Los Angeles police are force-vaccinating special needs children in heinous “Operation Homebound” program that resembles Nazi euthanasia of the retarded

By Ethan Huff (via Natural News)

California has launched a new Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccination program called “Operation Homebound” that involves sending police officers to people’s homes to force-vaccinate their special needs children.

Shocking video footage – see below – shows masked Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers jabbing needles into the arms of scared children with disabilities who clearly do not consent to being medically raped by the police state in the name of “public health.”

In one of the clips, a terrified special needs woman is seen struggling to escape her captors as they pull out a syringe and chase her arm for injection. Two officers are then seen restraining the woman while a third stabs it into her body without her permission.

“I’ll be gentle, okay? I’ll be gentle,” the officer holding the vaccine says.

“Noooooo!” the poor woman yells as she attempts to resist the chemical violence being inflicted upon her.

After finishing up forever modifying the woman’s DNA with the experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) syringe, the officers start clapping while the woman wails in horror at what happened to her.

In another clip, a special needs girl is seen in her driveway trying to escape officers who similarly inject her against her will with a gene-modifying cocktail, all while her family stands around watching.

An Alzheimer’s patient in yet another clip is seen being given an injection without even knowing what was going on.

“There you go; piece of cake,” the female officer who administered the shot to the dementia patient says. “It’s okay, hon, we just gave you a vaccination, that’s all.”

According to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, Operation Homebound is a “program designed to vaccinate the most underrepresented, homebound, and underserved disabled residents in our communities, including those experiencing homelessness.”

Why are Americans putting up with these crimes against humanity?

Forcibly vaccinating the sick and vulnerable without their consent is no different than what violent dictators from the past did to prisoners who were kept in concentration camps.

While the prisoners of yesteryear were held behind barbed wire, today’s prisoners are kept inside their homes, distanced from others and masked for their own “protection.” And while the prisoners of old were experimented on in confined sanitariums, today’s prisoners are visited in person by a masked law enforcement gestapo.

The only thing that has changed all these years is that the genocide now taking place is slightly more veiled than that of the early 20th century. Instead of being herded into gas chamber “showers,” today’s victims are herded into testing and vaccine clinics for their disease “cure.”

And today we have communist China pulling many strings with regards to the total annihilation of the West, as opposed to Benito Mussolini or Joseph Stalin.

“And the cops wonder at why they are being targeted,” wrote a commenter at Newswarsabout how door-to-door forced vaccinations is a really bad look for law enforcement. “When those sick Gestapo bastards come to your door, do not answer it.”

“The war is on my friends and if we do not start fighting back this will shortly become another dying socialist experiment by stupid politicians who are beyond being touched by education,” this same person added, noting that this is why our founders put the Second Amendment in place.

“Only when enough of those bastards [pay a price] will the politicians get the message that they cannot pull this crap on patriotic Americans.”

Beware of Covid PCR Testing and the Relentless “Vaccinate Vaccinate Vaccinate” Campaign

By Peter Koenig

The validity of the PCR test has been questioned for months, if not from the very beginning of the declared covid-19 plandemic, including lately also by WHO. However, this test is still and ever more so being forced upon us. This despite the fact that ever more scientific evidence comes to the fore that the test is absolutely unsuited to determine whether a person is “infected” with the covid-19 virus. According to some scientists there are up to 90% false positives. Besides, a positive in 97% of the cases does not indicate that you will come down with symptoms. Especially young people, and people without any co-morbidities rarely show any symptoms.

On the other hand, there is a relentless drive by western countries, foremost Europe and the US to vaccinate-vaccinate-vaccinate – and this with a substance that is not even qualifying as a vaccine, namely a new type of what’s also called “gene-therapy”, a mRNA-type injection which will affect the human genome and most likely the human ADN. mRNA stands for messenger ribonucleuc acid. 

The best-known pharma-manufacturers of these mRNA-type substances, falsely called vaccines, include Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson (J & J) and a few other inoculations from the Bill Gates created GAVI Alliance, or the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, also called the Vaccine Alliance. They are located in Geneva, next door to WHO.

This therapy is untested. No substantial animal trials. In the few animal trials carried out on ferrets and rats, all animals died. Claiming an emergency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizes the gravity of the current public health emergency and has granted a so-called Emergency Use Application (EUA) for what effectively is a gene-therapy, not a vaccine. Therefore, further animal trials were skipped and this experimental gene-treatment, the mRNA-type jabs went directly to humans – which are now acting as guinea pigs.

For the tremendous risks and dangers of this therapy, see the recent exclusive interview with Lifesitenews.com (7 April 2021), and testimony of former Pfizer VP and Chief Science Officer, Mike Yeadon, who says “Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’ See full interview here.

It appears that so-called vaccination and testing are in reverse proportions related, i.e. the fewer people volunteer to take the jab, the more governments force these false PCR test on the population. In many countries, Switzerland is a case in point, governments “allow” schools to test school children, including Kindergarten up to four times per month, and businesses may do the same, for the “safety of co-workers” – never mind that most people in many countries still work from their home offices. Not submitting to a test or a highly questionable vaccine, may result in dismissal – losing your job. That’s as gloomy and spooky as it has become, this covid-craze.

Now they have introduced “self-testing kits” sold or distributed by pharmacies. Despite intense propaganda, most of these government bought and subsidized tests remain in pharmacies warehouses, as ever fewer people are willing to submit to this lunacy. On top of it all, you have to report only the positive tests of the self-tests – a further up-wards distortion of the anyway false picture of the so-called “infection rate”. – And nobody seems to ask why. Or if they do, they do it not LOUD ENOUGH.

Of course, the higher the number of covid positives, the higher the willingness to vaccinate, so the propaganda assumes, and if not, the better the justification for more lockdowns, more fear – and again – maybe – more willingness to vaccinate. You see – all actions drive to more fear and eventually “more vaccination”. It is as if countries were given a vaccination quota they have to fulfill, and there seems to be no measure of coercion strong enough to get people to submit to this awful, untested jab.

Even the US top-doc, Dr. Anthony Fauci, expresses his doubts on the vaccines’ effectiveness. See here.

One may also ask, why does Europe and the US not allow the Russian Sputnik V or one of the internationally rolled-out Chinese vaccines? – Maybe because these vaccines are real vaccines, based on a decades long experience, the traditional method of injecting a weak or dead virus which will react when it comes in contact with a live virus and creates antibodies to create immunity – without affecting your DNA?

It becomes increasingly obvious that there is a special agenda behind this fierce testing and vaccination craze. To top it all off, and to come closer with a reason for it all, a recent report suggests (yet to be confirmed) that according to Johns Hopkins University, You can be vaccinated with a PCR test, even without knowing (11 April 2021). There we go. See here for more details.

So, why is “vaccination” so important? – And especially vaccination with an mRNA-type injection   why? – One reason may be this: as reported by The Daily Mail and RT.

Pentagon scientists reveal a microchip that senses COVID-19 in your body.

The technology was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which operates under the Pentagon. The microchip is sure to spark worries among some about a government agency implanting a microchip in a citizen. And who knows what else the microchip does in your body. Anything coming from DARPA is not as benign as it is made to believe, and is certainly not an attraction or a convincer for people who are anyway not keen on getting covid-jabbed.

In addition, the collateral damage of these untested toxins that go as vaccines, the immediate side effects are already by an order of magnitude higher than those of conventional vaccinations. The Defender (Children’s Health Defense – CHD) lists statistical figures from CDC, that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received data that between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 1, 2021, a total of 56,869 adverse events were reported, including 2,342 deaths — an increase of 93 over the previous week — and 7,971 serious injuries, up 245 over the same time period. This is the latest from CDC.

According to CDC, these figures are vastly under-reported.


In January 2019, the WHO defined the growing number of vaccine critics as one of the ten greatest threats to global health, and since the unprecedented corona vaccination fiasco, the number of vaccine refusers has multiplied. Meanwhile, resistance is emerging even within the conventional medical community. But the masterminds at WHO continue to insist on an unrealistic vaccination rate of at least 70 percent.

Why this tremendous push for vaccination? We know that the covid-19 death rate is comparable to that of a common flu. See Dr. Fauci in peer-reviewed “Navigating the Uncharted”. Listening to Dr. Yeadon, we also know that vaccination is unnecessary, as there are many effective preventive and curing medicines available.

In addition to the immediate side effects, the medium to long-term collateral damage may be much more significant. Dr. Yeadon, Pfizer’s former VP says that two to three years down the road, we may see massive genocide-like deaths from mRNA-type injections. See this.

It is increasingly clear that behind this covid cum vaccination drive, there is a eugenics agenda of gigantic proportions. This has recently also been recognized by the leading German Human Rights lawyer, Dr. Reiner Füllmich, a member of the Corona Investigative Committee, which investigates globally on the prosecution of fraudulent reporting of covid- vaccination, testing and leading to fraudulent “case figures” – and to a massive drive to instill fear in the population. He and his team are launching several Class Action suits in the US and in Canada, and several lawsuits against individuals and institutions in Europe and the US. He calls these coming trials “Nuremberg 2”, after the Nuremberg trials following WWII.

In a recent interview (12 April 2021), Dr. Füllmich said he sees the light at the end of the tunnel. He also said about Corona measures,

“These are the worst crimes against humanity ever committed. The few people who can still think independently, about 10 to 20 percent of the population, they know that the question was never about a virus or human health, but about a massive thinning of the world population, and total control.” – See the full interview here.

Add to the horrendous deadly future for maybe hundreds of millions of people from the vaccines, that more mRNA-type substances will be implanted in people old and young, including children, without them knowing, by repeated testing – and in some countries even forced or coerced repeated testing.

If we go by the words of experienced Dr. Mike Yeadon, former VP Chief Science for Pizer, we might be in for mass-dying – an outright genocide – in a few years.

And this in addition to the collateral social, economic and health damage already perpetuated by false covid-data and government fear-instilling lying, leaving hundreds of millions in misery, despair and abject famine – leading to death.

Is massive depopulation an objective of this corona fraud?

Hence, be aware of even more exposure to the risk by accepting the incessant call for testing-testing and more testing. Be alert and aware and follow the light.

British Government Shocking Report on Side Effects of Corona Vaccines: Strokes, Blindness, Miscarriages

A report from the UK Medicines Agency reveals more side effects from the Corona vaccinations

By Great Reject

In total, more than 30,000 vaccinees reported more than 100,000 adverse reactions to the vaccine by the end of January. Most notable are 13 people who went blind after the vaccination, eight miscarriages and a total of 236 fatal cases, Epoch Times reports.

The list of side effects and adverse reactions to Corona vaccinations is getting longer. A report by the UK’s Medicines Regulatory Agency (MHRA, a body that licenses and oversees medicines in the UK, similar to the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany) now adds blindness and miscarriages to already known reactions to vaccines, such as pain, facial paralysis and blood disorders. The report was updated on February 11 to include reports of suspected adverse reactions from the start of the vaccination campaign on December 9 through the end of January.

Officials say that “more than 110,000 people in the UK have died within 28 days of a positive coronal test.” By comparison, about four million people tested positive, while overseas colonies (including Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda) contributed a few thousand cases. This results in a mortality rate of about 2.5 percent, which is roughly equivalent to the mortality rate of a regular flu.

More side effects at AstraZeneca Vaxzevria

As with VAERS in the U.S., Britons can report suspected adverse reactions and adverse events to vaccines in what is known as the “yellow card scheme” and give a drug a “yellow card.” According to the government report, by the end of January, 9,262,367 people had received one vaccination and 494,206 people had already received two. During the same period, a total of 32,139 yellow cards were collected, with more than 100,000 individual responses. The first notifications date back to December 9, the first day of vaccinations.

About two-thirds of the notifications and nearly 60,000 individual responses in the yellow card scheme relate to Pfizer/BioNTech‘s vaccine. With the exception of 72 cases in which the manufacturer was not specified, the rest fall to AstraZeneca. Although the Moderna vaccine has also been licensed in the UK since January 8, it is not mentioned in the government report.

The distribution of reports across vaccines roughly reflects the vaccines administered. However, it is notable that a report on AstraZeneca contains an average of four separate responses, while for Pfizer/BioNTech there are “only” about 2.5 responses on each yellow card. As “dailyexpose.co.uk” calculates, this means that about one in 333 vaccinees reported side effects or adverse reactions. In reality, however, there could be even more cases “as some may not have been reported under the yellow card scheme.”

That AstraZeneca also causes side effects in Germany was also recently experienced by the emergency department in the district of Minden-Lübbecke. After employees took advantage of a short-term vaccination offer from AstraZeneca – the vaccine is not approved for people over 65 – several employees reported sick. “As a result, the emergency services were not optimally staffed,” district spokesman Florian Hemann told the “Westfalen-Blatt” at the time. Neighboring rescue stations and the DRK assisted.

The “yellow card” regulation includes, in addition to the side effects and reactions already known from the vaccine studies of the manufacturers, even more.

Side effects of Corona vaccines

1. Optical Impairment and Blindness

In total, the reports included 1,280 eye conditions. “Optical impairment and blindness (other than color blindness)” occurred in 53 reports on Pfizer/BioNTech [ed. note: see page 8], as well as 26 yellow cards for AstraZeneca [page 6] and one report without naming the vaccine [page 4]. In thirteen cases (5 Pfizer, 8 AstraZeneca) the report speaks of (complete) blindness after vaccination.

2. Cerebrovascular accidents (stroke)

In 43 cases (Pfizer/BioNTech 32 [page 31], AstraZeneca 11 [page 24]), affected individuals (or their next of kin) have reported cerebrovascular accidents following vaccination by Pfizer. The sudden death of brain cells from lack of oxygen due to an interruption in blood supply caused by a blockage or rupture of an artery to the brain is also known as a stroke. In seven cases – 3 after vaccination by Pfizer/BioNTech, 4 after vaccination by AstraZeneca – this ended fatally.

3. Abortion and miscarriage

Because of insufficient data, neither Pfizer/BioNTech nor AstraZeneca and Moderna approved their vaccines for pregnant women. What effects mRNA vaccination has on fertility or on nursing mothers is also unknown, they said. For its part, the British government announced before the vaccination campaign began that “pregnancy should be excluded in women of childbearing age before vaccination [and] pregnancy should be avoided for at least two months after the second dose.”

Yet the yellow card regulation lists eight [page 36] suspected pregnancy-related cases for Pfizer/BioNTech, and nine [page 28] for AstraZeneca. About half of these involve “spontaneous abortions” or miscarriages. In two cases, premature deliveries or premature rupture of the amniotic sac occurred after vaccination with AstraZeneca.

4. Facial paralysis

There have also been 107 facial nerve disorders reported after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccinations, including paralysis, paresis and spasm. Following vaccinations by AstraZeneca, 17 reports have been received so far. Paralysis in other parts of the body occurred in at least 21 cases (Pfizer 15, AstraZeneca 5, unattributed 1). In most cases, the paralysis symptoms had disappeared after a few days.

5. Deceased

Deaths have also been reported in the UK in the time sequence of vaccinations. The reports included a total of 236 cases with fatalities. Of these, 141 are explicitly listed as “deaths”; all other cases mention another fatal side effect. 76 cases relate to Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine [p. 13], 64 cases to AstraZeneca [p. 10]. One case is not attributed to the vaccine [p. 6].

Particularly notable among the deaths are 15 cases of “sudden death” (nine at Pfizer/BioNTech, six at AstraZeneca), who according to “dailyexpose” “dropped dead immediately after vaccination.”

Interim assessment by the UK government agency

In light of these figures, the MHRA states, “A large proportion of those vaccinated to date as part of the vaccination campaign are very elderly and many of them will also have pre-existing conditions.” The agency therefore concludes that both vaccines raise “no other new safety concerns.” All vaccines and drugs have “certain side effects,” but in the case of the Corona vaccines, these are “consistent with expectations from clinical trials.” It goes on to say:

Following a very extensive exposure of the UK population, no new safety concerns have emerged from the reports received to date, and for the cases of other diseases reported in a temporal association with vaccination, the available evidence does not currently indicate that the vaccine caused the event.”

In contrast, the definition of a “coronadode” which means that someone in the UK “definitely died from COVID-19” applies for up to 28 days after a positive test result. That period is about 10 to 14 days longer than it takes for someone who has tested positive to be officially counted as recovered.

CDC Admits 5,800 Fully Vaccinated People Became Infected with COVID-19 and 74 Died

By Brian Shilhavy (via Health Impact News)

In a clear example showing how the CDC and Big Pharma control the corporate media, the CDC today apparently sent out emails to the major corporate media outlets allegedly explaining that about 5,800 fully vaccinated people have still come down with COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated, and 74 people fully vaccinated against COVID-19 have allegedly died from COVID-19.

In typical fashion of how the CDC operates, they attempted to spin these numbers as something positive, by stating how many people have now been “vaccinated” against COVID, and that one’s chance of getting COVID is significantly reduced if you receive the injection.

As I saw this statement start appearing everywhere in social media, I tried to find the source for this alleged CDC information, but all I could find were various corporate media outlets stating that the CDC had told them this directly. Apparently this is not on the CDC website anywhere.

Some examples:

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that about 5,800 people who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 have become infected anyway.

Out of those people, 74 died and 396 [7%] required hospitalization. Many were seriously ill, the CDC reported.

It’s the first indication from CDC of how effective the vaccine is in real life — and the first indication the vaccines do not protect completely against severe disease and death.

“So far, about 5,800 breakthrough cases have been reported to CDC. To date, no unexpected patterns have been identified in case demographics or vaccine characteristics,” the CDC told CNN via email.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said the agency has documented about 5,800 “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases among the millions of Americans who are fully vaccinated, totaling far less than 1 percent of fully vaccinated people.

“Vaccine breakthrough infections make up a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated,” the CDC told The Hill in a statement. “CDC recommends that all eligible people get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as one is available to them.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found about 5,800 cases of COVID-19 infections among people who have been fully vaccinated in the U.S., according to a new report.

CDC officials tell Yahoo Life that as of April 13, about 5,800 breakthrough COVID-19 infections — meaning someone who was fully vaccinated against the virus still contracts COVID-19 — have been reported to the CDC among the more than 66 million Americans who have been fully vaccinated. Of those, 396 (or 7 percent) required hospitalization and 74 people (0.0001 percent) died.

And as is usual with the Pharma-funded corporate media, there was no investigative reporting done to challenge or even question the data that the CDC was providing.

So let me do that. (The CDC did not send me a copy of the letter for some reason.)

For example, how do we know that there are only “5,800 breakthrough COVID-19 infections” among 66 million fully vaccinated Americans? How did the CDC arrive at that figure, and where are they getting their data?

These experimental COVID injections have only been out in the public for about 4 months now, and the vast majority of the injections have occurred within the past few weeks.

These are experimental pharmaceutical products with very little testing done, and the CDC has changed the amount of time they claim it takes for full immunity to start after “vaccination” several times already. They originally said two weeks after the first injection, and full immunity after the second one. Then it was changed to 4 weeks. Now, they are saying it can take up to 6 weeks.

So there really is no way the CDC can make any definitive statements at this point as to just what the percentage of fully vaccinated people will be who still get COVID and still die from it.

Earlier this week, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky actually stated that the COVID “vaccines” are “too slow” to stop an alleged surge of COVID cases in Michigan, because it takes “weeks” for them to start working.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Rochelle Walensky said Michigan should put coronavirus restrictions back in place to stop the spread of COVID-19.

“Really what we need to do in those situations is shut things down,” Walensky said during a press briefing on Monday. “I think if we tried to vaccinate our way out of what is happening in Michigan, we will be disappointed that it took so long for the vaccine to work – to actually have the impact.” (Source.)

“We know that if vaccines go in arms today, we will not see an effect of those vaccines, depending on the vaccine, for somewhere between two to six weeks,” Walensky said. (Source.)

Anybody with any kind of critical thinking skills can clearly see that this is pure PR the CDC is spinning to their corporate media lap dogs.

They want to try and convince the U.S. public that even though people are still getting sick and dying from COVID after being fully vaccinated, that they still should get vaccinated anyway, and then agree to new lockdowns as cases start going up again because the vaccines “work too slowly.”

Of course they want you to ignore the fact that in states that have opened back up and stopped mandating face masks, that cases and deaths, even by their own corrupted statistics, are now going down.

How long is the American public going to put up with this insanity?

People are DYING from these COVID “vaccines” and the CDC is now forced to admit that these vaccines don’t even work in many people.

And whatever small businesses that are still left and have survived the first round of lockdowns last year will surely die if lockdowns are required again, unless enough people wake up finally and say “enough is enough – we will NOT comply!”


00:10 Dr. Simone Gold, Los Angeles, CA
02:00 Dr. Robert Hamilton, Santa Monica, CA
05:25 Dr. Stella Immanuel, Houston, TX
11:00 Gold 2
12:10 Dr. Dan Erickson, Accelerated Urgent Care, Bakersfield, CA
14:45 Gold 3, question from audience
16:45 other woman
17:50 Gold 4
20:30 Immanuel 2
23:10 Hamilton 2
26:00 Immanuel 3
27:40 other man talks about medicin dosis
Dr. James Todaro, Columbia MD
Dr. Joe Ladapo


Nation Puts a Stop to Bill Gates-Backed Plan to Dim the Sun By Spraying Particles into Sky

By Matt Agorist (via The Free Thought Project)

As TFTP reported last year, it was reported that the top climate change scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration received $4 million in funding from Congress along with permission to study two highly controversial geoengineering methods in an attempt to cool the Earth. According to Science Magazine, David Fahey, director of the Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, told his staff last week that the federal government is ready to examine the science behind “geoengineering”—or what he dubbed a “Plan B” for climate change.

This plan is in congruence with the plan backed by billionaire Bill Gates in which plans have been made to spray dust into the atmosphere to dim the sun that would potentially reflect sunlight out of Earth’s atmosphere, triggering a global cooling effect.

The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), launched by Harvard University scientists, aims to examine this solution by spraying non-toxic calcium carbonate (CaCO3) dust into the atmosphere — a sun-reflecting aerosol that may offset the effects of global warming.

What could possibly go wrong?

Before we go any further, it is important to point out to new readers that we are not a satire site. We are not a conspiracy theory site. The information you are about to read is factually accurate and 100% real despite the ostensible ‘skeptics’ who claim otherwise.

After years of planning, it was announced earlier this year that SCoPEx is about to go live. However, some countries — namely the ones it was going to start in — are having second thoughts.

According to a report out of Forbes Magazine in January, SCoPEx was going to take a small step in its early research this June near the town of Kiruna, Sweden, where the Swedish Space Corporation (SSC) has agreed to help launch a balloon carrying scientific equipment 12 miles (20 km) high.

However, that may not take place now as the SSC has decided it may be a bad idea. According to a statement from the SSC, they have decided not to move forward with dimming the sun.

Climate change and its consequences is one of the greatest challenges we face on our planet. Research within this field is therefore important, and many of the experiments that are being conducted onboard balloons and rockets from Esrange Space Center contribute to such research.

To that end, the purpose of the SCoPEx project as such fits well into SSC services and mission to help earth benefit from Space.

However, the scientific community is divided regarding geoengineering, including any related technology tests such as the planned technical balloon test flight from Esrange this summer.

SSC has had dialogues this spring with both leading experts on geo-engineering and with other stakeholders, as well as with the SCoPEx Advisory Board. As a result of these dialogues and in agreement with Harvard, SSC has decided not to conduct the technical test flight planned for this summer.

Whether or not research on geoengineering should be conducted is an important discussion that should continue within the scientific community, as well as with other stakeholders and the general public. SSC welcomes such a broad societal discussion on this important matter.

As TFT has reported, Harvard announced in July of 2019 that it has created an external advisory panel to examine the potential ethical, environmental and geopolitical impacts of this geoengineering project, which has been developed by the university’s researchers.

The experiment will spray calcium carbonate particles high above the earth to mimic the effects of volcanic ash blocking out the sun to produce a cooling effect. This appears to be the same as NOAA’s “Plan B.”

Naturally, there are many critics of geoengineering and it is concerning to many people, including environmental groups, who say such efforts are a dangerous distraction from addressing the only permanent solution to climate change: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Scientist cite several volcanic eruptions in the past which led to global cooling, but that had devastating effects on other parts of the world.

David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University, recognizes the “very many real concerns” of geoengineering, according to Forbes. To offset these risks he has proposed the creation of a “risk pool” to collect funds for the risks associated with playing mother nature — up to and including cooling an area so much that inhabitants are unable to grow food.

As Forbes reports:

Again, these temperature decreases bring with them serious risks. Freezing temperatures in 1815 led to failed crops in near-famine conditions. British scientists have cited stratospheric aerosols from volcanic eruptions in Alaska and Mexico as the potential cause of drought in Africa’s Sahel region. Major disruption of the global climate could bring unintended consequences, negatively impacting highly populated regions and engineering another refugee crisis.

David Keith has proposed the creation of a “risk pool” to compensate smaller nations for collateral damage caused by such tests, but such a payout might be little comfort to those displaced by unlivable conditions.

Indeed. No amount of money would compensate for a family losing all of their land to freezing temperatures and being forced to relocate to another country. But these are some of the risks involved in weather modification.

This is likely one of the reasons Sweden decided to pull out of the tests.

To be clear, no one here is claiming to be an expert on climate change or the effects of geoengineering. But one thing is clear and it’s the fact that there is still much to be debated and learned before humans deliberately begin altering Earth’s climate. Aside from doing nothing to curb carbon emissions, if we are so quick to jump on this method, it could set off a chain reaction that could prove to be catastrophic.

Conspiracy Theory Comes True as Pentagon Creates Implantable Microchip to Detect COVID

By Matt Agorist (via The Free Thought Project)

In 2004, the FDA approved the implantation of RFID microchips in humans, and while they are not widely used, there has been talk of them being used on soldiers and the conspiracy crowd has been warning about them for a decade. What’s more, in 2017 one company in Wisconsin began forcing their employees to get chipped in order to access company computers and fulfill daily activities.

Fast forward to 2021 — following a full year of the bureaucracy ramping up the COVID-19 technocratic dystopia — and implantable microchips are being touted as a “check engine light” for COVID-19 on 60 Minutes.

The current program is being funded by the Pentagon’s darling “research” arm Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — who in 2017 was found to be spending millions on “genetic extinction technology” that can be used to wipe out entire species. Oh please, let them put a microchip in me!

Retired Army Col. Dr. Matt Hepburn, an infectious disease physician, on Sunday told ‘60 Minutes’ that the microchip acts like a “check engine” light for people.

“It’s a sensor,” Hepburn said. “That tiny green thing in there, you put it underneath your skin and what that tells you is that there are chemical reactions going on inside the body and that signal means you are going to have symptoms tomorrow.”

According to the report, the microchip, embedded in a tissue-like gel, is designed to continuously test the chip recipient’s blood for presence of the virus. Once COVID-19 is detected, the chip alerts the patient to conduct a rapid blood test, which can be self-administered, to confirm the positive result.

“We challenge the research community to come up with solutions that may sound like science fiction,” said Hepburn, whose role at DARPA, he added, is to “take pandemics off the table.”

Without any proof of concept, the retired colonel told the host that this microchip can “stop the infection in its tracks.” However, as mass testing proved, which produced innumerable false positives and negatives, simply knowing you have COVID-19 or not, is not enough to stop the spread.

Nevertheless, the mainstream media is touting this new implantable microchip as a means to “end pandemics forever.” Rest assured that if TFTP or any other alternative media outlet ran with a similar headline, we’d be “fact checked” into oblivion.

This move was predicted by our friends at Mint Press News last year who pointed out that there are billions to be made in the corporate/government relationships in the POC (point-of-care) diagnostics market which stands at about $18.8 billion globally, according to recent market trends.

As Raul Diego points out:

The main driver for these highly optimistic forecasts is the surge in healthcare technology demand brought on by the pandemic crisis, which is lining the pockets of big pharma and big tech, aided and abetted by the Defense Department’s various tentacles into the private sector, like DARPA or In-Q-Tel, where federal dollars are channeled into private enterprise through direct investment, stock purchasing, and grants, representing one of the clearest examples of how the military industrial complex works.

The “detection” of COVID-19 is among the most crowded segments of the POC diagnostics market and recent advances in the life sciences have made new technologies, such as mRNA-based vaccines and testing possible. The U.S. government, through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has been intimately involved in helping these technologies along, and in the case of mRNA, specifically, has made considerable investments in its development dating back to November 2019 in the case of one company developing an mRNA-based COVID-19 diagnostic tool.

While this sounds like a pretty amazing diagnostic tool, as we watch the debacle over the vaccine passports play out, government tends to care less about helping people and more about controlling them. In other words, you won’t see anyone here at the Free Thought Project lining up to get their microchip any time soon.

AstraZeneca Trial Involving Minors Halted As EMA Officials Admit Link Between Jab And Deadly Blood Clots

By Tyler Durden (via Zero Hedge)

Just days after Australia’s deputy chief medical officer, Michael Kidd, acknowledged that there was likely a connection between rare blood clots and the COVID vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford, officials from the EMA, Europe’s top pharmaceutical regulator, have finally acknowledged the link, even if the agency’s official stance – that there’s no evidence of a link, but no evidence to rule it out – remains unchanged.

The EMA declared at the conclusion of a hasty “safety review” last month that the benefits of the AstraZeneca jab (which is expected to to be the workhorse of the global vaccination rollout as Covax, the WHO/Gates Foundation program to vaccination developing countries, expects to heavily rely on the jab) far outweighed any risks, while saying it couldn’t definitively rule out the possibility that the blood clots and the vaccine might be connected. But researchers from Norway, Germany and elsewhere insisted they had found evidence of a connection. And after the UK acknowledged more than 2 dozen new cases of the rare clots – 9 of them fatal – it seems the dam has finally broken.

New findings from the EMA show that there is indeed a link between the “very rare” blood clots in the brain and the AstraZeneca vaccine, but the exact possible causes are still unknown, according to a senior EMA official, who made the comments in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Messagero. Here’s a Reuters summary of that report.

“In my opinion, we can now say it, it is clear that there is an association (of the brain blood clots) with the vaccine. However, we still do not know what causes this reaction,” Marco Cavaleri, chair of the vaccine evaluation team at the EMA, told Italian daily Il Messagero.

Cavaleri provided no evidence to support his comment.


Cavaleri said the EMA would say in its review that there is a link but was not likely to give an indication this week regarding the age of individuals to whom the AstraZeneca shot should be given.

In a separate interview, Armando Genazzani, a member of the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, told another Italian newspaper, La Stampa, that a connection between the jab and the clots was “plausible.”

The EMA is officially investigating 44 cases of the brain blood clots, an ailment known as a cerebral venous thrombosis (or CVST). More than 9.2M people in the EU have received the vaccine in total.

In response to Cavaleri’s comments, the Amsterdam-based EMA said in a statement on Tuesday: “EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) has not yet reached a conclusion and the review (of any possible link) is currently ongoing.”

While the EMA refused to confirm the comments made by individual officials, WSJ reported Tuesday that the University of Oxford had decided to pause trials of the vaccine in the UK that involved children between the ages of 12 and 15.

An Oxford spokesman said Tuesday that while no safety issues have arisen in the trial, broader concerns about rare clotting problems in adults have triggered further regulatory reviews in the UK and Europe to investigate any potential link with the vaccine. Oxford is waiting for more information from the UK’s drugs watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, before giving any further vaccinations to children or teenagers in the pediatric trial.

As WSJ reported in a critical piece about AstraZeneca’s vaccine rollout published last month that the company’s various battles with regulators have damaged its reputation among consumers in the US, its biggest market. The fight has heightened doubts among senior US medical officials about the company’s analysis, threatening to prolong the regulatory review, which is already months behind schedule after a separate standoff with the FDA in the fall over disclosures about the vaccine’s UK trials.

We imagine the suspension of trials in the UK won’t exactly help change this perception.

“Pro-Vaccine” Internal Medicine Doctor Explains Why He Won’t Take The COVID Vaccine

By Arjun Walia (via Collective Evolution)


  • The Facts: Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine physician based in the United States explains that vaccines aren’t required if one has acquired antibodies from infection, which, according to him, are much more effective than the vaccine.
  • Reflect On: Is the vaccine as safe and effective as it’s been marketed to be?

What Happened: Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine doctor with a hefty following on YouTube makes on thing clear, and that’s the fact that he supports and believes in routine vaccinations, as well as recommends them to all of his patients. According to him, “vaccinations have been amazing” for humanity, and while this belief is shared by many, I believe it’s important to point out that it’s also strongly opposed by many, and that includes a wealth of scientists and doctors. That however is another longer and deeper discussion.

In one of his most recent YouTube posts, Dr. Dhand explains why he’s on the fence about taking the COVID vaccine. He explains when it comes to any type of illness, if people have antibodies for it, he or any other doctor at his clinic never administers a vaccine.

I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better then a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know.

Vaccine expert and Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kulldorff recently tweeted that, “After having protected themselves while working class were exposed to the virus, the vaccinated Zoomers now want Vaccine Passports where immunity from prior infection does not count, despite stronger evidence for protection. One more assault on working people.”

There are multiple studies hinting at the point the professor makes, that those who have been infected with covid may have immunity for years, and possibly even decades. For example, according to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.” This is just one of many examples. There are studies that suggest infection to prior coronaviruses, which prior to COVID-19 circled the globe infecting hundreds of millions of people every single year, can also provide protection from COVID-19.

Keep in mind, we are talking about a virus that has a survival rate of 99.5 percent for people under the age of 70, and that the number of people who have been exposed to COVID is estimated to be a great deal higher than those who have tested positive. This is true for many other similar viruses, including other coronaviruses which circle the globe every single year and infect hundreds and millions of people.

Why This Is Important: Why is this important? Because it calls into question measures that are threatening to take away the freedoms of people who refuse to take the vaccine. Vaccines may be required to travel, go to certain restaurants, concerts, enter certain public buildings and so on.

Kulldorff and Dr. Bhattacharya, a physician and professor at Stanford Medical School explain,

The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune. The young are at low risk, and children — for whom no vaccine has been approved anyway — are at far less risk of death than from the flu.

Vaccine passports are unjust and discriminatory. Most of those endorsing the idea belong to the laptop class — privileged professionals who worked safely and comfortably at home during the epidemic. Millions of Americans did essential jobs at their usual workplaces and became immune the hard way. Now they would be forced to risk adverse reactions from a vaccine they don’t need. –

How have we come to a point as a society where these measures can be put in place when they go against the will of so many people? How can we call ourselves a democracy? Wouldn’t it be better if recommendations were made instead of using authoritarian-type of measures? If you take the vaccine, should you not be comfortable with the fact that I haven’t, given the fact that you have and you believe it is safe and effective? If that’s the case, what do you have to worry about if you are protected? (Related CE article on Herd Immunity)

If you are hesitant about taking the vaccine, you’re not alone. There is a growing amount of hesitancy among many doctors and scientists. You can read the top four reasons many people, doctors and scientists are refusing to take the COVID vaccine, with specific examples and science, here.

The Takeaway: It’s hard to know what to do, or what action steps can be taken when so much information is not presented by mainstream media. This is a shame because mainstream media is a perception control hub for the masses. If certain information is not presented there, odds are the majority of people are not going to be aware of it. If controversial ideas are simply labelled as a “conspiracy theory” then people will not even entertain the idea that these controversial ideas may be true, no matter how much evidence actually lies behind it. There are multiple examples, like clinically proven alternative treatments for COVID, or example. Despite many of them being evidence based, that evidence and information will never be presented by mainstream media or acknowledged, and if it is acknowledged it’s deemed a conspiracy theory.

Again, this is one of many examples and it leads to society being unable to have appropriate conversations about controversial issues. Many people are simply unaware of certain information as we’ve come to rely on our television screen and government to give it to us.

So, what’s the solution? Independent research is one, but more work really needs do be done in the area of emotional regulation. I find people have a hard time accepting information that challenges what they believe, simply because the implications are quite large and in some cases the information may completely change their entire worldview. It’s quite easy to say “the government wouldn’t do that” or “if that were true everybody would know it,” but this simply isn’t the case.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of .” – Edward Bernays Propaganda, 1928

USA & WHO Come Out Against Vaccine Passports

via Truth Talk

In what could be a major development in the seemingly unstoppable global march to vaccination based Digital ID systems, two main players in the United States and World Health Organisation have both voiced major opposition to the project.

The White House has ruled out introducing mandatory Covid-19 vaccination passports, saying citizens’ privacy and rights should be protected with press secretary Jen Psaki saying there would be no “federal vaccinations database” or a “federal mandate requiring everyone to obtain a single vaccination credential”.

Joining the chorus, The World Health Organisation is now saying people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries.

Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said “This is a complex issue … There are ethical issues regarding equity, we already have a huge issue with vaccine equity in the world, the imposition of requirements for certification of vaccination before travel could introduce another layer or such inequity.”

“If you don’t have access to a vaccine in the country then you will effectively become isolated as a country as vaccine passports kick in. So there are many, many, many issues.”

Australia has begun preparations for an international vaccine passport, but it is not required when quarantine-free travel between New Zealand and Australia resumes on April 18 due to the countries’ COVID-free status, and Israel is already fully into it’s green pass system which is having major effects on those not wishing to be vaccinated.

Whilst it’s clear that the fight is far from over, the USA formally stating they will not have such as system for those of us who believe it will be used to further erode your rights and become a social credit scoring & behavioural control platform is a big win in the ongoing war against the slide into technocratic fascism.

Hollywood Film Director Aaron Sorkin: ‘Americans Who Tolerate Trump Supporters Are Like Apologists For Racists’

via Worthy Politics

Hollywood film director Aaron Sorkin has smeared Trump supporters, tens of millions of Americans as racists and bigots.

Now he is attacking Americans who tolerate Trump supporters, saying that they are akin to apologists for racists.

Aaron Sorkin made the bizarre contrast during a podcast interview with Michael Moore. At one point in the episode, the conversation turned to Sorkin’s recent Broadway play To Kill a Mockingbird, adapted from Harper Lee’s classic novel. In the interview, Sorkin claimed Atticus Finch repeatedly makes excuses for his racist neighbors.

“Atticus is an apologist for racists,” he said. “His whole thing about you have to walk a mile in someone’s else’s shoes. You really have to get inside someone’s skin and crawl around before you can really understand them. That was a way of excusing Bob Ewell… he excuses his neighbor Mrs. Henry Dubose… He excuses the whole South.”

Sorkin then compared Atticus Finch to Americans who tolerate Trump supporters.

“All you had to do, Mike, was look around. We were all saying the same thing about the tens of millions of people supporting Donald Trump. I don’t get it. Yeah, we’ve always disagreed, all of us here in America. But we all have eyes and ears, right? We’re looking at the same person. What are you talking about?”

Michael Moore then repeated Sorkin’s point of view, saying Americans shouldn’t reach across the aisle to their political adversaries.

“No actually, I don’t need to understand why they’re racists. They’re racists.”

Aaron Sorkin was promoting his recent Netflix movie The Trial of the Chicago 7, which is nominated for six Academy Awards, including best picture and original screenplay.

Back in 2016, Sorkin described Trump’s presidential victory as a win for the Ku Klux Klan, white nationalists, sexists, racists, and “buffoons.”

“Angry young white men who think rap music and Cinco de Mayo are a threat to their way of life (or are the reason for their way of life) have been given cause to celebrate,” he wrote in a letter to his daughter published in Vanity Fair.

VIDEO: School Board Member Arguing For Mandatory Masks Nearly Passes Out While Wearing Mask

Despite becoming short of breath and taking long pauses between words, the district voted to keep the face mask mandate.

By TOM PAPPERT (via National File)

An Idaho Falls District 91 got heated when pro-mask Board of Trustees member Elizabeth Cogliati became short of breath and struggled to speak while wearing a mask and also arguing for mandatory masks, prompting media to declare that she “almost passed out while wearing the face mask.”

When Board of Trustees Chair Lara Hill declared that the mask mandate must remain, because “The CDC is recommending that all phases of schools reopening, no matter what the community transmission is like, (is) to continue masking so you can stay in school,” she was questioned by an anti-mask member, Trustee Paul Haacke, who asked how many times the CDC visited schools in the district.

At this point, Cogliati interrupted to admit that the CDC does not visit schools, prompting Haacke to respond, “Exactly. That’s my point. They are creating regulations,” before being loudly interrupted by an upset Cogliati.

“You interrupted me, Paul! You interrupted me! Please do not interrupt me,” she shouted. At this point Cogliati appeared to have difficulty breathing through her pink face mask, and began taking deep breaths and taking long pauses between words. A brief excerpt of the argument was captured and posted to Twitter.

“They don’t need to visit our school district to make recommendations … for everyone … and … they … currently have … recommendations out that with the current level … of transmission … in Bonneville County … that we should be in hy … brid … for the elementary schools … and virtual … for … middle schools and high schools,” Cogliati added, emphasis added where she paused to apparently catch her breath.

Despite the bizarre behavior from Cogliati, the Board of Trustees ultimately voted to keep the mask mandate, with only Haacke using his vote to dissent. Children will also be allowed to attend classes in person five days per week, up from the previous four.

Also troubling, a Wuhan, China based company recently sent a large number of face masks to daycare facilities and schools in Canada, only to have the distribution frozen due to potentially toxic materials in the masks that could lead to permanent lung damage.

The cost of face masks has also been disastrous for the natural environment, as once pristine locations uninhabited by humans are now littered with face masks, and there are more face masks in the ocean than jellyfish.

Latest Vaccine Flip-flop Gives the Vaccine Game Away

The Venous Sinus System, where slow blood flow apparently predisposes to clots after the Astra-Zeneca Covid vaccination

By Dr. Meryl Nass (via Global Research)

The Astra-Zeneca “cheap and easy to store” “workhorse” vaccine causes blood clots in general, and in particular clots in the venous sinuses of the brain, which have killed or wounded a number of people, especially women under 55.  

The European Medicines Agency, the European Union’s regulator, said it is investigating at least 44 cases of the rare brain clots and at least 14 deathsamong about 9.2 million vaccinations in 30 European countries...

As of March 29, Germany’s regulator has reported 31 cases of the unusual blood clots in 2.7 million people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, nine of whom have died. 

The J and J vaccine was associated with blood clots in its clinical trial data presented to FDA.  Both vaccines use an adenovirus vector to deliver DS DNA that codes for spike protein, and human cellular machinery produces this protein, for an uncertain period of time in uncertain quantities. So blood clotting may be due to the adenovirus vector, or to the spike protein, or to something entirely different.

The mRNA vaccines use mRNA to code for the spike, using cellular machinery to produce the spike protein.  The end result of all 4 vaccines is similar, and again, we do not know for how long the body makes this protein.

If the spike itself induces clotting, which is a reasonable hypothesis scientists have put forth, but is unproven, then all 4 vaccines would be thrombogenic (induce clotting). Dr. Patrick Whelan tried to warn the FDA about this possibility, but was ignored.  He wrote:

Meinhardt et al. (Nature Neuroscience 2020, in press) show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots), and like Magro et al. do not find viral RNA in brain endothelium. In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.

Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19? Nuovo et al (in press) have shown that in 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral microvessels.

This is frightening information, providing a strong hint of the spike protein’s potential toxicity.


How did 20 countries deal with the clotting issue?

First they halted the vaccinations until they could review all the available data and get their narratives aligned. They then decided the A-Z vaccine did cause clots.  But you cannot waste Covid vaccine (unless you are Emergent BioSolutions) so it had to be used.  But in whom?  In poorer countries of course.  But what about the supplies already purchased by western Europe?

The public health leaders came up with a great idea.  Restrict it, just for the elderly.  If they die, there is almost always a preexisting condition to blame. But apparently that wasn’t enough.  So they have started testing this vaccine in children.

A few countries stopped the A-Z vaccine altogether.

France, Germany, Sweden and Canada are among those restricting its use in younger people, while Denmark and Norway have maintained a complete pause.

Can you imagine what the informed consent says?  “We are testing a vaccine known to cause lethal blood clots in children, who almost never get severe Covid–therefore the benefits won’t exceed the risks of the vaccine in this demographic.  Your child is at greater risk of dying from the vaccine than the disease.”  How many parents would sign?  Obviously, there must be lies on the consent form.  Here is a legal case for you British barristers.

As I was writing this, the news appeared that the clinical trials of the A-Z vaccine in children were finally paused, just today. Which is 2-3 weeks after the blood clotting issue surfaced.

How well does the Astra-Zeneca vaccine work in the elderly?  Only two months ago the leaders of France and Germany told us:

Officials in Germany claim the Astra-Zeneca vaccine  is only 8% effective in those over 65. French President Macron has complained to Agence France Press that the A-Z vaccine was only “quasi-ineffective for people over 65.”

So, in order to use up the supply, or perhaps for other purposes, Germany will now use the vaccine only in those over 60, and France will use it only in those over 55 — which are the age groups in whom they claimed it didn’t work.In case it is not yet clear, this latest flip-flop from Macron and Merkel reveals the truth. The purpose of the vaccines is obviously not to protect us. The vaccines enrich Pharma. The vaccine passports enable much greater control over the citizenry. There may be additional agendas. But this is clearly not about our health.

Government in Israel Sharing Personal Information on Unvaccinated People

By Carolyn Hendler (via Global Research)

A new law in Israel will allow the government to share a list of names of those who did not get the COVID-19 vaccine, along with other personal identifying information. The list, which will include the names, phone numbers, ID card numbers and addresses of the unvaccinated, can be shared with local government officials, including the director general of the education ministry and the welfare ministry for the purpose of encouraging citizens to get the vaccine.1 If a citizen fails to show up for their second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the date of their first dose would also be shared.3

The list reportedly will only be provided to local government officials who request it and advise the Health Ministry about how they will use the information.4 Lawmakers contend that the law would only allow “trustworthy sources” to contact unvaccinated individuals to encourage them to get the vaccine and not for any other purpose.5 6 The list of the unvaccinated along with their personal information must be deleted within 60 days of its use. When someone on the list is contacted by authorities they will have the right to demand they not to be contacted again and that their information be deleted.7

“Handing Over Such Data Is A Slippery Slope”

The new law passed with a vote of 30-13 after three rounds of votes using a special process that allowed the vote to be conducted much quicker than regular legislation.8 Haim Katz of Netanyahu’s Likud party defended the law stating, “I’ve been asked what about people’s privacy: Is privacy more important than life itself?”9

The law faced outspoken opposition. Merav Michaeli, Labor party leader, said that the Prime Minister is, “denying citizens their right to the privacy of their medical information.”10 Tamar Zandberg, a Knesset member of the Meretz party, was critical of the legislation warning that it would violate Israeli citizens privacy and that, “Handing over such data is a slippery slope,” and “it could fall into the wrong hands”11

Public Health Physicians Lobbied Against the Legislation

The Israeli Association of Public Health Physicians lobbied against the legislation stating that it would undermine public trust in local governments, authorities and local councils and calling it, “an unprofessional action [that] could possibly cause serious harm.”12 Doctors and physicians had similar concerns about the legislation and argued that it could violate medical privacy and confidentiality.13 The Doctors Association stated that it was a slippery slope and reasoned that if vaccination justified releasing a citizen’s private medical information then it should follow that their weight and smoking status should also be shared for the sake of health.14 The Physicians Association said:

Encouraging vaccination is the order of the day and a national goal, but hasty legislation that could harm individual rights will not contribute significantly to this goal, and may even cause harm The bill would allow health maintenance organizations to pass on the medical information in their possession, which would be an explicit violation of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, which enshrines the right to privacy, said the association. Such a law could be legitimate only if it could be proven that its purpose was appropriate and its application proportional.15

Growing Concern About the Rights of the Unvaccinated

According to officials, approximately 10 percent of Israeli citizens over the age of 16 do not plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine.16 A survey of 503 adults conducted by Channel 12 found the number of Israeli adults planning to forgo the vaccine to be as high as 25 percent (margin of error 4.4 percent).17 There is currently no legislation protecting the rights of those who choose not to be vaccinated and guaranteeing that they will not lose their job for exercising their informed consent rights.18 Furthermore, according to a poll conducted by the Rushinek Research Institute, 29 percent of parents do not intend on vaccinating their children ages 6-16, 30 percent are unsure and about 41 percent intend to vaccinate their children.19

Choosing to not vaccinate comes with harsh consequences. On Feb. 21, 2021, Israel officially implemented a “Vaccine Passport” called the green pass that restricts access to everyday activities, such as entry to restaurants, gyms and cultural events, only to the fully vaccinated or to those who have recovered from COVID-19.20 21 22 However, shops, malls, markets, museums and libraries will allow the unvaccinated, as well as the vaccinated, to enter.23

By the end of February, 88.77 out of 100 people had received at least one dose of the vaccine.24 So far, approximately 3.2 million Israeli citizens qualify for the green pass, which includes 2.5 million people who received two shots of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 700,000 people who have recovered from the viral infection. The green pass can be printed out and carried or be used as a QR code on a smart phone and is valid for six months after the second shot.25 26 Health Minister Yuli Edelstein tweeted…

Those who are not vaccinated will be left behind. The coronavirus cabinet has confirmed our stance that only vaccinated and recovering people will enjoy gyms and leisure culture. Go get vaccinated!27

Approximately one-third of the nine million people living in Israel have received two shots of the Pfizer/Biotech vaccine.28 The country plans to vaccinate 6.2 million by the start of April.29According to Johns Hopkins, more than 5,600 people have died of COVID-19 in Israel.30

Officials in the United Kingdom are closely monitoring Israel’s green pass system because they are considering implementing a similar program in the U.K. But, Dave Archard, Chair of the U.K.’s Nuffield Council on Bioethics questioned the scientific validity of program, referring to the fact that it is unknown how protective the COVID vaccines are against infection and transmission of the virus rather than only preventing severe COVID disease.31 He stated:

The whole point of the vaccine certificate is to show that the holder of it, in virtue of having been vaccinated, will not transmit COVID-19 or its variants. At the moment, the evidence is not in.32


Israel adopts law allowing sharing names of the unvaccinated. i24news Feb. 24, 2021.

Lis J. ‘Slippery Slope’: Israeli Doctors Association Blasts Bill That Would Hand Over Details of Unvaccinated.Haaretz Feb. 23, 2021.



Wilkinson J. Israeli government to share names of unvaccinated peopleDaily News Feb. 24, 2021.

Israel approves bill allowing names of unvaccinated to be shared with authorities.Middleeasteye Feb. 25, 2021.

Steinbuch Y. Israel to share names of people not vaccinated against COVID-19. New York PostFeb. 25, 2021.

Lis J. ‘Slippery Slope’: Israeli Doctors Association Blasts Bill That Would Hand Over Details of Unvaccinated. HaaretzFeb. 23, 2021.

Israel adopts law allowing sharing names of the unvaccinated. i24news Feb. 24, 2021.

10 Steinbuch Y. Israel to share names of people not vaccinated against COVID-19. New York Post Feb. 25, 2021.

11 Lis J. ‘Slippery Slope’: Israeli Doctors Association Blasts Bill That Would Hand Over Details of Unvaccinated.Haaretz Feb. 23, 2021.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Lis J. ‘Slippery Slope’: Israeli Doctors Association Blasts Bill That Would Hand Over Details of Unvaccinated.Haaretz Feb. 23, 2021.

16 Israel’s unvaccinated Fear Exclusion. Yahoo! News Feb. 26, 2021.

17 Poll: Some 25% of Israelis who haven’t vaccinated have no intention of doing soThe Times of Israel Feb. 17, 2021.

18 Israel’s unvaccinated Fear Exclusion. Yahoo! News Feb. 26, 2021.

19 Ibid.

20 Israel adopts law allowing sharing names of the unvaccinated. i24news Feb. 24, 2021.

21 Netanyahu says Israel could see economy completely reopen by April. i24News Feb. 24, 2021.

22 Poll: Some 25% of Israelis who haven’t vaccinated have no intention of doing soThe Times of Israel Feb. 17, 2021.

23 Israel’s unvaccinated Fear Exclusion. Yahoo! News Feb. 26, 2021.

24 Stikings T, Jewers C. Israel passes law allowing names and phone numbers of anyone who has not been vaccinated to be shared by the governmentDaily Mail Feb. 24, 2021.

25 Guenot M. Israel is waging a war on the unvaccinated as it races to be the world’s first inoculated nation.Insider Feb. 19, 2021.

26 Israel lifts Covid restrictions as ‘green passport’ system introduced. Jewish News Feb. 23, 2021.

27 Stikings T, Jewers C. Israel passes law allowing names and phone numbers of anyone who has not been vaccinated to be shared by the governmentDaily Mail Feb. 24, 2021.

28 Israel adopts law allowing sharing names of the unvaccinated. i24news Feb. 24, 2021.

29 Steinbuch Y. Israel to share names of people not vaccinated against COVID-19. New York Post Feb. 25, 2021.

30 Wlkinson J. Israeli government to share names of unvaccinated peopleDaily News Feb. 24, 2021.

31 Plater R. You Can Still Spread, Develop COVID-19 After Getting a Vaccine: What to KnowHealthline Jan. 19, 2021.

32 Stikings T, Jewers C. Israel passes law allowing names and phone numbers of anyone who has not been vaccinated to be shared by the government. Daily Mail Feb. 24, 2021.

The Significance of the Nuremberg Code: The Universal Right of Informed Consent to Medical Interventions

By Alliance for Human Research Protection

The universal right of Informed Consent to medical interventions has been recognized in US law since at least 1914.

1. That year, the New York Court of Appeals established the right to informed consent to medical intervention in a case involving non-consensual surgery.

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital 105 N.E. 92, 93 N.Y. (1914) Justice Benjamin Cardozo articulated the court’s reasoning: 

Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”

2. The 1947 Nuremberg Code is the most important legal document in the history of medical research ethics. It established 10 foundational principles of ethical clinical research.

The first and foremost principle is unequivocal:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

It prohibits research to be conducted on human beings without the informed consent of the individual.

The significance of the Nuremberg Code is as follows:

  • The Nuremberg Code was formulated by prominent US government jurists in consultation with prominent US medical consultants;
  • It had the multilateral agreement of the governments of the US, USSR, France and the UK;
  • The Nuremberg Code extended human rights beyond the borders of individual countries;
  • The right of Informed Consent is recognized in time of peace and in time of war.
  • The Nuremberg Code provides legal justification to litigate violations of informed consent.
  • Under the Nuremberg Code, responsibility for violations of informed consent rests upon individual doctors, government officials – and their aiders and abettors – each of who can be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. 

3. In the wake of public disclosure of the U. S. government Tuskegee Syphilis experiment (1932-1972), the government convened the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Commission issued The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979).

The Belmont Report acknowledges at the outset that the Nuremberg Code “became the prototype of many later codes intended to assure that research involving human subjects would be carried out in an ethical manner.”

However, federal regulations only apply to government-sponsored human research and, unlike the Nuremberg Code these regulations have been “modified” in response to political pressure.  For example, 45 CFR 46.408(c)  waives parental consent for the use of children as human subjects. “This waiver is usually but not always limited to minimal risk research…

4. The first US Supreme Court decision in which the Nuremberg Code was invoked was in 1987.  The plaintiff was a Sergeant in the US Army who sought compensation — having been a victim in a covert CIA-sponsored, LSD mind-control experiment.
US v. Stanley, 483 YS 669 (1987)

Justice Brennen wrote the dissenting opinion – joined by justices Marshal, Stevens & O’Connor:

  • In experiments designed to test the effects of [ ] LSD, the Government of the United States treated thousands of its citizens as though they were laboratory animals,
    dosing them with this dangerous drug without their consent. One of the victims,
    James B. Stanley, seeks compensation from the Government officials who injured him
  • it is important to place the Government’s conduct in historical context.
    The medical trials at Nuremberg in 1947 deeply impressed upon the world that
    experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable.
    The United States Military Tribunal established the Nuremberg Code
    as a standard against which applies to all citizens— soldiers as well as civilians.”
  • Its first principle was: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”.

5. In 1994, the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was tasked with investigating and documenting the scope of unethical US government human radiation experiments. The (ACHRE) Report (1995) includes CIA mind-control experiments and devotes two chapters to the Nuremberg Code, and describes the growing influence that the Nuremberg Doctors Trial and the Nuremberg Code had on the American medical establishment.

Whereas in the 1949 edition of the best-known textbook of American medical jurisprudence, Doctor and Patient and the Law by Louis Regan a physician and lawyer, did not even cite the Nuremberg Code, devoting merely a few lines to the subject of human experimentation, in the 1956 edition, the subject was expanded to three pages, and the judges’ preamble to the Code was reiterated verbatim (without quotation marks). Dr. Regan added, “all agree” about these principles. They are “the most carefully developed set of precepts specifically drawn to meet the problem of human experimentation.

The ACHRE report notes that: “while the [Stanley] suit was unsuccessful, dissenting opinions put the Army–and by association the entire government–on notice that use of individuals without their consent is unacceptable. The limited application of the Nuremberg Code in U.S. courts does not detract from the power of the principles it espouses…”  ACHRE Report Chapter 2 & Chapter 3 (1995)

6. In 2001, the Maryland Court of Appeal explicitly cited the Nuremberg Code as a source of legally enforceable ethical standards in the case against the Kennedy Krieger Institute.

The case involved a government lead abatement experiment that exposed inner city Black toddlers to lead paint. The purpose was to record the damaging effects of lead.

The parents were not informed about the purpose or the risks.

Grimes / Higgins v Kennedy Krieger Institute, Maryland Court of Appeals, 366 Md 29; 782 A2d 807 (2001)

The researchers and their Institutional Review Board apparently saw nothing wrong with the search protocols that anticipated the possible accumulation of lead in the blood of otherwise healthy children as a result of the experiment, or they believed that the consents of the parents of the children made the research appropriate.”

Of special interest to this Court, the Nuremberg Code, at least in significant part, was the result of legal thought and legal principles, as opposed to medical or scientific principles, and thus should be the preferred standard for assessing the legality of scientific research on human subjects.   Under it, duties to research subjects arise.

The Nuremberg code [i]s a summary of the legal requirements for experimentation on humans The Code requires that the informed, voluntary, competent, and understanding consent of the research subject be obtained.   Although this principle is placed first in the Code’s ten points, the other nine points must be satisfied before it is even appropriate to ask the subject to consent.

The Nuremberg Code is the ‘most complete and authoritative statement of the law of informed consent to human experimentation.’   It is also ‘part of international common law and may be applied, in both civil and criminal cases, by state, federal and municipal courts in the United States.’  

7.  In 2009, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Southern District of New York cited the Nuremberg Code as:

  • the universally accepted norm in customary international law regarding nonconsensual medical experimentation.”

The case involved Pfizer which conducted an unapproved, trial of its experimental antibiotic, Trovan on children in Nigeria. The court found Pfizer guilty.

  • Rabi Abdullahi, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d (2d Cir. 2009)

Among the nonconsensual experiments that the tribunal cited as a basis for their convictions were the testing of drugs for immunization against malaria, epidemic jaundice, typhus, smallpox and cholera. Seven of the convicted doctors were sentenced to death and the remaining eight were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment.

The American tribunal’s conclusion that action that contravened the Code’s first principle constituted a crime against humanity is a lucid indication of the international legal significance of the prohibition on nonconsensual medical experimentation.”

Telford Taylor explained,“Nuernberg was based on enduring [legal] principles and not on temporary political expedients, and this fundamental point is apparent from the reaffirmation of the Nuernberg principles in Control Council Law No. 10, and their application and refinement in the 12 judgments rendered under that law during the 3-year period, 1947 to 1949.” 

8. In 2013, the US Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle of informed consent in a case involving a citizen who refused to consent to a blood test. A blood sample was taken against his will on orders of a police officer. In a 6 to 3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff — even as the justices recognized that both privacy and harm were minimal. Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013)

“this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into
the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…”

9. On March 1st Isaac Legaretta, a New Mexico Detention Center Officer filed the first US Lawsuit Over Mandatory Covid Vaccines. DOCKET: No. 2:21-cv-00179

His attorney Ana Garner told Bloomberg News: “You can’t be forced to be a human guinea pig. We have the right to bodily integrity.”

10. On March 7th an Israeli citizens group filed a a petition to the International Criminal Court charging the Israeli Government with violating the Nuremberg Code with its mandatory Vaccination policy

Anshe Ha-Emet (People of the Truth) a fellowship, composed of Israeli doctors, lawyers and citizens, filed a complaint against the government national “medical experiment” without the informed consent of the citizens. Attorneys Ruth Makhachovsky and Aryeh Suchowolski filed the complaint stating:

When the heads of the Ministry of Health as well as the prime minister presented the vaccine in Israel and began the vaccination of Israeli residents, the vaccinated were not advised, that, in practice, they are taking part in a medical experiment and that their consent is required for this under the Nuremberg Code”.


On March 19th a group of researchers from Norway have filed a lawsuit charging the Norwegian government corona policy is a Crime Against Humanity. under the leadership of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and his team of investigators and lawyers. Read the English translation here or download the official document (in Norwegian) here.

Scientists Challenge Health Officials on Vaccinating People Who Already Had COVID

Scientists warn vaccinating people who already COVID could potentially cause harm, or even death.

By Megan Redshaw (via Global Research)

Since the first COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S., some physicians and scientists have challenged the recommendation by U.S. health agencies that people who have already had COVID and as a result acquired natural immunity still get the vaccine.

Some experts say the science to support vaccinating those primed with COVID doesn’t exist and there’s a potential risk of harm, including death, in vaccinating those who’ve already had the disease or were recently infected.

In December 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued a report authored by 15 scientists that falsely claimed a Pfizer study proved the vaccine was highly effective or showed “Consistent high efficacy” for people who’d already had coronavirus — “SARS-CoV 2.”

Award-winning scientist and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) called out the CDC when he foundthat vaccine studies showed no benefit to people who had coronavirus and that getting vaccinated didn’t change their odds of getting reinfected.

The CDC claimed “the COVID vaccine would save your life or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or Modernatrials,” Massie said in an interview with Full Measure.

Massie contacted officials at the CDC about the misinformation. They acknowledged it was false, but instead of correcting it, tried to rephrase their mistake. Massie and other scientists said the new wording still wrongly implies vaccines work in people who previously had COVID.

“And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So, at that point, right now I consider it a lie. I think the CDC is lying about the efficacy of the vaccine based on the Pfizer trials, for those who have already had the coronavirus,” Massie said.

The CDC recommends people get vaccinated even if they’ve already had COVID, as experts do not know how long “you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID, and it is possible — although rare — that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID again.”

On Feb. 23, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), published a blog poststating that people who’ve had COVID still needed the vaccine, while referencing a study that suggested they didn’t.

Citing a pre-print published on medRxiv, Collins wrote that the immune response to the first vaccine dose in a person who’s already had COVID is equal to, or in some cases better, than the response to the second dose in a person who hasn’t had COVID. He said the “results raise the possibility that one dose might be enough for someone who’s been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and already generated antibodies against the virus.”

Yet, Collins made the case that people who have already had COVID would have a robust antibody response when later exposed to the virus — whether that’s through natural exposure or via the spike protein from a COVID vaccine.

To better understand immune memory of SARS-CoV-2, researchers led by Drs. Daniela Weiskopf, Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology analyzed immune cells and antibodies from nearly 200 people who had been exposed to COVID and recovered.

The results, published in Science, showed the immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection. Previous studies showed that natural infection induced a strong response, but this study showed that response lasted, Weiskoph said.Ten Things You Need to Know about the Experimental COVID Vaccines

Another study in Nature assessed the lasting immunogenic effect of T-cell reactivity to SARS and SARS-2. Data showed that natural immunity was very robust — and likely more robust than any immunity derived from a vaccine.

Increased risk of vaccine injury in those with previous infection

On March 19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency authorization for a new test to detect COVID infections — one that stands apart from the hundreds already authorized, reported STAT.

Developed by Seattle-based Adaptive Biotechnologies in partnership with Microsoft, the new test, called T-Detect COVID, looks for signals of past infections in the body’s adaptive immune system — specifically, the T cells that help the body remember what its viral enemies look like.

Adaptive’s approach involves mapping antigens to their matching receptors on the surface of T cells, which would help scientists unlock information to help diagnose past COVID infections.

Dr. Dara Udo, urgent and immediate care physician at Westchester Medical Group, received the COVID vaccine a year after having the disease and had a very strong immune response very similar to what she experienced while having COVID.

In an opinion piece published by The Hill, Udo explained that infection from any organism, including COVID, activates several different arms of the immune system, some in more robust ways than others and that this underlying activation due to infection or exposure, combined with a vaccination, could lead to overstimulation of the immune response.

Udo thought this might explain the symptoms she had, as well as her frontline colleagues who had high rates of COVID antibodies (known as seroprevalence) prior to becoming vaccinated.

“For high-risk, vulnerable groups, emerging data suggest that seroprevalence of COVID-19 infection is likely higher than tested and reported. Therefore, a natural question arises of whether there may be a smarter way to administer the vaccines in high seroprevalent groups,” Udo wrote.

Udo called for an intentional, well-planned approach to avoid eliciting adverse immune responsesin those who had COVID and subsequently get vaccinated.

Udo suggested a person already “COVID-primed” may be better off with a one-dose rather than a two-dose vaccine, or that the vaccine administered should be dependent on whether the person already had COVID. For example, someone who is “COVID-naive” might do better with a vaccine like Pfizer or Moderna, while the COVID-primed might need a less robust immune response from the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In order to implement this protocol, rigorous, effective and efficient antibody prescreening tools to identify these individuals would be required, Udo said.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, an accomplished surgeon, patient safety advocate and staunch supporter of the new COVID vaccines, has written several letters to the FDA urging the agency to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins in order to reduce COVID vaccine injuries and deaths.

According to Noorchasm, it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.

“In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain,” explained Noorchasm. “So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — and, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.”

Colleen Kelley is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and principal investigator for Moderna and Novavax phase 3 vaccine clinical trials in Atlanta. In an interview with Huffington Post, Kelley said there have been reported cases in which those who previously had the virus endured harsher side effects after they received their vaccines.

“Anecdotally, it does appear that people who may have had COVID-19 before their vaccine do tend to have those longer duration of symptoms,” Kelley added. “But we’re still gathering additional scientific data to really support this.”

In a public submission to the FDA, J. Patrick Whelan M.D. Ph.D., expressed similar concern that COVID vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.

Based on several studies, Whelan said it appeared that the viral spike protein in the SARS-CoV02 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung and kidney.

“Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart,” wrote Whelan. “As important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs.”

At the very minimum, Noorchasm said in a letter to FDA officials, “Pfizer and Moderna should “institute clear recommendations to clinicians that they delay immunization in any recently convalescent patients, as well as, any known symptomatic or asymptomatic carriers — and to actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”

On March 19, 32-year-old Benjamin Goodman died after receiving Johnson & Johnson’s experimental COVID vaccine. According to a Facebook post by his step-mother, Goodman knew his family’s difficult history with vaccines but got vaccinated at a pop-up vaccine site at a local Walgreen’s because people were pushing the travel pass.

Goodman felt ill, experienced a headache, woke up with a fever and chills at 1 a.m., went into cardiac arrest at 4 a.m. and was declared dead two hours later. Like many others, Goodman had not been tested to see if he had previously had COVID or was recently infected.

Noorchasm sent a third communication to the FDA warning that deaths like Goodman’s could have been prevented, and that there will be more deaths unless people are screened before being vaccinated. As The Defender reported earlier this month, Noorchashm believes that a #ScreenB4Vaccine campaign could save millions from vaccine injuries.

“We are deploying this defensive weapon [the COVID vaccine] wildly indiscriminately in the midst of a pandemic outbreak, while many are ‘the recently infected.’ It is my professional opinion as an immunologist and physician that this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected,” Noorchasm told The Defender.

Dr. Ryan Cole Blows the Whole COVID-19 Propaganda Away

By Bill Sardi (via Global Research)

Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho.  Dr. Cole has conducted over 100,000 Covid-19 lab tests and treated over 350,000 patients over his medical career.

Click here to watch the video.

  • Coronavirus infections are seasonal
  • Average COVID-19 age of death 78.6 years. Average annual US age of death historically 78.6 years.
  • Face mask wearing outdoors is absolute insanity. No study shows any super-spreader event outdoors. The best mask of all is your immune system.
  • There is no such thing as cold and flu season. There is only low vitamin D season.
  • Inflammatory (cytokine) storm cannot be controlled without adequate vitamin D levels.
  • Massive numbers of Americans have low vitamin D levels.
  • 96% of ICU patients are vitamin D deficient
  • You cannot synthesize vitamin D from sunlight during fall and winter at 35-degrees north.
  • You living in northern climates you are immune suppressed if you do not supplement with vitamin D during fall and winter.
  • Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) test their citizens twice a year for vitamin D and fortify 35 foods with vitamin D.
  • Our population is left vulnerable to any seasonal viral infection without a public health program to promote vitamin D adequacy.
  • There is not social disparity of care but the fact darker skin pigmentation inhibits sunshine vitamin D synthesis in the skin.
  • Fauci says he personally takes 8000-9000 units of vitamin D per day but why has this has not become a public health message?
  • The top three public health messages should be: 1- vitamin D; 2- vitamin D; 3- vitamin D.
  • By law, the federal government cannot approve a vaccine if there is a proven treatment. That would be Ivermectin.
  • The government is in bed with a vaccine company; both the federal government and Moderna co-hold patents on their RNA vaccine. The “fox is guarding the henhouse.”
  • The drug Remdesivir only works during the first 2-3 days of the infection. It does not increase survival. It is like “peeing on a forest fire.”
  • Four billion doses of Ivermectin have safely taken Ivermectin. Death rate decreased 70-90% in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients.
  • Of the half million COVID-19 deaths in North America, there would be 375,000 less deaths if Ivermectin were used! Public health officials have blood on their hands. 100% of Ivermectin-treated patients don’t get ill. Works for all genetic variants.
  • The vaccines are an experiment on society.
  • The vaccine is unproven and long-term safety data is not even being
  • You can get Ivermectin from doctors online. Myfreedoctor.com.

246 Vaccinated Michigan Residents Diagnosed with COVID, 3 Dead, State Health Dept. Confirms

By Megan Redshaw (via Global Research)

The latest Michigan Department of Health and Human Services data include breakthrough cases reported between Jan. 1 and March 31.

As many as 246 Michigan residents fully vaccinated against COVID-19 were later diagnosed with the virus, and three of them died, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services confirmed Monday.

According to The Detroit News, 246 “breakthrough cases” were reported between Jan. 1 and March 31. All cases occurred in people who tested positive 14 or more days after the last dose in the vaccine series, said Lynn Sutfin, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, in an email.

“Some of these individuals may ultimately be excluded from this list due to continuing to test positive from a recent infection prior to being fully vaccinated,” she said. But these “cases are undergoing further review to determine if they meet other [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] CDC criteria for determination of potential breakthrough, including the absence of a positive antigen or PCR test less than 45 days prior to the post-vaccination positive test.”

Sutfin said these persons were more likely to be asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, adding that hospitalization data were available for 117 of the cases, while 129 were incomplete.

Of the 117 with hospitalization data entered, 11 were hospitalized, 103 were not hospitalized and three are reported as unknown. The three people who died were all 65 or older and two “were within three weeks of completion of vaccination,” Sutfin said.

According to Dr. Nick Gilpin, Beaumont’s medical director for infection prevention, eight patients who had been “fully vaccinated” were being treated for COVID at Beaumont Health’s hospitals on Monday.Scientists Challenge Health Officials on Vaccinating People Who Already Had COVID

“While the majority of the population develops full immunity within 14 days of completion of their vaccine series, a small proportion appear to take longer to mount a full antibody response,” Sutfin explained. “The CDC is actively working to better understand the risk characteristics of this group.”

As The Defender reported April 5, scientists have challenged health officials on vaccinating people who’ve already had COVID, arguing the science supporting vaccination of those primed with COVID doesn’t exist and there’s a potential risk of harm, including death, in vaccinating those who’ve already had the disease or were recently infected.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, surgeon and patient safety advocate, has written several letters to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins — which would be present in someone who has already been infected with COVID — in an effort to reduce COVID vaccine injuries and deaths.

According to Noorchasm, it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.

“In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain,” explained Noorchasm. “So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — and, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.”

J. Patrick Whelan M.D., Ph.D., expressed similar concern that COVID vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.

As The Defender reported March 31, Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California and Minnesota have all reported breakthrough cases of COVID, and two deaths are under investigation by the Department of Health in Washington.

Breakthrough cases have also been reported in Oregon, Idaho, Nebraska, Louisiana, Utah, North Carolina and Hawaii.

Tyrant Klaus Schwab Declares Unvaccinated People To Be A Threat To Humanity

By Ethan Huff (via Humans Are Free)

Several dozen heads of the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and various other globalist bodies have declared that the “Great Reset” needs to include the establishment of a global “pandemic” treaty to ensure that all humans are “vaccinated” in accordance with government edicts.

klaus schwab

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. Khalil Masraawi—AFP/Getty Images (Time)

WEF head Klaus Schwab, who looks an awful lot like an aged Heinrich Himmler of the Nazi SS, says humans who refuse to go along with the plan are a threat to everyone else. He, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and many of the other usual suspects all agree.

These international “leaders” signed on to a letter that says the next phase of the plandemic transition into a New World Order necessitates that the world’s social engineers and societal architects “build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations.”

The letter goes on to declare the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) as the “biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s,” adding that there will definitely be “other pandemics and other major health emergencies” in the years to come.

“No single government or multilateral agency can address this threat alone,” the letter adds.

“The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly co-ordinated fashion. The Covid-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.”

Wuhan Virus “Vaccines” Are The First Piece Of The Mark Of The Beast

Schwab stated just a few weeks ago that he believes “nobody will be safe” unless “everybody is vaccinated.”

It does not matter if a “vaccine” is experimental and still undergoing clinical trials, which is the case for all Wuhan virus vaccines currently being distributed. If the government says you should get it, then you have to get it, Schwab contends.

The other signatories have essentially declared that they believe the same thing. All injections, no matter their purpose or the risks involved, must be taken by all humanity in order for everyone to feel “safe” against scary germs from China or elsewhere.

This will bring about a “public good” that will fulfill the tenets of the New World Order as long planned by the secret societies, and as delineated on the Georgia Guidestones, in the Noahide laws, and in other key deep state texts that function as blueprints for a future totalitarian world.

The Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) plandemic is just one piece of this much larger agenda, which involves injecting all of humanity with the first piece of the Mark of the Beast.

Once the vaccine “software” is installed, more components will be added later to bring about total and absolute worship of the “beast.”

Nobody will be able to buy or sell anything without first being “vaccinated.” By agreeing to get vaccinated, people are giving their worship and allegiance to the New World Order beast system known as Western “medicine,” which is forever enslaving them through lies and deception.

“The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics,” the letter further reads.

“This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.”

South Africa: Use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 Made an Order of Court

By Barbara Curson (via Global Research)

Tuesday (April 6) saw the Pretoria High Court hand down the following order:

  • That a pharmacist, medical practitioner and any other person registered under the Health Professions Act may sell a medicine that contains ivermectin to a patient on prescription.
  • “Unregistered ivermectin-containing finished pharmaceutical products remain accessible under the present programme” through authorised suppliers.
  • A medical practitioner may initiate treatment with ivermectin at the same time as submitting an application for the individual to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra).

The respondents (without admission of any liability) were ordered to pay a total of R1.8 million to the applicants.


As the Covid-19 pandemic swept across the world, indiscriminately infecting and killing helpless victims, with no known cure, there were those who resorted to desperate measures.

Many experimented with ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug mainly used in the treatment of parasites in animals. And whereas the death toll in hospitals mounted, those who used ivermectin on the sly started singing its praises.

The use of ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19 was supported by many medical professionals.

But Sahpra stood firm, on January 28 issuing a press release warning of “lack of adequate evidence to support its use”, that its quality could not be guaranteed because of “widespread unregulated use”, and the lack of any clinical trial.

Infections continued, death rates mounted, well-known personalities and loved ones were felled. “Do you know a farmer” became a topic of conversation.

Section 21 programme allowing access

On January 28, Sahpra set up the Ivermectin Controlled Compassionate Use Programme Guideline for access to unregistered ivermectin for human use under Section 21 of the Medicines and Related Substances Act.

Essentially, this provided that medical practitioners could apply for approval for the use of unregistered ivermectin per an individual patient. This application had to be supported by substantive documentation.

Sahpra warned of “unclear evidence of both benefit and harm”, “reports of illicit products entering the South African market”, and that veterinary products were being used.

Sahpra established a tiered mechanism to control access and monitor use, and required stringent reporting.

The authorisation could be granted for the manufacture, importation, wholesaling or distribution of a medicine, and for licensed healthcare facilities to hold bulk stock. Authorisation had to be granted to a registered medical practitioner per named patient, and the “patient outcomes” had to be reported.

A small allowance was made for urgent cases, in that treatment could start at the same time that an application was made, but that authorisation was not guaranteed.

Sahpra did not constrain itself by regulating the number of days by which it had to respond to an application, including an urgent application.

The average time of receiving an ‘authorisation’ from Sahpra is not known.

Treatment for rosacea

A light appeared on the horizon when, on March 16, Sahpra registered a product containing ivermectin for the treatment of rosacea, a human skin condition.

Because the Medicines and Related Substances Act requires that only registered medicines can be mixed together (compounded), this new registration for human use essentially meant that ivermectin could be compounded with other registered medicines, and made accessible in accordance with the act, for the treatment of Covid-19.

But it was necessary to approach the court for an order compelling Sahpra to allow this.

Four different applications were made to court:

  • AfriForum, Dr George Coetzee, Gideon Samson Gumeda and Geelbooi Motsipa.
  • The African Christian Democratic Party and Doctors for Life.
  • ‘I can make a difference, and the Doctors and Medical Practitioners Group.
  • Pharma Valu Irene CC, Marx & Marx CC, JJ Strydom CC, Menlo Park Apteek CC, JJ Strydom Apteek CC, Pharma Valu Newlands CC, and Strydom & Pretrius CC.

The respondents in all applications were Sahpra and Health Minister Zweli Mkhize – with the director-general of the Department of Health and the member of the Executive Council for Health in Gauteng as additional respondents in one of the applications, Sahpra CEO Boitumelo Semete-Makokotla and President Cyril Ramaphosa as respondents in another, and the Department of Health mentioned in one application.

The position of the minister and Sahpra

The minister of health, who is cited as a respondent in all the applications, and the president, who is cited as a respondent in one of the applications, felt compelled to place on record that:

  • They have carried out their constitutional and statutory duties in protecting the public health against the Covid-19 pandemic.
  • Sahpra is held accountable and provides the requisite reports.
  • The minister relies on the “expertise, recommendations and consultations” in regard to medicines of Sahpra and approves the actions and decisions made by Sahpra.
  • Sahpra is to provide the public with “accurate information regarding the safety, efficacy, and quality of ivermectin” as well as any other treatment or preventative medicine for Covid-19.

Masks Are a Ticking Time Bomb

By Dr. Joseph Mercola (via Global Research)

The planet may be facing a new plastic crisis, similar to the one brought on by bottled water, but this time involving discarded face masks. “Mass masking” continues to be recommended by most public health groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite research showing masks do not significantly reduce the incidence of infection.1

As a result, it’s estimated that 129 billion face masks are used worldwide each month, which works out to about 3 million masks a minute. Most of these are the disposable variety, made from plastic microfibers.2

Ranging in size from five millimeters (mm) to microscopic lengths, microplastics, which include microfibers, are being ingested by fish, plankton and other marine life, as well as the creatures on land that consume them (including humans3).

More than 300 million tons of plastic are produced globally annually — and that was before mask-wearing became a daily habit. Most of it ends up as waste in the environment, leading researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University to warn that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”4

Why Disposable Masks May Be Even Worse Than Plastic Bottles

The bottled water crisis is now well-known as a leading source of environmental plastic pollution, but it’s slated to be outpaced by a new mask crisis. While about 25% of plastic bottles are recycled, “there is no official guidance on mask recycle, making it more likely to be disposed of as solid waste,” the researchers stated. “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat.”5

Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment. Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton.

Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it’s widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment, as well as being a known asthma trigger.6 Further, the researchers noted:7

“Once in the environment, the mask is subjected to solar radiation and heat, but the degradation of polypropylene is retarded due to its high hydrophobicity, high molecular weight, lacking an active functional group, and continuous chain of repetitive methylene units. These recalcitrant properties lead to the persistence and accumulation in the environment.”

They also stated that when the masks become weathered in the environment, they can generate a large number of microsized polypropylene particles in a matter of weeks, then break down further into nanoplastics that are less than 1 mm in size.

Because masks may be directly made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags.

Further, “Such impacts can be worsened by a new-generation mask, nanomasks, which directly use nanosized plastic fibers (e.g., diameter <1 mm) and add a new source of nanoplastic pollution.”8 A report by OceansAsia further estimated that 1.56 billion face masks may have entered the world’s oceans in 2020, based on a global production estimate of 52 billion masks manufactured that year, and a loss rate of 3%, which is conservative.

Based on this data, and an average weight of 3 to 4 grams for a single-use polypropylene surgical mask, the masks would add 4,680 to 6,240 additional metric tons of plastic pollution to the marine environment, which, they note, “will take as long as 450 years to break down, slowly turning into microplastics while negatively impacting marine wildlife and ecosystems.”9

Masks Entering Marine Environments Pose Additional Risks

Plastic particles are known to travel great distances, posing immense risks to virtually every part of the globe. Small, weathered pieces of plastic — suggesting they’d been on a long journey — have been found at the top of the Pyrénées mountains in southern France10 and “in the northernmost and easternmost areas of the Greenland and Barents seas.”11

Calling the Greenland and Barents seas area a “dead end” for the plastic debris, researchers hypothesized that the seafloor below would be a catch-all for accumulating plastic debris.12 In separate research, it was also revealed that plastic pollution has reached the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica — an area believed to be mostly free of contamination.13 According to the featured study:14

“When not properly collected and managed, masks can be transported from land into freshwater and marine environments by surface run-off, river flows, oceanic currents, wind, and animals (via entanglement or ingestion). The occurrence of waste masks has been increasingly reported in different environments and social media have shared of wildlife tangled in elastic straps of masks.”

Such plastics also contain contaminants, such as polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be genotoxic (i.e., causing DNA damage that could lead to cancer), along with dyes, plasticizers and other additives linked to additional toxic effects, including reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity.15

Aside from the chemical toxicity, ingestion of microplastics from degraded masks and other plastic waste is also toxic due to the particles themselves as well as the potential that they could carry pathogenic microorganisms.

Another issue that’s rarely talked about is the fact that when you wear a mask, tiny microfibers are released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. The risk is increased when masks are reused. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study to be published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.16

Researchers from Xi’an Jiaotong University also said scientists, manufacturers and regulators need to assess the inhalation of microplastic and nanoplastic debris shed from masks — both disposable and cloth — noting:17

“… [C]omplaints of throat irritation or discomfort in the respiratory tract by children, the elderly, or other sensitive individuals after wearing these may be alerting signs of excessive amounts of respirable debris inhaled from self-made masks and respirators.”

In the featured study researchers also called on the environmental research community to “move fast to understand and mitigate these risks,” suggesting that reusable cloth masks be promoted in lieu of disposable options and that mask-only trash cans be set up to assist in proper disposal.18However, another option would be to loosen or eliminate mask mandates, which may turn out to cause more harm than good.

Mask Use May Pose a Risk for Advanced Stage Lung Cancer

While it’s well-known that gut microbiota affect your immune system and risk of chronic diseases, it was long thought that lungs were sterile. Now it’s known that microbes from your mouth, known as oral commensals, frequently enter your lungs.19 Not only that, but researchers from New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine revealed that when these oral commensals are “enriched” in the lungs, it’s associated with cancer.20

Specifically, in a study of 83 adults with lung cancer, those with advanced-stage cancer had more oral commensals in their lungs than those with early-stage cancer. Those with an enrichment of oral commensals in their lungs also had decreased survival and worsened tumor progression.

While the study didn’t look into how mask usage could affect oral commensals in your lungs, they did note, “The lower airway microbiota, whether in health or disease state, are mostly affected by aspiration of oral secretions, and the lower airway microbial products are in constant interaction with the host immune system.”21

It seems highly likely that wearing a mask would accelerate the accumulation of oral microbes in your lungs, thereby raising the question of whether mask usage could be linked to advanced stage lung cancer. The National Institutes of Health even conducted a study22 that confirmed when you wear a mask most of the water vapor you would normally exhale remains in the mask, becomes condensed and is re-inhaled.23

They went so far as to suggest that wearing a moist mask and inhaling the humid air of your own breath was a good thing, because it would hydrate your respiratory tract. But given the finding that inhaling the microbes from your mouth may increase advanced cancer risk, this hardly sounds like a benefit.

Not to mention, the humidity inside the mask will allow pathogenic bacteria to rapidly grow and multiply and, since the mask makes it more difficult to breathe, you’re likely to breathe heavier, thereby risking inhaling the microbes even deeper inside your lungs.

Masks Are Harming Children and Adults

The “new normal” of widespread masking is affecting not only the environment but also the mental and physical health of humans, including children. It’s largely assumed that face masks are “safe” for children to wear for long periods, such as during school, but no risk assessment has been carried out.24 Further, as evidenced by Germany’s first registry recording the experience children are having wearing masks.25

Using data on 25,930 children, 24 health issues were reported that were associated with wearing masks that fell into the categories of physical, psychological and behavioral issues.26 They recorded symptoms that:27

“… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”

They also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.28 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”

It’s also known that microplastics exist in human placentas,29 and animal studies show that inhaled plastic particles pass through the placenta and into the heart and brains of fetuses.30 The fetuses exposed to the microplastics also gained less weight in the later part of the pregnancy.31

“We found the plastic nanoparticles everywhere we looked — in the maternal tissues, in the placenta and in the fetal tissues. We found them in the fetal heart, brain, lungs, liver and kidney,” lead research Phoebe Stapleton of Rutgers University told The Guardian.32

Dr. Jim Meehan, an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist who has performed more than 10,000 surgical procedures and is also a former editor of the medical journal Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, also conducted an evidence-based scientific analysis on masks, which shows that not only should healthy people not be wearing masks but they could be harmed as a result.33

Meehan suggests that the notion of mask-wearing defies common sense and reason, considering that most of the population is at very low or almost no risk of becoming severely ill from COVID-19. He also compiled 17 ways that masks can cause harm:34

  • Medical masks adversely affect respiratory physiology and function
  • Medical masks lower oxygen levels in the blood
  • Medical masks raise carbon dioxide levels in the blood
  • SAR-CoV-2 has a “furin cleavage” site that makes it more pathogenic, and the virus enters cells more easily when arterial oxygen levels decline, which means wearing a mask could increase COVID-19 severity
  • Medical masks trap exhaled virus in the mouth/mask, increasing viral/infectious load and increasing disease severity
  • SARS-CoV-2 becomes more dangerous when blood oxygen levels decline
  • The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during low blood oxygen levels
  • Cloth masks may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 and other respiratory infections
  • Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security
  • Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing
  • Untrained and inappropriate management of face masks is common
  • Masks worn imperfectly are dangerous
  • Masks collect and colonize viruses, bacteria and mold
  • Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes
  • Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare
  • Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity
  • Face masks are dangerous and contraindicated for a large number of people with pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities

Adding insult to injury, the first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masksagainst SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.35

Considering the lack of evidence for their use, and the potential harms to human health and the environment, it’s no wonder that calls for peaceful civil disobedience against mandatory masking are growing. The U.S. nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom has a widget you can use to contact your government representatives to let them know wearing a mask must be a personal choice.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


1, 35 Annals of Internal Medicine November 18, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-6817

2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 18 Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2021, 15(6): 125

3 PLOS One April 11, 2018

6 The Lung Association Ontario 2009

9 OceansAsia December 7, 2020

10 WWF Analysis, No Plastic in Nature: Assessing Plastic Ingestion From Nature To People 2019

11 Science Advances April 19, 2017

12 Reuters April 19, 2017

13 Science of the Total Environment November 15, 2017

15 Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health February 2018, Volume 1, Pages 1-5

16 Journal of Hazardous Materials June 5, 2021; 411: 124955

17 Environ Pollut. 2021 Jan 1; 268: 115728

19 Geopolitic News February 4, 2021

20, 21 Cancer Discov. 2021 Feb;11(2):293-307. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0263. Epub 2020 Nov 11

22 Biophysical Journal February 11, 2021 DOI: 10.1016/j/bpj.2021.02.002

23 Healthing.ca February 16, 2021

24 The Telegraph March 18, 2021

25, 27 Research Square, 2021; doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-124394/v2

26, 28 Montana Daily Gazette, January 25, 2021

29 Environmental International January 2021, Volume 146, 106274

30 Particle and Fibre Toxicology volume 17, Article number: 55 (2020)

31, 32 The Guardian March 18, 2021

33, 34 MeehanMd.com November 20, 2020

Is Boris Johnson Set to Announce the ID2020 Plan?

Via Truth Talk

Vaccine passports could be about to become a reality as trials get underway to allow mass events to take place again and as countries begin to lift coronavirus lockdowns, biometric identification is coming in to help verify those who have already had the infection, carried out a recent test or had a vaccine.

Any “Covid passport” scheme to prove people in England are safe to attend mass-audience events would be “time-limited”, the government has said, and the Sports Minister Nigel Huddleston said the trials would be a “learning experience” and that no decisions have yet been made about processes or vaccine certification. Meanwhile in Scotland, Sturgeon says vaccine passports could be trialled soon.

In an article posted in April of 2020.

Biometric IDs can be ‘gamechanger’ in coronavirus antibody tests, vaccineAs countries begin to lift coronavirus lockdowns, biometric identification can help verify those who have already had the infection, and ensure that the vulnerable get the vaccine when it is launched, health and technology experts said.

It states that the “new biometric ID systems can keep a record of such people and those getting the vaccine”, said Larry Dohrs, Southeast Asia head at iRespond, a Seattle-based non-profit that launched its technology last year for this purpose. “We can biometrically identify the individual and tie them to the test results, as well as to a high security documents. The person then has ‘non-refutable’ proof that they have immunity due to antibodies in their system,” he said.

Governments around the world are now saying that Biometric IDs could be ‘gamechanger’ for tests, vaccines, and it’s the only way for us to come out of lockdowns. These digital identity systems have already been used in many countries before, linking biometric data such as fingerprints and iris scans to a unique digital codes, allowing for remote identification. See India Aaadhar and China.

It’s interesting because iRespond’s partners include the usual suspects, Microsoft, ID2020 and the John Hopkins University School for Public Health. iRespond worked with the ID2020 Alliance which is a public-private partnership committed to improving lives through digital identity. In September 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, which stressed its commitment to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration” by 2030.

The mission of the ID2020 alliance is “Accelerating technology to ensure that everyone in need has access to a unique digital identity as part of their basic human right.” And they plan to provide a digital ID for everyone on an international scale.

According to their site, “A unique convergence of trends provides an unprecedented opportunity to make a coordinated, concerted push to provide digital ID to everyone,” During the 2019 summit, ID2020 announced its latest program “Recognizing the opportunity for immunization to serve as a platform for digital identity, this program leverages existing vaccination and birth registration operations to offer new-born’s a persistent and portable biometrically-linked digital identity.”

When you read further, these ‘trends’ include rising global connectivity, emerging technologies such as blockchain and biometrics and a global call for a “New model of ID.”

iRespond also worked with ID2020 on a decentralised digital identity project for refugees in Thailand and they also carried out a similar project for vaccinating against HPV in Sierra Leone again linking to digital ID’s. iRespond’s technology connected four major hospitals, enabling them to share anonymous vaccination data across a centralised digital health network.

Now, firms such as iRespond and Simprints, a UK-based non-profit that develops biometric IDs for health and humanitarian use are adapting their technology for the next steps. Many biometric systems are based on fingerprints, which can be a transmission risk for the coronavirus, so Simprints is developing a “touchless” technology that scans the face or the palm, said chief executive Toby Norman.

It noted specifically that “the pilot will offer blockchain-based digital identification, linked to individual users through iris recognition, for refugees accessing the IRC’s services in the Mae La Camp in Thailand.” Having a “digital identity” would allow refugees “to access improved, consistent healthcare within the camp” with plans for the same system to eventually “electronically document both educational attainment and professional skills to aid with employment opportunities.”

It was revealed to be just the first step in an effort that aims to equip the projects entire refugee population with secure and portable “digital wallets” that will hold not just their medical records but also their educational and vocational credentials, camp work histories and myriad other records,” ostensibly including financial activity.

This is particularly likely given that iRespond also partnered with Mastercard, another ID2020 partner that is closely allied with the company, Trust Stamp, a biometric identity platform that also doubles as a vaccine record and payment system. Everest who works with ID2020 and defines itself as a “decentralized platform incorporating a massively scalable payment solution, Everchain, with a multi-currency wallet, EverWallet, and a native biometric identity system, EverID. Everest delivers a complete solution for a ‘new economy.’”

Were these pilot project pre cursers to the digital identity systems now rolling out across the world, the same companies involved in the pilots are the same ones now being used to roll out Vaccine Passports.

Indeed, the plan could very well be to link our biometric data with face recognition cameras and Digital ID which will contain an abundance of data, right now our health and vaccine data, but that platform could be easily extended to include payments at any point depending on future events.

We already know the Covid-19 vaccine passport app could require people to give their location data to a central database meaning people could be tracked in real time.

Vaccine Passports could setup the backbone for an oppressive digital ID and tracking system which may lead to a health apartheid that would be incompatible with a free and democratic country. This may normalise identity checks, health inspections and increase state control snooping over citizens.

Vaccine Passports could also constitute one of the most fundamental alterations between the individual’s relationship with the state in our modern period. If followed to the natural conclusion, they would be far more radical and far-reaching than Tony Blair’s plans for ID cards. The scheme if not decentralised could potentially hand government and private companies our intimate medical information and threaten to make that intrusion a precondition of participation in civic life.

They are inducting us into a system, a Verifiable Credentials (VCs), non-standard decentralized identifiers (DIDs) and #Blockchain system.

This is to create for us a digital identity and to prepare us, not only for the next pandemic, but maybe for payments, the possibilities are endless and once we are in this system, it’ll be almost impossible to get out.

Global FOI Requests Finds No Isolation Of SARS-COV-2

via TruthTalk

A freedom of information request is something you, or anyone else, can fill in to find out details of what your government knows and is doing in your name, you can ask pretty much anything within reason, and by law the government or relevant department has to respond.

Making use of these tools, an intrepid online explorer named Christine Massey has been filing such requests around the world to try and find out if any one has isolated the SARS-COV-2 virus, a key aim of Koch’s postulates and necessary in order to create any vaccine to fight the virus itself.

So far Christine has filed many requests and received 55 FOI responses from 44 institutions around the world, yet in not one of them is found a record describing isolation/purification of alleged “SARS-COV-2” anywhere on Earth, by anyone, ever.

You can find all of her FOI requests here, PART 1 and here; PART 2, and you can follow Christine on Twitter

Now’s The Perfect Time For Global Cyberspace & Pandemic Treaties

By Andrew Korybko (via One World)

There are a multitude of problems that require multilateral solutions which have hitherto remained unresolved due to the lack of the political will and trust that are needed to make progress on them.

Two visionary proposals were recently floated for promulgating global cyberspace and pandemic treaties. The first was presented by Russian President Vladimir Putin last Friday while he chaired a Security Council meeting to review the draft Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on International Information Security while the second was introduced on Wednesday by 24 world leaders who wrote a topical article that was published by many leading newspapers. The general ideas put forth by both will now be discussed before explaining why now’s the perfect time for the international community to seriously consider them. 

President Putin reminded Russian officials that their country was among the first to table such an initiative at the turn of the century, which he said is more relevant than ever nowadays because cyberspace has become the scene of many emerging threats. He suggested “universal and free-for-all rules on the responsible behavior of states” in this domain that would ensure “the inviolability of the digital sovereignty of states”. This, the Russian leader claimed, would “contribute to the formation of a global system for the protection of the international information landscape.”

As for the second proposal, world leaders such as the British, French, German, and World Health Organization ones compared their idea to the formation of the post-World War II multilateral order. They said that “we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful co-operation that extends beyond this crisis”, suggesting that the world “be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly co-ordinated fashion.” To this end, they urged the international community to improve coordination in data sharing and the distribution of vaccines and personal protective equipment. 

Both ideas deserve to be seriously considered at this pivotal moment in global history. International Relations are presently in the midst of full-spectrum paradigm-changing processes as the world’s uncoordinated attempt to contain COVID-19 accelerated a myriad of preexisting latent trends that are revolutionizing literally everything as they simultaneouslyconverge. Humanity is an historic moment whereby the counterproductive zero-sum mentality of the past centuries will either be indefinitely perpetuated with calamitous consequences or everyone will finally learn to embrace the win-win philosophy of mutually beneficial cooperation. 

No single country can go it alone in today’s “COVID World Order” since every member of the international community is in it together no matter what some irresponsible voices may claim to the contrary. There are a multitude of problems that require multilateral solutions which have hitherto remained unresolved due to the lack of the political will and trust that are needed to make progress on them. First and foremost among them are combating epidemiological threats and ensuring cyber security, among other pressing threats such as climate change, thwarting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and combating terrorism. 

With the global economy unprecedentedly becoming more dependent on online platforms due to the lockdowns that most countries implemented in response to COVID-19, it therefore follows that global cyberspace and pandemic treaties go hand in hand in this day and age. The best-case scenario would therefore be that responsible international leaders build upon the recent momentum to seriously discuss both of them in global fora, after which negotiations could commence between interested parties to decide upon the optimal way to proceed. 

The most ambitious timeline would be to reach some sort of agreement, even if only a tentative one, by the end of the year. Continual progress to this end would also reassure the global population that their leaders have their best interests in mind during these chaotic and uncertain times. People would see that the world is finally coming together at its most critical moment to learn from past mistakes and thus guarantee that the future will hopefully be brighter for every one of them and their children. The whole world would benefit from global cyberspace and pandemic pacts, which would restore a semblance of stability to the international system.

Are Vaccines The Real Driving Force Behind The Latest Donbass Destabilization?

By Andrew Korybko (via One World)

Observers are in a passionate debate over what’s really driving the latest Donbass destabilization, with the most prominent hypotheses being either domestic Ukrainian politics or the US’ regional geostrategic ambitions, but the argument can also compellingly be made that the concept of so-called “vaccine nationalism” is playing a largely under-discussed role in events.

The Two Main Hypotheses

Donbass is on the brink of major destabilization once again, yet observers are in disagreement over what’s really driving the latest events. Some believe that domestic Ukrainian politics are to blame and that Kiev’s ruling party aims to provoke a regional crisis in order to distract from its plummeting popularity. Evidence in support of this hypothesis includes the government’s recent witch hunt against opposition figures and its draconian banning of many Russian-language media outlets in the country. President Zelensky also promulgated a decree late last month which practically declares war on Russia and explicitly threatens Crimea. The other theory about the US’ regional geostrategic ambitions is backed up by the its ominous statement of support for Ukraine as well as Washington’s preexisting motives for destabilizing Moscow’s western periphery, which prompted Russia to promise its own ominously support for its passport holders in the country. Both theories have a lot of truth to them, but they’re missing a crucial component which could complete the strategic picture. 

Vaccine Diplomacy” 

That’s the concept of so-called “vaccine nationalism”, which refers to countries’ efforts to promote their COVID-19 vaccines abroad while also sometimes simultaneously thwarting their competitors’ selfsame attempts. In the current context, Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” of exporting Sputnik V across the world to save lives, restore the economy, and also for the supplementary purpose of expanding its multipolar influence is on the brink of a globally game-changing success after Politico reported over the weekend that “More EU Countries Eye Separate Deals With Russia For Sputnik Vaccine”. This was preceded just a few days prior by a related report about how “Macron And Merkel Discuss Vaccine Cooperation With Russia”. The unmistakable trend is that Europe is quickly learning that it needs Russia more than the reverse despite American pressure to convince them to the contrary, which explains why CNN is freaking out so much that it recently published a scaremongering piece about how “Europe Is Torn Over Whether To Take Putin’s Help On Vaccines”

The Donbass Dilemma

It’s against this strategic context that the latest destabilization in Donbass is unfolding. Each side blames one another for provoking it, but an objective assessment of the situation very strongly suggests that neither Russia nor the Russian-friendly rebels of Eastern Ukraine are responsible. After all, they’ve been trying to peacefully implement the Minsk Accords for the past few years, but it’s US-backed Kiev which has obstinately refused to make any tangible progress in this direction, both for domestic nationalist reasons and those related to American regional geostrategic ambitions as was earlier argued. Ukraine is also being crushed by the COVID-19 pandemic but isn’t being provided any real help from its American “ally”, which is why some in the country have looked eastward to Russia for much-needed relief. This inspired me to write about how “Sputnik V Is The Antidote To, Not Russia’s Weapon Of, Hybrid War In Ukraine” at the beginning of the year even though it’s extremely unlikely nowadays that Kiev will agree to cooperate with Moscow in this respect. 

The US’ Strategic Failures

Not only has the US failed in its grand strategic goal of “isolating” Russia over the past seven years as seen by Moscow’s successful “balancing” act all across Eurasia that was commenced in response, but it’s also proven itself unable to convince Berlin to sabotage Nord Stream II by incorporating it into the ongoing German Hybrid War on Russia. The Central European country, to its credit, continues to pragmatically engage with Russia on several issues of significance, including Nord Stream II and most recently exploring the possibility of purchasing Sputnik V, though its silence in the face of the latest Donbass destabilization worryingly risks being interpreted as a carthe blanche by Kiev. Nevertheless, the silver lining is that Germany hasn’t condemned Russia for the recent escalations there like others have, and this observation greatly concerns the US. Considering the speed with which Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” is attracting new partners Europe, it can’t be ruled out that the US wants to provoke a crisis in Eastern Ukraine so as to make Russian-EU Sputnik V cooperation politically impossible. 

Towards A Russian-EU Rapprochement?

This shouldn’t sound all that surprising to the reader if they take the time to reflect on the insight that was just shared. “Vaccine diplomacy” is the quickest way to enter into strategic partnerships with other states or comprehensively reinforce those that already exist. Russia’s European interests in this respect rest with its desire to gently influence those countries to reduce and then ultimately lift the US-led sanctions regime that was imposed after Crimea’s reunification in 2014. Moscow would also like the European countries to show more consideration for its legitimate security interests by not rolling out the red carpet for NATO’s US-led unprecedented expansion along Russia’s western periphery. These two US-led developments in recent years – sanctions and military expansion – caused a crisis in Russian-EU relations, one for which Brussels bears partial responsibility because it willingly went along with it in response to Washington’s pressure. It didn’t have to do that, and its obsequiousness to American strategic demands made everything much worse. 

Russia’s Soft Power Plans

Perhaps the most immediate strategic importance of Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” is that it could win countless hearts and minds in Europe and therefore create a favorable grassroots social environment for facilitating those governments’ eventual lifting of their anti-Russian sanctions and their gradual rolling back of NATO’s US-led military expansion in the region. After all, it might soon be the case that Sputnik V is responsible for saving an untold number of lives in the continent in parallel with facilitating the bloc’s economic reopening, both of which would greatly improve the lives of the EU’s hundreds of millions of citizens. It might be very difficult for those governments to justify their decision to continue “punishing” Russia through economic and military means after Moscow saved them from the worst of World War C‘s ravages, which scares the US to no end since it rightly assumes that this might lead to the irreversible decline of its hegemonic influence there. It thus logically follows that the US has an urgent interest in provoking a crisis to make this scenario politically impossible. 

Concluding Thoughts

Putting everything together, it can compellingly be argued that while domestic Ukrainian politics and the US’ regional geostrategic ambitions play very important roles in driving the recent destabilization in Donbass, any discussion of these developments is incomplete without incorporating the influence of “vaccine nationalism”. The US will do whatever it can to prevent Russian-EU Sputnik V cooperation since it fears that this would greatly reduce its hegemonic influence over the continent. Provoking a crisis in Ukraine, which was already boiling for a long time already even before last year’s COVID-19 outbreak, could help advance this agenda by making it politically impossible for the EU to purchase Russia’s vaccines. It would be very challenging for any country to go forward with such plans in the face of unprecedented American pressure to “reconsider” following what they’d be told was so-called “Russian aggression in Ukraine” even though Moscow wouldn’t be responsible for sparking any potential conflict. That could in turn prolong America’s fading hegemony over the EU.

Goodbye War on Terror, Hello Permanent Pandemic

By Children’s Health Defense

What happened to the War on Terror? World leaders have swapped it out for a new narrative: the permanent pandemic, where society will be controlled under the guise of “pathogen vigilance.”

Those in positions of power have long recognized that conditions of fear and panic furnish exploitable opportunities to restructure society. COVID-19 is certainly a textbook example of this observation, illustrating that well-tuned fear campaigns can persuade many people to abandon essential medical and individual freedoms.

One of the key elements in the propagandist’s toolkit for perpetuating fear is repetition, particularly if the fear messages come from different directions and sources and are cloaked in a veneer of officialdom and respectability.

Thus, in the first few months of 2021, we have seen a proliferation of admonishments telling Americans that pandemics pose an “existential threat” to the United States and are here to stay.

‘Existential threats’ — history repeats

In January, a bipartisan commission released a dramatic 44-page report calling for an “Apollo Program for Biodefense,” explicitly comparing the proposal to the efforts that first landed humans on the moon. The commission laid the groundwork for its report in 2015, when it published a National Blueprint for Biodefense.

Now, seizing the COVID-19 moment, the commission is making the case for a vastly expanded biodefense budget — amounting to billions of biodefense dollars annually — to implement its conveniently ready-to-go blueprint.

Key members of the Biodefense Commission used the “existential threat” language in the aftermath of 9/11 in reference to terrorism — the same language they are using now regarding pandemics. Commission Chair Joseph Lieberman championed the post-9/11 creation of the Department of Homeland Security; Co-chair Thomas Ridge served as the first Homeland Security director.

Around 2014, world leaders began signaling their intent to swap out the War on Terror for a new narrative. That fall, President Obama hosted the first major meeting of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) — which he later elevated to a national priority — and soon thereafter pronounced the terrorist threat “over-inflated.”

Observing the downplaying of terrorism by Obama and senior administration officials, including then-Vice President Biden, journalists at The Guardian chimed in, calling assertions of an “existential [terrorist] threat” hyperbolic, “zany” and “absurd.” The next year, the Biodefense Commission issued its National Blueprint.

Brace yourself

Dovetailing with the Biodefense Commission’s report, the media are telling the public to “start planning for a permanent pandemic.” For example, deploying the loaded language so favored by propagandists,German-American writer Andreas Kluth warned Americans on March 24 (in Bloomberg) of a “global arms race” pitting “coronavirus mutations … against vaccinations,” suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 could “become our permanent enemy, like the flu but worse.”

A former writer for The Economist and a self-styled interpreter of historical successes and failures, Kluth conjures up a foe — a mutating virus too “protean and elusive” to ever be conquered — that undoubtedly hits the biodefense wonks’ sweet spot. Far from rejecting pandemic hyperbole as “zany” or “absurd,” Kluth instead cheerlessly advises Americans to brace for “endless cycles of outbreaks and remissions, social restrictions and relaxations, lockdowns and reopenings.”

Ironically, Kluth argued last July in favor of a revival of “classical liberalism,” clarifying that he meant “not in the American sense of ‘left’ but in the European sense of ‘freedom.’”

Kluth also assures residents of the U.S. and other wealthy nations that vaccination “a couple of times a year” will be part of the “new normal.” Arguing for realism, however, he cautions that vaccination against “the latest variant in circulation” will never occur “fast or comprehensively enough to achieve herd immunity.”

The most positive notes Kluth seems able to strike are his conclusions that this “Brave New World needn’t be dystopian” and that, with each successive lockdown, “we [will] damage the economy less than in the previous one.”

Global control grid

As Children’s Health Defense and others have pointed out, COVID-19 — and the spectre of pandemics more generally — offer a handy pretext for the wider financial and governance overhaul that is unfolding, benefiting the few while building out a global control grid for the many.

In this context, we should not be surprised to see that the Biodefense Commission’s report highlights 15 core technology priorities that would fundamentally restructure society and daily life — in both the physical and digital realms — in the service of pathogen vigilance. These include:

  • A National Public Health Data System to “integrate, curate and analyze” granular data at all levels in “real time.”
  • Artificial-intelligence-driven “digital pathogen surveillance” involving tracking of data sources like social media, online forums and internet search queries.
  • “Pathogen transmission suppression in the built environment,” including “air filtration and sterilization systems” that could involve diffusion of nanoparticles (no consent required) via HVAC systems.
  • “Needle-free” methods of drug and vaccine administration to “increase uptake” and work around “the logistical challenges of delivering these pharmaceuticals to potentially billions of people.”

In light of these stated priorities, it is interesting to note that the Biodefense Commission’s Ridge heads up an eponymous Beltway security consulting firm, while Lieberman serves as senior counsel for a New York law firm whose roster of financial services, real estate and (bio)technology clients includesGoogle and Israel’s Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Teva announced in February that it is in discussion with COVID-19 vaccine makers about possible “co-production” of some of the shots. The same day, Teva’s CEO told CNBC’s Meg Tirrell (who asked about this “very bright spot in Teva’s business”) that the company was “proud to be the partners” for the distribution and logistics of Pfizer’s experimental vaccine in Israel which, as of mid-March, had administered the shots to nearly 60% of the population, “more doses per capita than any other country,” according to Tirrell.

Teva’s CEO said nary a peep about the experts who are warning that Pfizer’s injection of Israelis is producing mortality far in excess of what would be expected from COVID itself.

Like Teva’s CEO, Andreas Kluth has been an enthusiastic booster of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology, happy about synthetic mRNA’s endless permutations and the possibility of telling cells “to make whatever protein we want.”

While acknowledging that experimental mRNA vaccines had problems in the past (such as their tendency to cause “fatal inflammation” in animals), Kluth celebrates the COVID-19 pandemic as the “grand debut of mRNA vaccines and their definitive proof of concept,” stating: “Henceforth, mRNA will have no problems getting money, attention or enthusiasm — from investors, regulators and policymakers.”

In short, permanent pandemics promise to be good for technocracy and good for Big Business.

COVID-19: Pandemic? Or Cult?

By Michael J. Talmo (via Global Research)

For the overwhelming majority of people, COVID-19 is a religion. On faith, they blindly accept that SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19. On faith they believe that COVID-19 PCR, antigen and antibody tests are accurate. On faith they believe that vaccines using an experimental mRNA technology never before used on humans, developed in less than a year instead of the normal 5-10 years to evaluate the long-term effects on people’s health, are safe and effective. 

On faith they believe that draconian measures, like mask mandates and global lockdowns that have destroyed lives, economies, and trampled centuries of cherished civil liberties will protect them. On faith they believe that doctors, scientists, politicians, public health bureaucrats, and the mainstream media are telling them the truth about COVID-19.

Having faith in yourself is one thing. But placing your faith in some institution like the World Health Organization or in some person because they’re a doctor, scientist, president, king, queen, prime minster, governor, mayor, or a celebrity is giving away your power.

Consider these facts:

Lockdowns Don’t Work

Image on the right: File photo from the Times of India

In January, 2020 CNN reported the following statement from Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAD (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), regarding lockdowns: “That’s something that I don’t think we could possibly do in the United States, I can’t imagine shutting down New York or Los Angeles…” Fauci went on to say that the effectiveness of lockdowns “…is really open to question because historically when you shut things down it doesn’t have a major effect.”

Fauci’s back then statement, unlike his later flip-flops, was based on established science. For example, in a January 2020 article, NPR reported on “quarantine use—and abuse—over the ages.” Among the many examples cited was the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Liberia and Sierra Leone.

Liberia decided to isolate a neighborhood for 21 days which only lasted 10 days due to public protests. Sierra Leone imposed a three day quarantine or stay-at-home order. Doctors Without Borders which played an important role in the fight against Ebola had this to say about such actions:

“It has been our experience that lockdowns and quarantines do not help control Ebola, as they end up driving people underground and jeopardizing the trust between people and health providers.”

A May, 2020 article in AIER (AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR for ECONOMIC RESEARCH) reported on what the New York Times reported on in February 2006. The U.S. Government under George W. Bush decided to resurrect authoritarian strategies to control pandemics which on April 5, 2020 ABC News reported: “…formed the foundation for the national response to the coronavirus pandemic underway right now.”

Bush’s dumb strategy was concocted by some computer science programmers and a small group of public health bureaucrats. Lucky for us, it got sidetracked by other crises engineered by his incompetent and corrupt administration.

In response to Bush’s pandemic plan, Dr. Donald A. Henderson (1928-2016), former Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health along with three other experts, took immediate action. They wrote a scientific paper entitled: “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza” published in BIOSECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM which lays out in no uncertain terms that there is no basis for social distancing, prohibiting social gatherings, school closures, masks, and quarantining large groups of people, and that such measures would have serious and considerable adverse consequences. Their conclusion:

“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.”

Numerous recent studies such as here, here, and here confirm the aforementioned findings.

This is an additional one:

EClinical Medicine (published by The Lancet) July 2020 study: “A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes”

Results: “…government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”

Masks Don’t Work

Surgical masks have been around since the late 1890s and are used in operating rooms to prevent droplets from the surgeon’s mouth and nose from going into a patient’s open wound. They also protect the operating room team from sprays and splashes from the patient. The operating room is a controlled sterile environment. Temperature and humidity levels are set to ensure maximum comfort and ability to breathe with the masks on.

N95 masks or respirators were originally designed for industrial use. Construction workers, Miners, and painters made use of them. Eventually, they were used in clinical settings originally for protection against Tuberculosis which is a bacterial disease.

Neither N95 masks nor surgical masks were designed for protection against viruses. Even most of the boxes the masks come in say that they won’t protect you from COVID-19 or other viruses. Yet, in spite of what it says on the box, we are told to wear them.

There are two kinds of scientific research: observational and experimental.

Observational science which involves statistical correlations or epidemiology, mathematical computer models, asking people how they feel under certain conditions, etc. can be summed up in one word: Speculation.

Experimental science where you test, measure, and examine an actual something, such as randomized controlled designs, testing what’s going on in a person’s body while they are wearing or doing something, testing a drug, nutritional supplement, or an actual piece of equipment to see how well it performs can be summed up with this one word: Verification.

Most of the evidence touting that masks work are observational studies which are weak science. And they are cherry-picking the data because there are also plenty of observational studies that show masks don’t work against viral diseases. All that these type of epidemiological studies show are correlations between masks, and COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and death numbers. But correlation doesn’t prove causation.

Another type of weak science are mechanistic studies that show the percentage of respiratory droplets that various types of masks stop. This means nothing unless they test for actual viral or aerosol particles because as stated in a 2006 study published in the American Journal of Infection Control, a June 2020 study published in AIP physics and Fluids, and the CDC’s February 2021 double masking study, plenty of infectious viral or potentially infectious aerosol particles will still go around and through any type of mask. A 2009 Wageningen University study in The Netherlands also demonstrates this. So, claiming that masks are 80%, 90%, or even 99% effective is really saying that they are 0% effective.

Bottom line: the only studies that really matter are Randomized Controlled trials (RCTs) with verified outcomes which test the masks on humans. And every RCT ever done over the past 75 years has shown that N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks are useless against preventing viral diseases. Dr. Denis Rancourt, PhD summed it up best in his ResearchGate Study, “Masks Don’t Work:” (Page 4)

“No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW” (healthcare workers) “or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.”

There are also a number of studies that show wearing a mask isn’t a small thing to ask. Masks are extremely damaging to health in numerous ways. And do you really need science to tell you that your nose and mouth weren’t meant to be obstructed?

Masks cause oxygen deprivation and increase CO2 levels in the blood by forcing the wearer to breathe in their own toxins that they exhale. This damages their tissues and internal organs and weakens the immune system. Masks collect and are a breeding ground for all sorts of pathogenic microbes because they create a warm moist environment on the face and dryness in the mouth which promotes the growth of bacteria that cause periodontal diseases like tooth decay and gingivitis which increases the risk of heart attack and stroke. Dentists are calling this mask-mouth.Masks contain nano plastic particles that can be inhaled deep into the lungs. A growing body of evidence shows that these particles can be harmful. Depriving the body of oxygen also increases the risk for cancer. Masks also cause facial lesions (WHO “Interim Guidance” pages 4 & 8).

Last September, PA Governor Tom Wolf and state legislator Wendy Ullman at a press conference forgot that the podium mic was turned on and admitted that masks are “political theater.” And they laughed about it. How many other government officials I wonder are laughing at us behind our backs?

Sadly, most people don’t know that the joke is on them and will continue to walk around with masks on their faces and their heads up their ass until the voice of authority tells them not to.

COVID-19 Vaccines Don’t Prevent COVID-19 and Could Be Dangerous

The purpose of a vaccine is to prevent a person from getting whatever disease that they’re being vaccinated for, thus, preventing them from infecting others. We constantly hear the mantra that as many people as possible need to get vaccinated in order to achieve “herd immunity.” There is only one problem: COVID-19 vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In other words, you can still get COVID-19 even if you get vaccinated. Hugh! Say what?

In an October, 2020 article, Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal, one of the most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, reported that Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, explained the following about the Phase III vaccine trials regarding if their vaccine will stop people from infecting each other with the COVID-19 virus:

“Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission. Because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”

Anthony Fauci echoed Zaks’ words in an interview at Yahoo Finance’s All Markets Summit last October when he explained that “Early COVID-19 vaccines will only prevent symptoms, not block the virus.”

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine said in an NPR interview that “…one out of every 20 people who get the vaccine could still get moderate to severe infection.”

In a March, 2021 interview (last page), Offit also said that he considers masks and social distancing to be more effective than the vaccines. Nevertheless, Offit did get one of the COVID-19 vaccines.

A January 2021 article in Healthline News reported that because people can still spread and develop COVID-19 after getting a vaccine, experts like Fauci and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) are telling them that they still have to wear masks, frequently wash their hands, and practice social distancing. Some experts cited in the article actually advised people who got vaccinated to act as if they never got the vaccine.

Excuse me for being a party pooper. I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade. But what’s the point in getting a vaccine that doesn’t vaccinate you???

And what does it mean when we are told that the COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective? A follow up article to Peter Doshi’s report, also in the British Medical Journal, points out that none of the COVID-19 vaccine trials are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcomes such as hospitalizations, intensive care use, or deaths. All they are evaluating is mild, not severe disease. The article also points out that the frail elderly are way under-represented in the vaccine trials which provides no basis that the vaccines will reduce hospitalization or mortality as this is the group most likely to die. Children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised people have largely been excluded from the trials as well.

A big problem with the COVID-19 vaccines in use made by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, etc, is that there is no way to know what the long-term side effects will be nor even how many people will suffer permanent injury and die from taking them.

A February 12, 2021 article in the New York Times reported that the safety monitoring system that is supposed to monitor any dangerous reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines “won’t be capable of analyzing safety data for weeks or months, according to numerous federal health experts,” and that “For now federal regulators are counting on a patchwork of existing programs that they acknowledge are inadequate.”

According to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), a national vaccine safety surveillance system run by the CDC and the FDA that tracks injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, as of 3-19-2021, there have been 44,606 recorded adverse events that include 2,050 deaths following injections with COVID-19 vaccines. On its home page VAERS explains that it’s a passive reporting system that relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to the CDC and FDA. It is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem.

Reports of injuries and deaths from COVID vaccines are being reported all over the world. For example, last March, The Sun reported that 21 countries, Italy, Germany, France, Slovenia, Cyprus, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland, Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Austria, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, and Thailand have suspended the Oxford AstraZeneca Vaccine due to reports of people developing severe blood clots days or weeks after being vaccinated.

Vaccine companies are immune from liability for any injuries or deaths caused by their vaccines. Instead, victims have to file a claim with either the VICP (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) or the CICP (Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program) which deals with pandemics. In other words, we the tax payers have to foot the bill for any mess caused by the vaccine manufacturers. And as reported by CNBClast March, the CICP rejects over 90% of the claims filed. So, good luck on collecting. The VICP, created in 1986, rejects about two thirds of all claims (reported in Science Magazine 2017). I think it’s time to do away with this practice and hold the vaccine companies accountable for their actions not only financially, but criminally as well.

Another problem with COVID-19 vaccines are mutations. On March 30, 2021, CNBC reported that according to experts in 28 countries coronavirus mutations could render current vaccines ineffective within a year. They claim that the only way to counteract this is to vaccinate everyone as quickly as possible. But the article points out that there are already mutant strains out there so the proverbial cat is out of the bag.

Viruses naturally mutate anyway and, according to a February, 2020 report in the peer-review journal Nature, are nothing to be concerned about even in the case of SARS-CoV-2. Because, as the article explains, such mutations “rarely impact outbreaks dramatically” and will not likely result in more deaths so the “spectre” of a “super killer virus” is baseless. And since the article also points out that mutations in RNA coronaviruses viruses accumulate during every copying cycle and can occur within a matter of hours in a single infected host, there is no need to vaccinate the entire world as quickly as possible. But the article explains that because the word mutation invokes science fiction models of doom and gloom “it is unsurprising that during a real-life outbreak, journalists and scientists are sometimes predisposed to draw upon these fictional views.”

In an 11-13-2020 editorial, Kamran Abbassi MD, Executive Editor of the British Medical Journal explained that journalists and scientists are more likely drawing on something else:

“Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed a state of corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency…Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas.”

Dr. Abbassi further explained:

“The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.”

He concluded:

“Politicization of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandize and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.”

The Illogic of It All

Nothing that we are being told about COVID-19 makes any sense.

We are told that the flu has virtually disappeared which is being attributed to masks and social distancing. Yet, Biden, Fauci, and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky are cackling that COVID-19 cases are once again on the rise in 21 states that include New York, New Jersey, and Michigan which have some of the strictest mask mandates that have been in place for a year. But since Texas got rid of its mask mandate COVID-19 cases have dropped and are not the rise. How does one explain this?

In the case of the Flu, let’s apply Occam’s razor or the simplest most logical explanation. COVID-19 has the same symptoms as the flu. So, based on symptoms alone it is impossible to tell which is which. Thus, the flu is being relabeled COVID-19 along with pneumonia, bronchitis, other coronaviruses, as well as a bunch of other diseases that are being used to grossly inflate the death numbers. In fact, the CDC website (see “Comorbidities and other conditions”) admits that only 6% of all COVID-19 deaths were due to COVID-19 and that on average all of the other deaths had “4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.”

All of this hysteria about rising COVID cases is mainly based PCR tests that can be manipulated by adjusting the cycles. On a panel discussion last year, Anthony Fauci explained that running the PCR test at 35 cycles or more will give you a false positive. Yet, the FDA website (see page 36) shows that PCR tests are being run at 40 cycles. Yale New Haven Hospital on page 4 of their report also points out that PCR tests are usually run at 40 cycles and that the cycle threshold used “is never included in the results sent to clinicians.”

Here’s a nifty experiment that I wish someone would do. Since it’s impossible to tell the difference between COVID-19 and the flu based on symptoms alone (CDC website under “How do I know if I have flu?”), take a few thousand people who test positive for COVID-19 and also test them for the flu. If a high percentage of them test positive for both conditions how would they know who has what? Because, contrary to what one CDC web page says, that COVID-19 “seems to cause more serious illness in some people,” another CDC web page says that the flu also can cause all sorts of health complications including damage to the heart, lungs and kidneys. In other words, anything COVID-19 can do the flu can do because COVID-19 is the flu.

The Human Condition

Why are most of my fellow humans unable to see that they are being conned regardless of how many times their governments have lied to them? Simple! People have difficulty seeing the truth because the human brain evolved to react rather than think rationally. This is because human beings are animals, as in fauna, mammals, primates, and specifically: apes. This isn’t an insult–it’s a biological fact. This is basic taxonomy, the science of identifying and classifying all life forms. And we are classified as apes.

The fact that we are apes is in our DNA. The genome of all the great apes, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, etc. is made up of 48 chromosomes. But us humans have 46 chromosomes. So, as Professor Kenneth R. Miller explained, if we are indeed great apes who descended from the same common ancestors, at one time in the past we also must have had 48 chromosomes. And we did. Chromosome 2 provides the answer. At the ends of each chromosome we have telomeres. These end caps protect our chromosomes and prevent them from fusing with other chromosomes. But chromosome 2, in addition to the telomeres at the ends of it, also has telomeres in its center which resulted from the fusion of two primate chromosomes.

The Bible also teaches that we are animals. In Genesis 1:24 Animals are called creatures while in Genesis 2:7 humans are called souls. But in the original Hebrew, long before the English language existed, no such distinction is made. Both the word creature and the word soul are translated from the same Hebrew word nephesh.

The primary weapon being used to bludgeon us into accepting the COVID-19 narrative is fear. Submission is fear. A frightened animal is a dangerous animal. Like all apes, we are territorial social animals. Anyone who doesn’t accept the fear narrative and pay homage to the microbial hobgoblin by wearing a mask, getting vaccinated, and engaging in other useless rituals is an outsider, an enemy.

Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD, a historian, explained how messed up our thinking is at a lecture he gave back in 2011. He talked about studies where they gave identical messages, one with and one without a fear narrative, to two control groups. A much higher percentage of people in the group with the fear narrative believed the message. Fear inhibits critical thinking skills. Our brains are hard-wired that scary information is important and must be believed.

Carrier went on to explain that we are designed to overly detect danger because the odds of being killed by under detecting danger are higher in a primitive world. Over believing in things that are dangerous, like a rustling in the bushes could be a predator instead of the wind, helped our primitive ancestors to survive. This is a manifestation of one of our many cognitive biases called “Agent detection” which causes us to overly attribute agency to things that happen in the world. The belief that everything happens for a reason, yelling at a piece of furniture if you bump into it, children talking to their toys as if they’re alive, are examples of Agent detection.

All cognitive biases screw up our thinking and cause us to believe in irrational things and make wrong decisions. Being designed to over detect danger has always made it easy for religion, politics, the media, and corporations to manipulate us by fear–something we must always be on guard against.

Our closest relative, the chimpanzee with whom we share 99 percent of our DNA can be empathetic, provide help when needed even to humans, and respect their elders, or they can be ruthless and brutal. They can be serials killers, make war on each other, rape and beat their mates, and hunt and eat other monkeys by tearing them apart and eating them raw. They will even eat other chimpanzees. It’s the same with us humans despite the fact that our brain’s cerebrum is larger and more complex. At this stage of our development we can both love and nurture each other and prey on and destroy each other.

It’s important to understand that there is a difference between knowing something and believing that you know something. Dr. Carrier explained that your brain makes decisions for emotional reasons first, such as being afraid, and then comes up with intellectual reasons to justify that belief. This isn’t a problem if your reason is trained to be self-critical so you can correct false beliefs and errors in judgment. But this has to be learned. Most people, even if they are well educated, aren’t trained critical thinkers who know how to question themselves so their brains will automatically rationalize anything they want to believe no matter how ridiculous it is.

Scare people and you can get them to turn against their family and friends, rat on each other to the authorities, hoard toilet paper, think it’s okay to put children younger than 10 years old on sex offender registries for playing doctor, and that it’s okay for cops to beat and kill people who don’t obey their every command. Scare people enough and they become trapped in a twilight zone of false reality where down is up, black is white, nonsense is common sense, freedom is selfishness, and acts of sadistic cruelty are condoned and rationalized.

Faith and belief are powerful forces. When channeled into rational goals they can help us to accomplish great things. But faith and belief can be disastrous when projected onto gurus, gods, fuhrers, and experts who claim to know better than us. The human race can never be free as long as it continues to allow itself to be controlled by fear.

COVID-19 has shown us that we now stand at the abyss of a new dark age. With the technology that we have created we can either reach for the stars or send ourselves crashing down to the gates of hell. The choice is ours.

We must never forget the Old Normal

Supporters of lockdown want us to forget that we once lived freely

By DAVID MCGROGAN (via Spiked-Online)

We have now spent over a year in lockdown limbo. Vaccines were supposed to release us by ‘early spring’. Matt Hancock promised that after the vulnerable had been vaccinated, the government would ‘cry freedom’. Well, it’s early spring, and the vulnerable have more or less all been vaccinated. But Chris Whitty has been back on the airwaves to tell us that there will ‘definitely’ be a third wave of infections. Meanwhile, the head of Public Health England thinks nothing of saying that we will be wearing masks and obeying social distancing rules for ‘years’ – and might as well since, according to her, we have all grown used to it anyway.

Normal life – the pub, the real pub, where you did not have to wear a mask or produce a certificate to get in; meeting friends for a casual coffee; going to work; going to an art gallery or a football match – already seems like a dimly remembered dream. What will be left of those memories if all this really does go on indefinitely? Particularly if there is an ‘escape variant’ that evades vaccination – or if another pandemic comes along? 

The Czech author Milan Kundera begins one of his novels with the observation that ‘The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting’. He wrote this specifically about a tactic of leaders behind the Iron Curtain: ‘airbrushing’ inconvenient people from photographs so as to cleanse them from public record. More generally, he was making the point that ideologies – all ideologies – rely on the obliteration of history. An ideology simplifies all of the complexity of the world to a few trite principles. Because history is messy and complicated and almost never conforms to this kind of exercise in reduction, the solution is to forget history altogether. This is why so many ideologies have a ‘Year Zero’ component in their makeup. They are about ripping things up and starting afresh on a blank slate.

Lockdownism, the ideology that now dominates public life, is no different. One of its central elements is forgetting the past, including the very recent past. Before 2020, nobody spoke about ‘lockdown’, ‘social distancing’, ‘the R-rate’, ‘self-isolation’ and so on. Yet we now talk about these concepts as though they have existed for decades – almost as though they are immutable facts about how we have always dealt with infectious disease, rather than a series of ideas dreamed up on the spur of the moment and imposed in a panic. We are encouraged to forget that things used to be different and that we used to live our lives freely, accepting that there were nasty diseases out there that might kill you if you did, but this was a risk worth taking because the alternative was worse. 

Imagine going back in time to this moment two years ago, April 2019, and asking somebody whether it would be acceptable to pause children’s education, put an end to live music and live sport, prevent people from meeting family members or hugging at a funeral, and close businesses for an indefinite period, all in response to a virus which more than 99 per cent of people survive. There would have been only one answer. We all know this. That wasn’t how we used to think about these things. But now, we are forced to forget.

I have a personal perspective on this, because my father died of complications arising from flu – back in 2015, when things were different. He was 70 and had been suffering from a rare degenerative brain condition. He had, for some months, been effectively unable to eat, speak, or move; he was extremely frail and the flu was simply too much for him. He developed pneumonia and died very shortly afterwards. This is not at all uncommon. Over 25,000 people die from pneumonia in a normal year in the UK. If you are in my father’s position – elderly and already very ill – the chances are high that it is what will finish you off.

I was very sad about my father’s death, of course. I loved him and he was my dad. What I do not remember is feeling any sense of anger or injustice about the fact that somebody (who knows who?) had evidently passed the flu virus on to him and thereby ‘killed’ him. In those days – 2015 feels like an aeon ago – we did not think of death in this way. It was just something that happened. Yes, I suppose we all knew in an abstract sense that people can die from viruses they catch from others. But if I had gone around after my father’s death, ranting about the irresponsibility of young people going out socialising and of allowing children to go to school and contribute to the spread of flu, I would – rightly – have been told to seek help.

My father died because somebody passed a virus on to him. I loved him, but it was his time. And I would not have dreamed of expecting the whole of human society to put itself on hold in order to save him. Yet this is now how we are enjoined and encouraged to think about the current pandemic. We must all sacrifice our social lives, our jobs, our communities, even our family life, in order to refrain from spreading a virus and thereby inadvertently killing somebody’s granny. 

We must not forget that we did not used to think about disease in this way. It should be evident to any grown adult that this new way of conceptualising infection and death is based on a profoundly immature and misanthropic notion that our sociality – the core of our nature as human beings – must be sacrificed in order to avoid an inevitable consequence of nature: infectious disease. Humans must live closely alongside other human beings. If we do not, we suffer. The possibility of inadvertently passing on an infection is a price we pay. And yet this fundamental element of our nature is being pathologised and reconceptualised as an unacceptable risk. Once that Rubicon has been crossed, it is difficult to know where we will end up. But it is a fair assumption that wherever it is, it will be profoundly unpleasant – and whatever fragments of memories of the ‘old normal’ remain to us will then be of small consolation indeed.

Leaked Docs Show UK Government Has Planned For Vaccine Passports All Along

By Steve Watson (via Summit News)

Despite consistently denying it, the UK government has planned for the rollout of vaccine passports all along, prompting charges that the “Covid passes are shrouded in government cover ups, lies and shady contracts.”

Privacy Watchdog Big Brother Watch points to an article in the London Guardian today that details how the vaccine passport system was in advanced stages back in December at the same time as ministers were telling the public there were no plans for them.

The article cites a government report dated 17 December, originating from Swiss-based consultancy firm Zühlke Engineering, the same company involved with the UK NHS track and tracing app.

The Guardian notes that the document “details research into possible public attitudes to a Covid certificate, sometimes called a domestic Covid passport. This would use vaccination status, a recent negative Covid test or proof of coronavirus antibodies to allow people into potentially packed places when the country opens up.”

The report also included diagrams of an app-based Covid certificate with scannable QR codes, all connected to the NHS app.

It almost exactly mirrors how the now official COVID pass looks:

As Summit News also reported in December last year, the British government contracted multiple firms to develop COIVD ‘freedom passports’, that would be used to segregate society between those who have been tested or vaccinated against COVID and those who have not.

Simultaneously, a Deprtment of Health source claimed “It is looking at whether it would be possible,” but urged “There are no plans to introduce immunity passports,”

The plan was always to develop an app based system to integrate a QR code linking to a digital passport, which will be used to gain entry into clubs, venues, cinemas, basically anywhere in public.

As far back as November, we reported on these plans, then in January it became clear that vaccine passports were being rolled out.

Throughout this sorry saga, government ministers have engaged in cognitive dissonance, at once admitting that vaccine passports are being introduced, but then suggesting that they are not actually vaccine passports.

Just over a month ago, it became apparent that the system would apply even to pubs and restaurants.

Then a fortnight ago, Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggested that pubs would be able to use the vaccine passes at their discretion, promoting a huge backlash among landlords and punters.

Johnson then walked back that suggestion last week, announcing that pubs and restaurants would be exempt. The strategy is clear, threaten the worst, then when a bone is offered it appears like a concession has been made, so the people will accept the overall system.

Now, the government has announced that the public will be “urged” to take TWO Covid tests EVERY WEEK in order to reengage in society.

Where does this end?

The answer is with digital face scans to enter pubs, gigs and sports events.

Domestic and international biometric ID systems all eventually interlinked and connected to a Chinese style social credit score system.

It is not too late to stop this nightmare future from unfolding.

UK Ministers are set to vote on the vaccine passport system, and could defeat it, killing off the system, at least in the short term.

Majority Of Americans Reject Democrats’ “Election Integrity” Outrage, Support Voter IDs

By Tyler Durden (via Zero Hedge)

Earlier today, Mitch McConnell blasted the “Outrage Industrial Complex” over the lemming-like response to Georgia’s voting integrity reforms.

“Our private sector must stop taking cues from the Outrage-Industrial Complex,” McConnell added. “Americans do not need or want big business to amplify disinformation or react to every manufactured controversy with frantic left-wing signaling.”

It turns out McConnell is right and in fact, a new AP-NORC poll released Friday shows an overwhelming amount of American support requiring identification to vote.

Voter identification requirements are supported by 72% of the public. That popularity is largely driven by support from Republicans, 91% of whom support a requirement that all voters provide photo identification in order to cast their ballot.

However, as the poll shows, 56% of Democrats also support requiring photo ID to vote.

As AmericanThinker’s Eric Utter recently notedwe live in a hyper-credentialed society.

  • Little girls need a government-granted license to sell lemonade at their sidewalk stands.
  • One must provide a valid photo I.D. and be vetted by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) – and possibly be subject to a several-day waiting period – to purchase a firearm.
  • One must present a current, valid photo I.D. to cash a check, or buy a loaf of bread, a six-pack of beer, or pack of smokes at a grocery store. 
  • Want to board a plane? I.D. please.
  • And probably soon, a vaccine I.D.

But one should never have to be troubled to identify oneself to vote for the most powerful person on earth, say Democrats. That would be racist!

French Elite Caught Violating Lockdown Rules by Attending Secret Restaurants

Posh dinners at a cost of €490 euros per head as rest of Paris struggles under lockdown.

By Paul Joseph Watson (via Summit News)

Even as Parisians continue to struggle under lockdown, members of the French elite, potentially including government ministers, have been caught attending rulebreaking secret restaurants in the French capital.

French TV channel M6 aired secretly recorded footage of clandestine dinners taking place at an “underground restaurant located in a beautiful part” of Paris.

The clip shows guests at the restaurant without masks openly kissing each other and violating social distancing rules. There also appears to be no restrictions on the number of guests allowed.

The cost of the dinners – as much as €490 euros per person, underscores the fact that the private club caters exclusively for wealthy visitors.

According to an anonymous organizer of such events, later revealed to be Pierre-Jean Chalencon, the owner of the Palais Vivienne, they are occurring two or three times a week and are attended by government ministers.

Chalencon subsequently claimed that he was joking when he admitted to the infractions.

Last night, Paris’ chief prosecutor Remy Heitz launched an investigation into the matter, asserting that organizers and participants will be prosecuted.

“If ministers or deputies have broken the rules, they must pay fines and be penalized like any other citizen,” said junior minister Marlene Schiappa.

This is just the latest example of members of government and other insiders in major western countries avoiding the very same lockdown policies they impose on other people.

Last month, John Kerry was caught removing his face mask as soon as he boarded a flight in Boston.

Joe Biden also violated his own executive order on the day it was signed when his family took part in a photo-op on federal property after removing their masks.

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s rampant hypocrisy was exposed when he was caught on camera unmasked eating indoors at a Michelin star restaurant with a group of 12 people while telling Californians they could only celebrate Thanksgiving outside.

When Nancy Pelosi visited a hair salon in San Francisco, breaking rules that only allow service outdoors, she also removed her mask.

Meanwhile, in the UK, one of the main architects of the country’s lockdown policy, Professor Neil Ferguson, violated the law to visit his married mistress in London.

COVID ‘Relief’ Spending Was Enough to ‘Put Every Home in the US on Solar Power — for Life’

By Matt Agorist (via FreeThoughtProject)

It is now April 2021 — thirteen months into “two weeks to flatten the curve.” Since March of last year, Americans and the world alike have watched from the sidelines as power hungry politicians have ushered in draconian lockdowns, shutdowns, police state measures, and brought the economy to its knees. While governments around the planet used their central banks to devalue their currencies by printing money to fund their tyranny, the US led the way down this road fiscal horror.

Here we are, over a year later and thousands of businesses have closed down forever, many states continuing to refuse to reopen schools, tyrannical policies still implemented from coast to coast and we’ve added over $6 TRILLION to the national debt in the name of COVID-19 “relief.”

To put this number into context, the COVID spending over the last year is at least eight times larger than the price tag of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal.”

Government spending has reached historical levels and the already-unsustainable nature of such irresponsible fiscal policy has been fast tracked to complete meltdown. So, last month, the feds announced they are coming after more of your paycheck.

Someone has to pay the piper for the $6 trillion, right? Also, where, exactly, did all that money go? It certainly did not go out to Americans who needed it most.

For the same $6 trillion in expenditure, the government could have given every federal taxpayer a $41,870 check. Or, to think about it a bit differently, it could have written every American roughly an $18,181 check.

Or, as Congressman Thomas Massie put it, it could have put solar rooftops on every household in America and “the United States could be running on solar panels… for the rest of our lifetimes.”

Obviously there would be a lot of logistics involved in such a venture, but it goes to show just how bloated and wasteful US government’s COVID spending is. For almost all Americans, the actual benefits of the multiple pieces of lengthy stimulus legislation come in far below the figure that they would have received if the entire pile of money was just even split up and sent out.

But this was entirely predictable as US concerns lie not in the American people, but in special interests and the military industrial complex who keep them in power.

Want proof? In February, instead of helping the American people, President Joe Biden launched an airstrike in Syria. Like Trump before him, Biden carried out this act of war with absolutely zero Congressional approval and, according to several sources, without evidence.

Biden promised to forgive student loans, hand out $2,000 stimulus checks, raise minimum wage, get the kids out of cages, and help America heal after four years of Orange man bad. Instead, however, he is continuing the wars in the Middle East, bolstering the police state, and giving billions to the military industrial complex. Oh, and kids are still in cages.

As Brad Polumbo writes at FEE, this spending is not without consequence either.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and, much to the chagrin of spend-happy politicians’, Santa Claus is not real. Government spending doesn’t create wealth; it only transfers wealth, generally destroying a lot of it in the process.

So, unless Americans are actually seeing equal or greater benefit from spending compared to its cost, it’s a raw deal for taxpayers. And for the federal government’s “COVID” spending binge, it’s not even close.

Unfortunately, the masses are so easily distracted and manipulated into fearing whatever boogieman the state throws at them like COVID, the ‘insurrection’, Antifa, defunding the police, or Trump 2024, that they don’t even notice what’s happening. This fear and distraction, in turn, feeds the budgets of the military industrial complex while laying waste to human rights — both abroad and domestically.

So, no, there will be no solar rooftops. Instead, the masses will continue to argue over irrelevant partisan talking points fed to them from their rulers until there is no more value to steal and the dollar is but a fleeting memory.

COVID-19: Mass Testing at UK Universities Is Haphazard and Unscientific: British Medical Journal (BMJ) Investigation

The rollout of lateral flow tests across campuses has slipped off the radar. How is it working, and what lessons can be learnt, asks Gareth Iacobucci

By Gareth Iacobucci (via Global Research)

The costly rollout of screening for covid-19 among asymptomatic students at UK universities has found very few positive cases since its launch in December, an investigation by The BMJ has found.

Its research shows a mass testing system across UK campuses that is inconsistent and shrouded in secrecy. Almost two thirds of higher education institutions are not collecting data on numbers of students being tested, and a third are not logging how many test positive.

Experts have described campus testing as haphazard and messy, with an “outrageous” price tag. One said that the scheme was putting political ambitions above the goals of science or health.

Among 69 institutions that disclosed three months’ worth of data to The BMJ under the Freedom of Information Act, 1649 positive results were reported from 335 383 tests carried out, a rate of 0.5%.

The BMJ’s research found widespread reluctance among universities and colleges to share information about the costs of testing and its effect on containing the virus. More than three quarters of institutions refused to disclose how much money they had received from the government to set up mass testing. Some cited confidentiality agreements with the Department of Health and Social Care for England as the reason for the non-disclosure.

Experts said the findings—revealed as many universities are poised to welcome students back to campuses after the Easter holidays—cast major doubts on the cost effectiveness, the ethics, and the scientific rigour behind mass screening and called for the programme to be halted.

Allyson Pollock, professor of public health at Newcastle University, and a vocal critic of the testing programme, said, “The clear message from the data is that the mass testing is haphazard, fragmented, disjointed, and absolutely the antithesis of public health. What we have got is a very fine illustration of why we need this programme to go to the [national] screening committee and to be properly evaluated before any more rollouts of tests happen.”

Box 1

How does mass testing of students work?

After numerous outbreaks of covid-19 on UK university campuses last autumn, the government invited universities to test asymptomatic students from December 2020, with the aim of containing the virus before students returned home for Christmas. Most universities taught online only in January and February but continued to offer asymptomatic testing to students who were on campus.

Students are tested under supervised conditions with rapid lateral flow devices, which do not require laboratory processing, such as the Innova tests, which the UK government has spent over £1.3bn on purchasing.1

Two tests a week are recommended, followed by a PCR confirmatory test after a positive result. Government guidance says that twice weekly testing should continue indefinitely, although where this was not possible testing once a week “may be appropriate where students only visit campus once a week.”2

Read the full article on the BMJ.

Covid Tests Are Invalid. Politicians Are Lying.

By Mark Taliano (via Global Research)

People casually refer to the current lockdowns as being “because of COVID” or “the pandemic”. That is a lie. Our governments are imposing restrictive, counter-productive measures on us, not COVID.

The notion that there is a pandemic caused by a ‘killer virus” is illusory. The data underpinning the lie is invalid.

COVID-19, a term that covers a broad range of symptoms, has always had high survival rates.

According to Dr. John Ioannidis,

“of every seroprevalence study conducted to date of publication with a supporting scientific paper (74 estimates from 61 studies and 51 different localities around the world) the median infection survival rate from COVID-19 infection is 99.7 percent.  For COVID-19 patients under 70, the meta-analysis finds an infection survival rate of 99.95%.” (1)

Clearly, COVID is not a “plague to be feared”, or a “killer virus”, as it is presented to us by Mainstream Everything in as many as 190 countries. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) conveniently “redefined” the word “pandemic” to exclude mortality rates in 2009. (2)

Foundational to the Big Lie is data. Mainstream Everything would have us believe that SARS-COV-2 tests are not only reliable, but that they are also key to resolving the (fabricated) crisis (sic). The data, however, is invalid. The WHO has admitted as much.

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky explains that,

”the World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin. If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 14 months are invalid.” (3)

Clearly, unelected “controllers” have been selling us a Lie to impose lockdown measures, to destroy economies, and to inject us with experimental vaccines.

There is nothing democratic about any of this. Compliant politicians are lying to us.

The boot of totalitarianism is currently on our faces, and it will continue to extinguish our rights, our freedoms, our livelihoods, and our lives, for as long as we collectively allow it.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.


(1) Oliver May, “Risk of Asymptomatic Spread Minimal. Variants Over-Hyped. Masks Pointless. An Interview With Professor Jay Bhattacharya.” Lockdown Skeptics, 25 March, 2021. (Risk of Asymptomatic Spread Minimal. Variants Over-Hyped. Masks Pointless. An Interview With Professor Jay Bhattacharya – Lockdown Sceptics) Accessed 02 April, 2021.

(2) Mark Taliano, “False Perception Fabrication Inc.” http://www.marktaliano.net, 24 March, 2021 (False Perception Fabrication Inc. – Mark Taliano) Accessed 02 April, 2021.

(3) Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis.” Global Research, 19 March, 2021. (The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 02 April, 2021.

Medical Doctor and Director of Diagnostics Laboratory Presents Cures for COVID and Exposes Dangers of COVID “Vaccines”

By Brian Shilhavy (via Global Research)

Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole is a Mayo Clinic trained Board Certified Pathologist.

He is Board Certified in anatomic and clinical pathology. He has expertise in immunology and virology and also has subspecialty expertise in skin pathology.

He has seen over 350,000 patients in his career, and has done over 100,000 Covid tests in the past year.

He recently was invited to speak at the “Capitol Clarity” event in Idaho, apparently sponsored by the Lt. Governor’s office, where he discussed successful outpatient treatments for COVID, and to offer his views on the new COVID “vaccines.”

Dr. Cole begins by showing statistics that prove Idaho is no longer in a “pandemic,” but an “endemic.” He states that the highest risk factors for contracting COVID are advanced age, obesity, and low Vitamin D levels.

He also explains that coronaviruses have historically always followed a 6-9 month life cycle. He gives previous examples such as SARS-1, MERS, etc.

One very interesting statistic that he pointed out is that in the U.S. the average annual age of death is 78.6 years old, and the average age of death during COVID has also been 78.6 years old.

Dr. Cole is very adamant that proper levels of Vitamin D are essential to fight coronaviruses. He states:

There is no such thing as “flu and cold season,” only low Vitamin D season.

Slide from Dr. Cole’s presentation.

Slide from Dr. Cole’s presentation.

Dr. Cole then goes on to explain that by law, the government cannot use experimental vaccines on the population if there are already effective treatments.

So all of the current experimental COVID “vaccines,” which Dr. Cole himself admits do NOT meet the legal definition of a “vaccine” to begin with, are all illegal because there are therapies, such as Vitamin D, that are effective in treating COVID patients, as well as older already FDA-approved drugs like Ivermectin.

He points out that the NIH (the National Institute of Health), which is a U.S. government agency involved with approving drugs, holds patents on the Moderna experimental COVID “vaccine,” which is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

This is also the agency that Anthony Fauci works for, and has been employed there for over 30 years and is one the highest paid politicians in the U.S., making more money than even the President of the United States. (Go ahead and fact check this for yourself.)

Watch the entire presentation by Dr. Cole. We have it on our Bitchute Channel, as well as our Rumble Channel.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

‘Breaking Through’ — States Report Growing Number of COVID Cases Among Fully Vaccinated

Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California and Minnesota have all reported breakthrough cases of COVID.

By Megan Redshaw (via Global Research)

The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) announcedTuesday it is investigating reports of people who tested positive for COVID more than two weeks after being fully vaccinated against the disease.

According to Kiro 7 News, a CBS affiliate in Washington, the DOH is investigating reports of the so-called “breakthrough cases,” which it said are expected with any vaccine. Each case was confirmed with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or a positive antigen test more than two weeks after the person had been fully vaccinated.

A majority of people with confirmed vaccine breakthrough experienced mild symptoms, if any. However, since Feb. 1, eight people with vaccine breakthrough cases were hospitalized and the DOH “is investigating two potential vaccine breakthrough cases where the patients died. Both patients were more than 80 years old and suffered underlying health issues,” officials said in a press release.

Washington isn’t the only state reporting breakthrough cases. Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California and Minnesota have also reported cases of fully vaccinated people testing positive and becoming ill with COVID.

The Florida Department of Health in Volusia County had six documented breakthrough cases, Sumter County had six and Lake County had 26 cases, according to emails from each county spokespersons.

Dr. Sunil Joshi, president of the Duval County Medical Foundation, compared the COVID vaccine to the flu vaccine. “It’s like the flu shot, for instance, right. We know, we encourage people to get the flu vaccine. That doesn’t mean that you’re not going to get the flu. But the disease is significantly lessened,” Joshi said. “So remember, the whole goal for this, from the very beginning, has been to keep people out of the hospital. And so anything positive after the vaccine is not unusual, it can happen.”

In Charleston, South Carolina, the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) identified 134 breakthrough cases in those fully vaccinated across the state. In the past month alone, Roper St. Francis Healthcare treated four patients in the hospital and were aware of 10 other “breakthrough” cases that did not need hospitalization.

The Medical University of South Carolina reported seven COVID cases in fully vaccinated people. Roper Hospital is working with DHEC to analyze positive test results to see if variants may play a role.

“All of these individuals we identify who get infected or even hospitalized despite receiving two doses, that virus will be sent on to DHEC for further analysis,” infectious disease physician Dr. Kent Stocksaid. “The question is, is that phenomenon influencing these numbers?”

In Wichita Falls, Texas, seven vaccine breakthrough cases were reported Monday in those fully vaccinated against COVID. Of the seven cases, six had the Pfizer vaccine and one had Moderna.

“We’ve been watching that since the very beginning, since vaccinations started and so we started noticing it was just maybe one per week, two per week, now we are currently at seven,” Amy Fagan, assistant health director of the Wichita Falls Wichita County Public Health District, said.

As of March 24, Minnesota had identified 89 “breakthrough” COVID infections with a small number resulting in hospitalization, according to Star Tribune.

Out of caution, the state is reviewing the cases to see if they have anything in common, state infectious disease director Kris Ehresmann said. “A cluster of cases vaccinated at the same site could suggest a handling problem with the vaccine, or that a lot was tainted,” she said.

When asked about Minnesota’s vaccine breakthrough cases during a White House press briefing on March 26, Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical advisor, said: “This is something we take seriously and follow closely. You will see breakthrough infections in any vaccination when you’re vaccinating literally tens and tens and tens of millions of people. So in some respects, that’s not surprising.”

According to Fox News, a Long Island, New York woman tested positive for COVID Tuesday — more than a month after receiving her second dose of the Moderna vaccine meant to protect against the virus. “I was shocked,” Rosen said. “I’m the 4.9% that got Moderna and actually got COVID.”

In a March 23 letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, eight physicians reported on a study they conducted on breakthrough cases at the University of California, San Diego and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) health systems.

According to the letter, UCLA instituted an optional testing program on Dec. 26, 2020, for asymptomatic healthcare workers using PCR nasal testing in an effort to detect asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination.

From Dec. 16, 2020, through Feb.9, 2021, a total of 36,659 healthcare workers received the first dose of a COVID vaccine, and 28,184 of these persons (77%) received the second dose. Among those vaccinated, 379 people tested positive for COVID at least one day after vaccination, and the majority (71%) tested positive within the first two weeks after the first dose. After receiving both vaccinations, 37 healthcare workers tested positive.

According to the study, the risk of testing positive for COVID after vaccination was between 0.97% and 1.19% –– rates higher than the risks reported in the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine trials.

As The Defender reported in December 2020, one explanation for “breakthrough cases” in the fully vaccinated may be the use of polyethylene glycol (PEG) in mRNA COVID vaccines like Moderna and Pfizer.

Studies have found approximately 72% of people may have PEG antibodies. In those people, the antibodies may cause an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine. Or, the antibodies may break down and degrade the PEG-coated mRNA in the vaccine before it gets a chance to get into the cell and start programming the production of spike proteins, resulting in the vaccine being less effective.

Confirmed: COVID Cases after “Vaccination” Are “Expected”

By Mac Slavo (via Global Research)

The official expert scientists in the ruling class have declared that getting COVID after being fully “vaccinated” with the experimental gene therapies is “expected.” Meaning these shots don’t work as vaccines and are being mislabeled.

Using all the buzzwords to get the brainwashed masses to believe they still need this vaccine, many missed reading between the lines.  They have admitted now that the “vaccines” don’t protect against getting or spreading COVID-19. They have also admitted now that it is gene therapy, not a vaccine, and it will alter your genetic material.

Epidemiologists in Washington state have now admitted that they have evidence of at least 102 fully vaccinated people testing positive for COVID-19 since the beginning of February, the state’s health department confirmed Tuesday.

It’s fascinating that people can read these words with their own brain, then proceed to share Pfizer or Moderna’s “studies” that magically conclude that the mRNA shots provide immunity, when we are being told they don’t. So who’s lying? Big Pharma? Or the ruling class?

Even slave master Fauci says you can still get and spread COVID after being “vaccinated”:

The rulers want you to know that the number of people who come down with COVID after vaccination is small. The cases after getting “vaccinated” are expected, according to the DOH, and the 102 people represent just .01% of the 1,000,000 fully vaccinated Washingtonians.

“Finding evidence of vaccine breakthrough cases reminds us that, even if you have been vaccinated, you still need to wear a mask, practice socially distancing, and wash your hands to prevent spreading COVID-19 to others who have not been vaccinated,” said Umair A. Shah, MD, MPH, Secretary of Health, according to a report by K4 News Oklahoma. an NBC affiliateSo even if you are vaccinated, you can still get COVID-19 and spread it.

Let’s follow the illogic of this statement for a moment.  If the vaccinated can still get COVID and spread it to the unvaccinated, when the unvaccinated become vaccinated they can still spread it to? Because if the vaccinated can still get it, vaccinating everyone won’t stop the virus from spreading. So what is the real reason we are all expected to take the gene therapy shots?

These seem to be questions that most Americans are too dumbed down to even ponder, let alone ask.

Additionally, are 1 million Washingtonians fully vaccinated? Can we trust their numbers? We already know we can’t trust their COVID numbers and we are being lied to constantly.

Stay alert.  People are figuring this hoax out in bigger numbers.  But we know the ruling class won’t let this go and the “vaccines” are a part of the New World Order agenda.

We need to remain alert and prepared. It’s hard to say what they will try to pull off next as people wake up to their enslavement.


This is covid 19. Although he was alive, this man was declared dead in the documents and the medical staff had to inform the relatives about this aspect.

However, the relatives did not believe and entered the salon and seized the man and saw that his heart was beating, but that he was under anesthesia.

Immediately the relatives forced the medical staff to reconnect the patient to the devices and thus it was clear that the man was alive, his heart was beating.

In hospitals around the world, where there is corruption, people are killed and declared dead by covid.

People are falsely diagnosed, falsely diagnosed with covid, given medication that worsens their health, then hospitalized in ATI, anesthetized and killed in their sleep.