kory once told me, “This situation seems backward. The doctors were the corrupt people who caused this mess, but the lawyers are those with ethics who will save us.”
Pierre Kory, as usual, is correct. Someday, today’s youth will become senior citizens. They will remind their society of today’s Nuremberg II trials, and how they helped stop the largest con job ever perpetrated on the world. It is time to end the lockdowns, the vaccination mandates, the censorship, and the propaganda.
The media will resume reporting real news and cease fear-mongering. Then, journalists will return to what they do best – proper investigative reporting. And the International Criminal Court will most assuredly continue what it does best – bringing cold-blooded mass murderers to justice.
Dr. Justus R. Hope, writer’s pseudonym, graduated summa cum laude from Wabash College where he was named a Lilly Scholar. He attended Baylor College of Medicine where he was awarded the M.D. degree. He completed a residency in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at The University of California Irvine Medical Center. He is board-certified and has taught at The University of California Davis Medical Center in the departments of Family Practice and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has practiced medicine for over 35 years and maintains a private practice in Northern California.
State-sponsored/MSM supported medical tyranny is the new abnormal throughout the US/West and elsewhere worldwide.
I’m greatly indebted to numerous truth-telling medical and scientific experts for teaching me what I’ve learned about all things flu/covid — a medical education I never imagined getting pre-2020 but got since then on this most cutting edge of all issues.
To my great dismay, intelligent people I know are oblivious to reality on what’s crucial to know — believing rubbish fed them daily from official, MSM, and other disreputable sources instead of what’s scientifically indisputable.
Protecting and preserving public health and freedom depend on enough committed people rising up against what’s going on — slaying it before it slays us.
Relief won’t come judicially or legislatively.
On all issues mattering most, positive change never comes top down, only bottom up by committed people demanding no less.
The anti-public health/anti-freedom scheme was planned well before its rollout early last year.
As explained time and again, it’s all about wanting maximum numbers of unwanted people eliminated worldwide, along with transforming free and open societies into ruler/serf ones for survivors.
It’s a draconian new world order fit only for privileged interests at the expense or all others.
It’s what no one anywhere should tolerate, a tyrannical world that’s unsafe and unfit to live for the vast majority worldwide — the worst of all possible worlds.
Things don’t have to be this way.
Ordinary people have power to rise up against injustice, defy unjustifiable rules, disrupt best laid plans of dark forces and achieve positive change by their actions.
History proves it. Years of anti-war activism helped end a decade of US aggression in Southeast Asia — a pyrrhic victory as things turned out because anti-war activism waned.
The same applies to moving from chattel to wage slavery, from Jim Crow to its modern-day version, from freedom to mass incarceration, from healthcare as it should be to toxic mass-jabbing with unparalleled genocide in mind.
Governance of, by and for entrenched interests in the US/West and elsewhere is too debauched to fix.
The same goes for MSM guardians of wealth, power and privilege.
Scattered reforms won’t work. Transformational change is needed.
The only solution is popular revolution. Anything less assures no change of unacceptable same old, same old.
Wealth, power and privileged interests are enemies of ordinary people everywhere.
Collective defiance is needed to turn things from what’s destructive of the general welfare to what’s beneficial.
Former Pfizer vice president, its chief scientist for allergy and infectious diseases, co-founder of Doctors for (flu/covid) Ethics, Dr. Michael Yeadon, is on the right side of history for this most crucial of all issues.
Commenting on what’s gone on since early last year, he said the diabolical scheme has nothing to do with protecting us, everything to do with establishing “totalitarian control.”
Fundamental freedoms are being abolished incrementally.
Things began by denying refuseniks free access to restaurants and other places where large numbers gather.
Widespread use of freedom-destroying health passports may follow as a requirement to stay free from societal isolation altogether.
Yeadon compared the above to “dropping a cancerous cell into your body (that) grows and metastasizes and then it kills you.”
“(T)hat’s what” health passports are all about if instituted.
“So don’t tolerate them anywhere,” Yeadon stressed.
Once instituted, metastasizing will “regulate access to essential services like food, money, fuel, trains and things like that.”
“You’ll never get rid of (them). We’ve got to stop (what’s going on) beforehand.”
Otherwise we’ll “lose the ability to decide where to be at any time.”
Health passports will “regulate entry and exit from almost any controlled space, possibly even including your own home.”
“You’ll be required to keep your passport up to date by being fully jabbed” — meaning forever-jabbed one or more time annually.
The more toxic jabs gotten, the sooner your end time will arrive, most likely very unpleasantly from painful and/or debilitating disease(s).
Getting informed from reliable independent sources, getting motivated and enraged enough to no longer tolerate what’s going on is the only way to halt it once and for all.
“(I)t’s us” on our own against the diabolical scheme. We alone can and must stop it.
The alternative is deeply entrenched tyranny, a permanent new abnormal, dystopia no one should tolerate.
Jabs are vehicles of mass-extermination.
Pharma profiteers and Big Government backers “are the most ruthless of all corporate entities,” Dr. Vernon Coleman stressed, adding:
It’s been known since last year that mass-jabbing “cause(s) heart trouble, strokes, neurological problems,” and other serious health issues.
Coleman believes that most jabbed individuals will be “lucky to last five years.”
Individuals taking them “should be considered suicidal or certified insane.”
“Life expectation is going to fall dramatically – and not just because the quality of health care is deteriorating daily.”
“I honestly find it difficult to believe that there are people around who are so brainwashed and so terrified by the lies they’ve heard that they will accept as many jabs as they are offered.”
The power of repetition, especially on propaganda TV, gets most people — including intelligent ones — to believe almost anything no matter how scientifically or otherwise untrue.
With minimal effort, anyone connected online can learn enough about what’s going on from reliable, independent sources to know we’re being scammed by US/Western and other governments, Pharma and their MSM press agents.
Getting mad as hell, rising up and refusing to take it any more is the only way to beat the diabolical scheme.
After the Crash 