Goddess

The real conspiracy theory is believing that you can replace your immune system with hand sanitizers, masks, and gene therapies.

View of Annual All-Cause Mortality Rate in Germany and Japan (2005 to 2022) With Focus on The Covid-19 Pandemic: Hypotheses And Trend Analyses (sciencexcel.com) A new peer-reviewed study confirms that the drastic spike in deaths since 2020 have a direct link to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Worrying Conclusion: ‘From this point of view, it seems possible that a high vaccination rate has contributed to an increased all-cause mortality in some countries.’

Critic of congressional probe into gain-of-function research helped fund Wuhan gain-of-function study - U.S. Right to Know (usrtk.org) First Fauci and now Hotez - both involved in the gain of function research that started the covid pandemic. Hotez in that bow tie looks like a serial killer.

New emails show COVID vaccine mandates were based on a lie | Washington Examiner Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and former NIH Director Francis Collins were aware of, and discussed, “breakthrough cases” of COVID in January 2021 — right when the vaccines became widely available. In her email, Walensky says that “clearly,” it is an “important area of study,” links to a study raising the issue, and assures the person she is sending it to that Dr. Anthony Fauci is looped into these conversations. However, in public, Walensky was saying something quite different. Two months after discussing this data, she said vaccinated people “don’t carry the virus” and “don’t get sick.” We now know that was not true and that Walensky herself knew it was not true.

Which side were you on, Eyeball? The side of truth and love? Or the side of lies and tyranny?

The Barnstable study - surprisingly conducted by the CDC - was in the summer of 2021. So let's reflect on what the "experts" and politicians KNEW at that time and yet stubbornly and maliciously clung to. Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov) In this study, the authors examined all reported cases of COVID in this region for a month. They identified 469 positive cases with 74% of them being found in fully-vaccinated individuals. This was very close to the the COVID vaccination rate among Massachusetts residents at the time (69%). The authors concluded that that vaccinated people were just as likely to catch and spread the virus. This study was used to substantiate a new recommendation by authorities to reintroduce mask mandates at the time (even for vaccinated individuals). The study firmly concluded that these shots may have personal benefits but they were not going to stop transmission. Again, this was in the Summer of 2021. This fact was also proven by looking at the data that was coming out of Israel by the Summer of 2021. Israel was one of the first countries to vaccinate their population. Even though the majority of their country was vaccinated and that the country had rolled out the first controversial vaccine passport, Israel saw their COVID cases and COVID hospitalizations reach record levels in the Summer of 2021. The country would see more infections, deaths and hospitalizations than at any time before the vaccine was available. And this was before Omicron existed. There was also the fully vaccinated cruise ship, where they all got covid. We had these studies and real-world before our leaders chose to start dividing us. Justin Trudeau knew the science. But when he started campaigning in September 2021, he went directly on the attack against unvaccinated Canadians. Joe Biden would do the same. The political opportunities were to great to pass up. The majority of society would follow suit. Despite what the science said… Keep that in mind as you watch Trudeau's red-faced, spit-spewing rant here - that he knew the shots didn't stop transmission or prevent infection. It’s an understatement to say that the world’s scientific community knew that the vaccines were not going to solve the pandemic. It’s an understatement to say that our leaders purposely tried to force this shot and/or shame those of us who viewed it differently. They may have been correct in assuming that the shots could act like a therapeutic and alleviate the symptoms for many. But the preposterous idea that we needed to throw away all our societal norms in order to elevate our vaccinate rate from 80% to 90% was a mistake. The ones who supported this idea were complicit. We would end up firing everyone who didn’t take the shot. We would ban them from travelling. We would forbid them from entering almost all public spaces. Families were torn apart. People couldn't say good-bye to dying loved ones. Because they wouldn’t take a therapeutic product which we definitely knew did not stop transmission of this virus. That’s why it doesn’t matter who was right on these vaccines. It doesn’t matter if the vaccine ends up being proven helpful or not. What matters is that only one side of the debate forced their un-scientific, harmful beliefs onto the other. The ones opposing vaccine mandates didn’t want to take away the right of consenting adults to take advantage of mRNA technology. We all just wanted everyone’s personal medical choices to be respected. The way they have always been respected before 2020.

Anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration vindicated, but much too late | National Post Though it did not explicitly say so, the CDC has embraced the core principles of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) — a document I coauthored along with Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University and Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford in October 2020. The GBD called for focused protection of vulnerable people (e.g., the elderly) and lifting lockdown restrictions so that the less vulnerable could live more normal lives. The declaration provided numerous concrete suggestions about how to protect the vulnerable until widespread population immunity was achieved. Now, in January 2023, it is time to fully embrace the hard lessons to be learned from the CDC’s years-long failed pandemic management. Prudence requires that politicians and public health officials consider the harms of policies adopted at least as seriously as their putative benefits. Pandemic strategies should never again privilege the laptop class and other affluent populations over the poor. Public health should eschew wishful thinking, fearmongering, and policies that effectively divide society into clean and unclean. Protection of the vulnerable, whoever that may be in the next pandemic, should be the linchpin of pandemic management. And lockdowns should be consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong.

I've been right about everything. And you've been wrong about everything. And now you're mad. I wasn't right and you wrong because of a lucky coin toss. I followed science. You followed Big Pharma, Big Tech and Big Government. So don't pretend you don't like them now.

In The Covid Consensus, leftist historian Toby Green and Leftist economist Thomas Fazi explain that the Covid overreaction disproportionately hurt the poor, the young and women, both in the Third World and in wealthier nations. Those who, like me, had, from March, 2020 forward, predicted such disparate impact were dismissed as “non-experts” and “grandma killers.” Spoiler alert: as the authors observe, grandmas and grandpas worldwide lived miserably during the Covid overreaction. Millions died after having been deprived of visitors and affection, masked and confined in a tiny room for the last months of their lives. Legions of the elderly just gave up and died deaths of despair. In the first half of this 448 page book, the authors outline, and then debunk, the “Covid consensus,” i.e, the false, single narrative—or “doxa”—that governments, media, and Pharma collaborated to sell to a gullible public that, in turn, embraced an extremely destructive overreaction. To wit, the Consensus fearmongers repeatedly, dishonestly asserted that Covid seriously threatened people of all ages, could be spread by the asymptomatic, lacked any effective treatment and could be controlled by lockdowns until the development and universal injection of an experimental vaccine. Spreading these keystone lies entailed deliberate statistical distortions and aggressive censorship to squelch informed and reasoned dissent, including “mitigation” criticism presented by highly-credentialed people. The perpetrators of this massive fraud characterized the various “mitigation” measures as a “war” and told people that“We’re all in this together.” As the authors, and those whom they quote, observe, nothing could have been further from the truth. The Covid response clearly divided people in the US, and internationally, into winners and losers. The Scamdemic further impoverished the First World poor and further enriched the rich: Big Tech, the financial sector and Pharma. Astra-Zeneca, Amazon, Black Rock, Course Hero, Moderna, Pfizer, Tesla, Vanguard, Zoom and other mega-companies cashed in, big-time, during the locked down/vaxxed up era. So did other CARES Act beneficiaries, such as Covid test makers and administrators. At least 50 new Med/Pharma billionaires were created using taxpayer-derived Covid subsidies. In contrast, grocery store workers and other “essential” laborers worked hard for what they got and had their wages and savings effectively cut by 17% as Covid inflation devalued their already limited resources. During the Scamdemic, the wealth of pre-Covid billionaires increased at ten times the rate as it had during the past two decades; the past two decades had already given rise to record numbers of billionaires. Meanwhile, laptoppers and teachers skipped their commutes and missed no paychecks or meals. Poorer people, especially those in poorer countries, were multiple times more likely to lose jobs, deplete savings to pay basic bills or go hungry and, as did millions, die of malnutrition. The authors observe that the opportunistic Covid overreaction was enabled by, and built upon, a combination of several contemporary technological forces or trends: concentration of wealth and media, computer screen workplaces replacing production of tangible goods (and an attendant lack of awareness that makers of material goods still existed), the increasing atomization/physical isolation of the Internet Era, the blurring of the line between public and private realms, emergence of both surveillance and excessively medicalized societies, the revolving door between the government and private/Med/Pharma sector, a multi-decade, a media-induced public mindset of overlapping crises and a generalized death phobia. With these elements in place, Covid propaganda was easy to sell to a gullible public and lockdowns/school closures, and facilitated the mask/test/quarantine/vaxx crusades. Green and Fazi spend the book’s second half enumerating the many harms caused by the mitigation policies, which they see as having been driven by anti-Trump politics and money-making motivations of the already-rich, such as Gates and the Tech/Pharma juggernauts. The authors often cite statistics to show that the interventions not only failed but caused tremendous harm, especially to low-income families, whose parents—mostly mothers—lost their jobs, had little or no savings, lived in cramped dwellings that were not meant to be continuously occupied and who suffered from domestic abuse. Pregnancies among home-bound teens also increased. The authors point out, as many had predicted, that the mitigation caused far more health damage than it prevented. Locking down and closing public places lessened physical activity and sun exposure. Thus, hundreds of millions of people gained weight and generated much less immune-boosting Vitamin D. Lockdowns also deterred many from having routine examinations that would have diagnosed cancers, heart ailments or other problems that, untreated, worsened and killed people. Importantly, while the authors cite many statistics regarding bad health outcomes, impoverishment and income and educational stratification, they keep it human. They specifically describe scenarios that caused billions of flesh and blood people to suffer. They write, for example, about the practical, daily effects on those, such as street and market vendors and those who lost work in the arts, the hospitality, garment, travel, beauty and wedding industries and tens of millions of small-scale entrepreneurs and countless members of the informal economy, all of whose livelihoods depended on humans gathering. They also write about the sharp drops in “remittances” sent, in normal times, by US workers to their underemployed, low-income families in other nations. Predictably, as immigrants to the US and Europe lost their jobs, remittances to those in Africa dropped 25%. One would suspect that this trend extended to much of Latin America, the Caribbean and less prosperous parts of Asia. If you don’t make money in the US, you can’t send it home. The authors discuss the learning losses sustained, worldwide, by “remote learning” schoolkids whose families lacked computers—and the lifelong impairment of income/socioeconomic mobility after falling behind educationally, special-ed kids who couldn’t get the in-person attention they needed, kids kept inside for months—ostensibly for their safety—the many youths who committed or considered suicide, and more. They quote a Tweet posted, on his last day of work, by a doctor who worked with American children during the Scamdemic: “All I have to say is that we have broken young people socioeconomically, mentally, biologically and spiritually. We will see the repercussions of our actions for years to come.” The “vaxxes” sold by the government and media did even more than cause many injuries and deaths among injectors, while these unneeded shots simultaneously failed to protect them. Governments in the US and abroad have paid hundreds of billions to be vaxx-scammed. The consummately evil Gates, and his ilk, continue to strive to make vaxxes the central element of poor nations’ public health strategies. The vaxx boondoggle/scandal ignores that the lack of adequate food, clean water and sanitation are infinitely bigger problems in developing nations than are respiratory viruses. Allocating limited public resources to vaxxes instead of food, water and sanitation inefficiently and cruelly further shifts wealth from the poor to the rich. In addition to economic and safety losses, Green and Fazi discuss the grave losses of basic rights and freedoms, interpersonal relationships and social institutions in the United States and abroad. The authors observe, for example, that South Africans have traditionally spent much energy and percentages of their modest incomes to pay proper tribute to the deceased because their lives have been so challenging. Thus, depriving the poor of the opportunity to gather and send their beloved into the next realm took from South Africans one of their few opportunities to live with dignity. Instead of caring for the decedent’s body and dressing the deceased in splendid attire, many dead Africans were hauled away unceremoniously in plastic bags. Green and Fazi properly and unequivocally point out that all of these problems were foreseeable from the outset. In so doing, they expressly reject the revisionist, exculpatory notion that those who pushed these measures “couldn’t have known” that things would turn out this badly. Those who predicted such poor outcomes were deprived of audiences or platforms. The authors summarize the past three years thusly, “Essentially, the world’s poor paid with their livelihoods and futures for the attempt to control a disease which for them was a minor risk in their daily lives.” The self-described Leftist authors’ scathing critique of the Covid interventions echoes the criticisms offered by most on the Right over the past three years. Green and Fazi ream the materially and politically privileged “neo-authoritarian” Left for supporting the Covid interventions and thus, wrecking the lives of the poor about whom they profess to care. This criticism applies both to Leftist political leaders and their Democrat, Socialist and Green Party constituents. As Thomas Frank observed in Listen, Liberal (2016), today’s American Leftists are affluent, de facto segregated laptoppers who affirmatively abandoned the working class over three decades ago; Frank cites an early 1980s DNC memo declaring this party policy shift. Democrats threw over blue-collar “deplorables” in favor of a college-pedigreed, monied donor class devoted to culture wars that stick thumbs in the eyes of their former base. For political gain, both the New Left’s leaders and their faithful followers fervently and disgracefully supported Coronamania’s economic dislocation, lockdowns and school closures. Given the structural problems and political and economic opportunism that led to the terrible social and economic outcomes of the past 39 months, and how passively and badly people reacted to the government and media misinformation campaigns during that time, the authors foresee a dark future of egregious government/corporate misconduct that will heap much more of what the novelist Junot Diaz called “Fuku” on the growing ranks of the poor. And on the shrinking middle-class, as well. In the Introduction of his bestselling book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie told readers that his book’s lessons were so important that people should reread that book every year. The lockdown/school closers/maskers/vaxxers of the world and the politicians, public health experts and media who conned them should be required to do the same with The Covid Consensus. They deserve detailed, lifelong reminders of the deep suffering they caused via their strident support for the failed, disingenuous mitigation measures.

COVID-19 vaccines: history of the pandemic's great scientific success & flawed policy implementation | Zenodo The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and developed with astonishing speed. The time from sequencing the virus to authorizing the first COVID-19 vaccine was so brisk even the optimists appear close-minded. Yet, simultaneously, United States’ COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and related policies have contained missed opportunities, blunders, run counter to evidence-based medicine, and revealed limitations in the judgment of public policymakers. How can a single intervention simultaneously represent one of our greatest pandemic successes but also encapsulate real limitations? Misplaced utilization, contradictory messaging, and poor deployment in those who would benefit most — the elderly and high-risk — alongside unrealistic messaging, exaggeration, and coercion in those who benefit least — young, healthy Americans — is at the heart. It is important to consider the history of COVID-19 vaccines to identify where we succeeded and where we failed, and the effects that these errors may have more broadly on vaccination hesitancy and routine childhood immunization programs in the decades to come. Link to the PDF: COVID 19 Vaccines history_Zenodo.pdf

Evolutionary implications of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for the future design of vaccination strategies | Communications Medicine (nature.com) Mass vaccination was the “pillar of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” But critics such as Geert Vanden Bossche warned that mass vaccination might trigger mass evolutionary pressures, thus accelerating pathogen mutations, thus accelerating pathogen mutations. The Belgian virologist was summarily dismissed, censored and blacklisted by mainstream science and its media channels as an overreacting crank. However, here, an intellectually gifted duo based in Russia and Holland raise the specter that based on their modeling “mass vaccination might accelerate SARS-CoV-2 evolution in antibody-binding regions compared to natural infection at the population level.” In what should be a must read for decision makers in vaccination, the authors both review the most important factors shaping vaccination strategies during the COVID-19 crisis, while also probing the implications of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on virus evolution in light of accumulated knowledge and in the context of viral evolutionary theory. Their analysis raises the specter of a reality involving the evolution of rapidly mutating antibody-binding regions. Finally, the pair acknowledge the need for their own assumptions to be validated, while also pointing to the need for the research necessary to design potential future advancements in both vaccination and broader vaccination strategy. ********************************************************************************* Researchers from Singapore represented by NWS Chew, and colleagues at National University Heart Center, Yong Loo Link School of Medicine, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis accessing PubMed, Embase, Research Square, MedRxiv and LitCovid databases and relevant papers identified up to June 29, 2021, covering at least half a year of the mass vaccination response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Targeting myocarditis cases and COVID-19 vaccination with specific inclusion criteria, the Singapore-based study authors include consecutive patients admitted in a tertiary hospital in Singapore between January 1, 2021, and March 31, 2021, with the onset of cardiovascular manifestations within 14 days after the COVID-19 vaccination procedure, included retrospectively. Published in the journal QUJ, a British peer-reviewed medical journal which was established in October 1907 as the Quarterly Journal of Medicine in late 2021, this study result indicated mounting concern even at that earlier time during the pandemic as to cardiovascular risk associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, especially with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine among younger males.

Oh please. You've supported every shenanigan, every lie. You're only on this thread because I think deep down, you know. You know people were lied to, had their lives destroyed and were manipulated for profit. And know SUPPORTED EVERY INCH OF IT.

If you know this already, then why do you act like Big Pharma and government are suddenly champions of scientific integrity and ethics?

Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination | medRxiv The CDC defines people as being “up to date” on their vaccines if they have had at least one dose of the new “bivalent” vaccines, which are the ones the so-called “health agency” has been pushing lately. These are the new and improved jabs including both the original Wuhan-style spike protein as well as the new Omicron flavor. It’s double the fun. Two spikes in one! And it’s worth every penny you pay for it, too. Anyway, the hardworking Cleveland Clinic researchers, bless them, looked at 50,000 of the hospital systems’ own employees and compared bivalent jab uptake with covid positive status. Here’s what they found: Huh. To be clear: People who take the bivalent shot get MORE covid. Bwahahaha! It would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious. The media convinced a lot of gullible people the worst thing that could ever happen to them was catching covid. And now, their magic shots appear to actually INCREASE the chances they will catch the dreaded disease. I can hear the desperate rejoinder already. “But, but, but,” they’ll stammer, “the bivalent shot decreases risk of hospitalization and death!” Well, maybe, maybe not. Opinions on that vary. But either way, the person who DOESN’T GET COVID has the LOWEST risk of serious illness and hospitalization, since they never encounter the risks to start with. In other words, even if it’s a lower relative risk, by getting covid more often, the boosted have INFINITELY higher risk of serious illness and death than the unboosted who don’t catch the virus in the first place. Not to mention what the phenomenon suggests might be going on in boosted people’s immune systems. There’s another point. The Bivalent shot works backwards. It’s almost like the shot was never designed to prevent covid in the first place. So. It is very clear from Figure 1 in the preprint that the risk of getting COVID-19 is lower if you are not up-to-date (red). As time progressed (from the end of January 2023), the disparity between the two groups becomes more apparent. Who here is surprised? Ultimately, the authors found that the prior ‘infection’ (and robust immunity acquired from said infection), was deterministic of future COVID-19 status, ie: lower risk for COVID-19. Infection is superior to injection with regard to COVID-19 repeat infections. And finally, the authors write: Yes, it is well-known. It was well-known before. Vaccination can ever only hope to be second best to natural immunity, and that is not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the VAST MAJORITY of vaccinologists, but they've been silenced and censored. So all the MSN groupies and followers of anti-science drivel that came out of the CDC, probably don't know this.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/biogen-fdas-inappropriate-aduhelm-coordination-detailed-blistering-congressional-report?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Not covid, but there are tons of stories like this that show the shenanigans that go on because the FDA is in bed with Big Pharma. It's about money. Not public health. Wakey wakey.

In addition to uncensored platforms, many of the above doctors and scientists have substacks where they discuss the latest medical studies and they host spaces where several of them can get together and discuss. I like that they understand we're not all scientists and they break things down for laypeople. (Except Dr. Jessica Rose - man, that lady knows her stuff and often thinks faster than she speaks. Her science is a total deeeeeeep dive ?) I like that they encourage critical thinking and discuss the merits and flaws of each study and how studies can be improved to reach certain endpoints. I've learned a lot. That. Is how science is done. Or..... You can continue to follow Trudeau and Tam: "We'll do all the thinking around here. Shut up and obey us, you herd of tax cattle."

Here's a list of various doctors trying to bring you the truth at great cost to themselves. Search for them on uncensored search engines and platforms. There are two Nobel Peace Prize winners and one nominee on this list. NOW GO DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer VP) Dr. Robert Malone (mRNA inventor) Dr. Peter McCullough (most published on CV) Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Nobel PP Nominee) Dr. Kary Mullis (PCR inventor/Nobel PP winner) Dr. Rima Laibow Dr. Naomi Wolf Dr. David Martin Dr. Luc Montainger Dr. Roger Hodkinson Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Judy Mitkovitz Dr. Carrie Madej Dr. Vernon Coleman Dr. Ben Tapper Dr. Michael Lake Dr. Christiane Northrop Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Sean Brooks Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Dr. Jane Ruby Dr. Ryan Cole Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Afzal Niaz Dr. Rashid A.Buttar Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Vanessa Passov Dr. Jessica Rose Dr. Christopher Rake Dr. Charles Hoffe Dr. Mark Mcdonald Dr. Jeff Barke Dr. Andrew Kaufman Dr. Manuel Alonso Dr. Amir Shahar Dr. Patrick Phillips Dr. Bryan Ardis Dr. Franc Zalewski Dr. Daniel Griffin Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Rochagné Kilian Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Henry Ealy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Dr. Michael Palmer Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD Dr. Harvey Risch Dr. Steven Hotze Dr. Dan Stock Dr. Sam Duby Dr. Francis Christian Dr. Chris Milburn Dr. John Carpay Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Gina Gold Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Michael Mcdowell Dr. John Witcher Dr. Jim Meehan Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Anne McCloskey Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Dr. Christiana Parks Dr. Robert Young Dr. Amandha Vollmer Dr. Judy Wilyman Dr. Michael McConville Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. James Nellenschwander Dr. Julie Ponesse Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Dr. Paul Cottrell Dr. Lee Merritt Dr. Rochagne Killian Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Natalia Prego Cancelo Dr. Hilde de Smet Dr. Elizabeth Evans Dr. Brian Hooker Dr. Joel Hirschhorn Dr. R. Zac Cox Dr. Mohammed Adil Dr. Ralph ER Sundberg Dr. Johan Denis Dr. Daniel Cullum Dr. Anne Fierlafijin Dr. Kevin Corbett Dr. Pior Rubis Dr. Pascal Sacre Dr. Nicole Delepine Dr. Lorraine Day Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli Dr. Nour De San Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. Hervé Seligmann Dr. Annie Bukacek Dr. Mark Brody Dr. Steven LaTulippe Dr. Mark Trozzi Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Byram W. Bridle Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Larry Palevsky Dr. Tom Cowan Dr. Dan Erickson Dr. James Todaro Dr. Joe Lapado Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Ben Edwards Dr. Pierre Kory Dr. Heather Gessling Dr. Bryan Tyson Dr. Richard Urso Dr. John Littell Dr. Scott Jensen Dr. Ben Carson Dr. Peter Schirmacher Dr. Zandra Botha Dr. Pamela Popper Dr. Tom Barnett Dr. Theresa Long Dr. Nancy Burks Dr. Russel Blaylock Dr. Shiv Chopra Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Tori Bark Dr. Meryl Nass Dr. Raymond Obamsawin Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot Dr. Robert Rowen Dr. David Ayoub Dr. Boyd Hailey Dr. Roby Mitchell Dr. Ken Stoller Dr. Mayer Eiesenstien Dr. Frank Engley Dr. David Davis Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych Dr. Harold Butram Dr. Kelly Brogan Dr. RC Tent Dr. Rebecca Carley Dr. Andrew Moulden Dr. Jack Wolfson Dr. Michael Elice Dr. Terry Wahls Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. Stephanie Seneff Dr. Richard Moskowitz Dr. Jane Orient Dr. Richard Deth Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic Dr. Chris Shaw Dr. Susan McCreadie Dr. May Ann Block Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Jayne Donegan Dr. Troy Ross Dr. Phillip Incao Dr. Robert Mendelson Dr. Theressa Deisher Dr. Sam Eggertsen Dr. Peter Doshi Dr. Shankara Chetty Dr. Elizabeth Eads Dr. Kurt Malhom Dr. Carolyn Bosack Dr. Heiko Shoning Dr. Aseem Malhotra Dr. Patricia Lee Dr. Daniel Nagase Dr. Mobeen Syed Dr. Bruce Patterson Dr. Randi Juanta Dr. Phillip McMillan Dr. Peter Gotzche Dr. Kurt Malholm Dr. Sam Sigoloff Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Ariyana Love Dr. Pierre Gilbert Dr. Nathan Thompson Dr. Scott Youngblood Dr. Peterson Pierre Dr. Darell Wolfe Dr. Mary Tally Bowden Dr. Thomas Ynges Dr. Guido Hofmann Dr. Anne Mcclosky Dr. James Grundvig Dr. Amanda Vollmer Dr. Kevin Stillwagon Dr. Luis Miguel de Benito Dr. Bruce Boros Dr. Steven Gundry Dr. Ray Page Dr. Tess Lawrie Dr. Andreas Noack Dr. Mark Hobart Dr. Peter Campbell Dr. Peter Johnston Dr. Eric Nepute Dr. Bradley Campbell Dr. Joseph Yi Dr Robert Morse ND Dr Piotr Witczak (biolog) Dr Jerzy Jaskowski Dr H.Czerniak Dr. Anna Martynowska Prof. Dolores Cahill Prof. Retsif Levi Prof. Maria Majewska- neurobiology. Dr. Laura Braden Dr. Vinay Prasad

This is an interesting case because they are suing the real perps - the US Department of Defense. Family of 24-Year-Old Who Died From COVID Vaccine Sues the DOD The family of George Watts, Jr. a 24-year-old man who died from COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the Chief Operating Officer of the Operation Warp Speed at the time that George received 2 doses of Pfizer injections. The lawsuit alleges the DOD engaged in “willful misconduct” by continuing to exclusively allow distribution of the stockpiled version of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that had been authorized for emergency use even after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval to a different vaccine, Comirnaty. The complaint states that the DOD engaged in ‘bait and switch’ fraud,” misleading the public that Comirnaty “approval” meant that the Emergency Use authorized injections were the same and thus “safe and effective”. The vast majority of the public, including health professionals today to not understand the distinction and do not know that the injections administered to the public are still only EUA. No approved versions have been made available. Also, very few people realize that both EUA and BLA versions are “countermeasures”. As a result, the lawsuit alleges, George Watts Jr. was misled into taking the investigational vaccine which lead to his death from myocarditis. This lawsuit has the potential to bring to light the "covered countermeasure" products: EUA authorized vs BLA licensed, legally distinct but biologically the same class of unregulated, undisclosed-to-recipients toxic compounds. In addition, the DOD role as a "covered person" should be examined: were they just "directing" the process vs actually being part of the manufacturing and distributing entities? And why in the first place would DOD direct a set of civilian manufacturers (in the area DOD has no competence)? What precisely DOD's role was, and how the Defense Production Act legal defenses can be invoked? Will they have to finally admit that Trump authorized war conditions in the US by PHE declaration in March 2020, and therefore use of biological weapons on the US civilian population? There is even a possibility to discuss the effective suspension of the Constitution, as the DOD may need to argue that constitution is suspended during PHE and inapplicable. Sorry for the weird formatting. I'm having computer issues and had to use my phone. Which sucks.

Tonight I noticed a post by an acquaintance on Facebook. She posted and tagged the names of 5 people in her circle who have died in the last few months. Looks like all in their mid - late 40s. She commented how baffling this was to lose so many friends so quickly. I messaged her and said I was sorry for the loss of her friends. She said 2 were heart attacks, the other 3 "just died." I ask "From what?" She says natural causes, that's all she knows, they just died. She was 100% into the whole covid thing - lots of posts for everyone to lock down, wear masks, get vaccinated. I don't say anything to her because there's no point. Like, no one thinks this is weird. She doesn't know anyone who died of covid but loses 5 middle-aged friends in a few months and......just nothing. I hope some day soon we see less "died suddenly" and more "jailed suddenly."

I totally backed the lockdown (and quite enjoyed it). But was I just a mug? (thetimes.co.uk) The UK author who wrote the above piece is a bit of a rightwing shock-jock, but at least he admits his opinion changed and it is in a non-tabloid newspaper. My wife remarked to me, in March 2020: “It’s all shite, all of it. None of it will make a difference. It’s about control. And it will go on for ages.” Nonsense, my dear — it will all be over by September, and this is simply a case of ensuring the frailest of us survive, I assured her. What a terrible thing it is to have to admit, in a national newspaper, that one’s wife was absolutely right, on all counts, and that I was wrong. The government was right too. The ministers, including the prime minister, and the civil servants took not the slightest notice of their own advice. They partied like it was 2019. They were happy to pass on the fatuous injunctions from Sage to the plebs and to ensure that transgressors were fined or shamed or both — but they knew it was all bollocks. This is, I think, at least half of the reason the public is so angry about partygate: we are angry at ourselves for being mugs and doing exactly as we were bidden. Yes, we might despise the arrogance and entitlement of Johnson and co, but the real vexation is with ourselves. And the horrible implication that the nutters, the extremists — the people we rather pompously derided and later silenced altogether — were right all along.

https://twitter.com/croissantk/status/1663258404826038274?s=20 I'm not the only one who knows a lot of people injured by the jabs. This USPS worker is waking up. 19 people dead on her route in the last 4 months.

I know, right? ? That Cureus article about the German study is the first one I've seen that specifically ties excess mortality to the jabs, not the virus. Most every study tip-toes around it and some scientists have said they silently fume because they have to put the obligatory "the jabs are wonderful and saved lives" line in their studies or it won't get published at all. The Europeans are way ahead of us on "the science".

If you're interested in further reading from Ethical Skeptic, here is one of his articles on 7 ways to spot fraud in scientific studies: The Elements of Hypothesis | The Ethical Skeptic