1

AAPS Survey Says Majority of Physicians Decline COVID Jab, Citing ‘Significant Adverse Reaction’

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons – AAPS – is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country and has been around since 1943. They are rarely cited by the establishment, however, as their mission is to preserve medical freedom, not take it away.

Unlike organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is funded by Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and other notably corrupt pharmaceutical companies, the AAPS is completely funded by membership dues and contributions. So, according to the AAPS, they “answer to and advocate for our physician members and not big corporate donors or government funding sources.”

Last month, the AAPS conducted a survey among physicians which returned some rather controversial findings. According to an internet survey, nearly 60 percent of physicians said they were not “fully vaccinated” against COVID.

The AAPS points out that this contrasts with the claim by the American Medical Association that 96 percent of practicing physicians are fully vaccinated. The survey sample for the AAPS was 700 physicians while the AMA’s survey sample was only 300.

The AAPS makes sure to note that neither survey “represents a random sample of all American physicians, but the AAPS survey shows that physician support for the mass injection campaign is far from unanimous.”

“It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an ‘anti-vaxxer,’” stated AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. “Virtually no physicians are ‘anti-antibiotics’ or ‘anti-surgery,’ whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested.”

When giving reasons for declining the vaccine, a whopping 54 percent of respondents said they were aware of patients suffering a “significant adverse reaction.” Of the unvaccinated physicians, 80 percent said “I believe the risk of shots exceeds the risk of disease,” and 30% said, “I already had COVID.”

Other reasons for declining the shot, according to the survey, included unknown long-term effects, use of aborted fetal tissue, “it’s experimental,” availability of effective early treatment, and reports of deaths and blood clots.

“Causality is not proven. However, many of these episodes might have resulted in a huge product liability or malpractice award if they had occurred after a new drug,” stated Dr. Orient. “Purveyors of these COVID products are protected against lawsuits.”

And she is right. You can actually prove that you or your child were harmed from a vaccine yet the vaccine maker is completely shielded from liability. Even if you are awarded monetary compensation through the NVICP, the taxpayers are put on the line, not the vaccine makers.

What’s more, as TFTP reported in May, over a hundred doctors and nurses who work in the Houston Methodist hospital network filed a lawsuit against the company, arguing that they don’t want to be forced to take the “experimental” vaccine.

A total of 117 plaintiffs are insisting that the hospital is “illegally requiring its employees to be injected with an experimental vaccine.” The hospital is forcing the staff to be “human ‘guinea pigs’ as a condition for continued employment,” the lawsuit stated.

Unfortunately for the group, their lawsuit was thrown out.

In December, many frontline healthcare workers openly stated that they were wary of the vaccine, citing the experimental nature of the shot.

Then, on Monday, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a motion seeking immediate injunctive relief in the Alabama Federal District Court to stop the use of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID vaccines — Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) — for three groups of Americans.

According to a press release, AFLDS is asking to immediately stop the administration of experimental COVID vaccines in anyone 18 and younger, all those who have recovered from COVID and acquired natural immunity, and every other American who has not received informed consent as defined by federal law.

The 67-page motion requests the judge issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C) for the following reasons:

  • There is no emergency, which is a prerequisite to issuing EUA and EUA renewals for COVID vaccines.
  • There is “no serious or life-threatening disease or condition.”
  • Vaccines do not diagnose, treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 or COVID.
  • The known and potential risks of the vaccine outweigh their known and potential benefits.
  • There are adequate, approved, and available alternatives to vaccines.
  • Healthcare professionals and vaccine candidates are not adequately informed.
About the Author

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on TwitterSteemit, and now on Minds.




Foo Fighters ‘Vaccinated Only’ Concert Canceled After Band Member Gets COVID as Breakthrough Cases on the Rise

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Reports of COVID breakthrough cases continue to rise — as of July 12, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 5,492 breakthrough cases resulting in death and hospitalization.

breakthrough case refers to anyone who is diagnosed with COVID after being fully vaccinated. A person is considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccine or two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine.

In May, the CDC revised its system for reporting breakthrough cases, stating it would count only those cases that result in hospitalization or death. Previously, the agency had included in its breakthrough count anyone who tested positive for COVID.

Some states follow the new CDC guidance for counting breakthrough cases. Other states continue to report, at the state level, all cases where an individual test positive, but may choose to report only hospitalizations and deaths to the CDC.

Illinois, Massachusetts update breakthrough case numbers

According to data updated July 14 by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), 151 people in Illinois have died from COVID or COVID-related complications after being fully vaccinated. At least 563 fully vaccinated people were hospitalized, IDPH said.

Illinois follows CDC guidance, reporting only on breakthrough infections among those who have been hospitalized or died. The state does not publicize the number of residents who tested positive after being fully vaccinated but did not die or require hospitalization in order to “help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance,” IDPH’s website states.

In Massachusetts, public health officials have tracked 4,450 breakthrough cases, WBUR reported. About 92% of those cases did not result in hospitalization, while 303 people, or 6.8%, were hospitalized, according to Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) data through July 10.

Seventy-nine vaccinated residents in Massachusetts died from COVID, either without being hospitalized or following a hospital stay, DPH said.

According to NBC Boston, officials in Provincetown — a tourist destination with one of the highest vaccination rates in the state — sounded the alarm after a handful of new COVID cases “overwhelmingly” affecting fully vaccinated individuals were reported in the community in recent days.

Town Manager Alex Morse said July 13, “Overwhelmingly, the affected individuals have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19. The moderate intensity of symptoms indicates that the vaccines are working as predicted.”

According to the state, there were 34 new COVID cases reported in the county in the past 14 days. Health officials said they are closely monitoring the situation.

Hundreds of fully vaccinated Alaskans got COVID

Despite being fully vaccinated against COVID, more than 656 Alaskans tested positive for the virus between February and June, according to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services.

Of the 656 breakthrough cases, 17 people were hospitalized and two people died with COVID, though health officials noted both had other “substantial comorbidities.”

About 52% of the Alaska breakthrough cases studied occurred among people who showed symptoms of the virus, while 38% were asymptomatic. For the remaining 10%, it was unknown whether they were exhibiting symptoms.

Of the 200 breakthrough cases Alaska health officials analyzed for a possible variant of the virus, 73 involved a variant of concern, including 54 instances of the Alpha variant and 15 of the Delta variant.

A small number of cases among vaccinated people is expected, health officials said.

The state’s new report comes as Alaska faces an increase in COVID cases, with multiple outbreaks drawing attention to more recent vaccine breakthrough cases.

In Sitka, Alaska, 18 out of 60 recent breakthrough cases reportedly involved vaccinated individuals. Two of the three cases identified last week in connection with a Southeast Alaska cruise involved people who were fully vaccinated. The outbreak has now grown to 10 cases.

Foo Fighters cancel a concert for ‘vaccinated only’ after vaccinated band member gets COVID

The Foo Fighters’ anticipated return to the stage in Los Angeles was postponed after someone within the organization tested positive for COVID, CNN reported.

On July 14, the band announced via its verified Twitter account:

The band did not reveal who tested positive.

In June, the Foo Fighters held a concert at Madison Square Garden in New York that was billed as being for a vaccinated audience only. Attendees of the 21-and-over had to show proof of vaccination upon entering the venue.

More fully vaccinated Yankees players test positive for COVID

The New York Yankees’ July 15 series opener against the Boston Red Sox was abruptly postponed after three fully vaccinated Yankees players tested positive for COVID. Three others are likely infected as well, CBS New York reported.

Yankees general manager Brian ​​Cashman said all three were fully vaccinated, as are most of the players on the team. Among the three who tested positive, two received J&J’s vaccine and the other received Pfizer or Moderna, according to Cashman.

The pitchers are “doing well thus far,” Cashman said, while he declined to comment on the unnamed players until final confirmation of their positive tests is received by the team.

“The vaccines that we encourage everybody to get guarantee not getting hospitalized and not getting death coming from COVID, which is important, but it doesn’t prevent you from contracting COVID,” Cashman said. “It just obviously protects you from the severe worst-case scenario effects from COVID.”

Major League Baseball released a statement saying the postponement was to allow for continued testing and contact tracing.

The statement said:

“Following positive COVID-19 tests within the New York Yankees organization, tonight’s game between the Yankees and the Boston Red Sox at Yankee Stadium has been postponed to allow for continued testing and contact tracing. Major League Baseball will continue to provide scheduling updates as available.”

According to The AP, the Yankees were on the field taking batting practice about three-and-a-half hours prior to the game when the organization asked the media in attendance to leave the field in order to conduct COVID testing.

MLB said in its last announcement on June 25 that 23 of its 30 teams had reached 85% vaccinations among players and on-field staff, excluding The Red Sox.

This is the second instance this year of breakthrough cases occurring among some members of the Yankees organization.

Despite high vaccination numbers, the Yankees had more than nine members with positive COVID tests in May involving staff, including pitching coach Matt Blake, third base coach Phil Nevin and first base coach Reggie Willits. Nevin, despite being vaccinated, became seriously ill with a kidney infection that kept him away from the team for more than three weeks, The AP reported.

None of the Yankees’ breakthrough cases were recorded by the CDC, as they did not result in hospitalization or death.




Gov’t to “Engage” SMS Carriers to ‘Dispel Vaccine Misinformation’ by Vetting Your Text Messages

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

As TFTP reported last week, President Joe Biden took to the podium to declare that Americans need to get the “free” vaccine. He didn’t just urge Americans to go out and get it and instead said “we” will be going door to door to “encourage” you to get it.

“Now we need to go community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood and often times door-to-door- literally knocking on doors, to get help to the remaining people protected from the virus,” Biden said.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki also pushed the “door-to-door” effort in a press briefing before Biden.

Naturally, the idea of government going door-to-door to “encourage” Americans to get a vaccine they have already chosen not to take, doesn’t sit well with many.

However, much of the pushback against Biden’s plan came in the form of misinformation with many on the right claiming that the door-to-door effort would be conducted by “government agents” who may try to “force the vaccine” on the unwilling. This is patently and verifiably false — for now. And, it has given the technocrats the fodder they need to push for even more control.

Before going on to the Orwellian next steps of the state to make sure you get your jab, it is important to point out that the Biden administration’s plan involves civilian volunteers going out in their communities and encouraging people to be vaccinated. While this is certainly in poor taste, these folks are not much different than the volunteers going door-to-door to campaign for their political candidate — except that political candidate volunteers don’t ask for your vaccination status.

Instead of politics, they are encouraging an experimental vaccine approved only under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization plan. Also, in preparation for the coming door-to-door campaign, Lake County, Illinois published ‘Helpful Hints’ for volunteers taking part in their “Community Health Ambassador Outreach Door Knocking Project to Increase COVID Vaccine Acceptance.” These ‘helpful hints’ have also raised concerns among citizens as their handouts to include lists with contact information and check sheets that record vaccination status.

Again, these folks are not government agents or employees and are working as volunteers only.

“The big misinterpretation that Fox News or whomever else is saying is that they are essentially envisioning a bunch of federal workers knocking on your door, telling you you’ve got to do something that you don’t want to do,” Anthony Fauci said in an interview on Sunday. “That’s absolutely not the case, it’s trusted messengers who are part of the community doing that — not government officials. So that’s where I think the disconnect is.”

But Fauci did not address the information they will be collecting as the above ‘helpful hints” show. Will this information stay with these “trusted messengers” and not find its way to some government database? We think not.

So, while some of the concerns by the “vaccine hesitancy” crowd are certainly far-fetched, many of them are not. Nevertheless, this administration is now moving to even greater lengths to nip this skepticism in the bud.

According to an article in Politico this week, the gloves are off and the government is no longer going to sit idly by while the masses talk among each other and encourage people to think for themselves. They are coming after your text messages. As Politico reports:

Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely.

For those who may have just skimmed the above paragraph, read it one more time. First off, fact-checking on social media has become a joke and has only served to increase misinformation thanks to the political bias and utter lack of credibility by some of the folks “checking facts.”

Secondly, and more important than turning the dial on the incompetent fact-checkers to “11” is the fact that Politico just admitted the government will be monitoring your text messages via cellphone carriers.

In the last year and a half, we have gone from “15 days to flatten the curve” to a complete technocratic police state that has merged with social media to silence anyone critical of government policy, pre-informed consent, and hesitant of taking a vaccine that was rushed to market and approved in an unprecedented amount of time.

What’s more, as this article from Politico illustrates, our Constitutional rights are completely eroding as well. Government cannot spy on your text messages or social media messages without a warrant, yet they are brazenly unafraid to say they will do just that to make sure these “dangerous vaccine skeptics” don’t ruin their plans.

If the government has to gaslight you, manipulate you, spend billions on advertising, offer bribes and monetary rewards, silence skeptics, slander experts, fearmonger 24/7, and violate your Constitutional rights in order to get you to take a vaccine, perhaps you are right to be a tad bit on the defensive.

About the Author

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on TwitterSteemit, and now on Minds.




The Right to Be Let Alone: What to Do When COVID Strike Force Teams Come Knocking

 

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute

“Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

A federal COVID-19 vaccination strike force may soon be knocking on your door, especially if you live in a community with low vaccination rates. Will you let them in?

More to the point, are you required to open the door?

The Biden Administration has announced that it plans to send federal “surge response teams” on a “targeted community door-to-door outreach“ to communities with low vaccination rates in order to promote the safety and accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccines.

That’s all fine and good as far as government propaganda goes, but nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims, especially not when armed, roving bands of militarized agents deployed by the Nanny State show up at your door with an agenda that is at odds with what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”

Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked, and singled out must be met with extreme caution. These door-to-door “visits” by COVID-19 surge response teams certainly qualify as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

First, there is the visit itself.

While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans have a right not to answer questions or even speak with a government agent.

Courts have upheld these “knock and talk” visits as lawful, reasoning that even though the curtilage of the home is protected by the Fourth Amendment, there is an implied license to approach a residence, knock on the door/ring the bell, and seek to contact occupants. However, the encounter is wholly voluntary and a person is under no obligation to speak with a government agent in this situation.

Indeed, you don’t even need to answer or open the door in response to knocking/ringing by a government agent, and if you do answer the knock, you can stop speaking at any time. You also have the right to demand that government agents leave the property once the purpose of the visit is established. Government officials would not be enforcing any law or warrant in this context, and so they don’t have the authority of law to remain on the property after a homeowner or resident specifically revokes the implied license to come onto the property.

When the government’s actions go beyond merely approaching the door and knocking, it risks violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant and probable cause of possible wrongdoing in order to search one’s property. A government agent would violate the Fourth Amendment if he snooped around the premises, peering into windows and going to other areas in search of residents.

It should be pointed out that some judges (including Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch) believe that placing “No Trespassing” signs or taking other steps to impede access to the door is sufficient to negate any implied permission for government agents or others to approach your home, but this view does not have general acceptance.

While in theory, one can refuse to speak with police or other government officials during a “knock and talk” encounter, as the courts have asserted as a justification for dismissing complaints about this police investigative tactic, the reality is far different. Indeed, it is unreasonable to suggest that individuals caught unaware by these tactics will not feel pressured in the heat of the moment to comply with a request to speak with government agents who display official credentials and are often heavily armed, let alone allow them to search one’s property. Even when such consent is denied, police have been known to simply handcuff the homeowner and conduct a search over his objections.

Second, there is the danger inherent in these knock-and-talk encounters.

Although courts have embraced the fiction that “knock and talks” are “voluntary” encounters that are no different from another door-to-door canvassing, these constitutionally dubious tactics are highly intimidating confrontations meant to pressure individuals into allowing police access to one’s home, which then paves the way for a warrantless search of one’s home and property.

The act of going to homes and taking steps to speak with occupants is akin to the “knock and talk” tactic used by police, which can be fraught with danger for homeowners and government agents alike. Indeed, “knock-and-talk” policing has become a thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

“Knock-and-shoot” policing might be more accurate, however.

“Knock and talks” not only constitute severe violations of the privacy and security of homeowners, but the combination of aggression and surprise employed by police is also a recipe for a violent confrontation that rarely ends well for those on the receiving end of these tactics.

For example, although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or threatened police, he was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. The police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

Carl Dykes was shot in the face by a county deputy who pounded on Dykes’ door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. Because of reports that inmates had escaped from a local jail, Dykes brought a shotgun with him when he answered the door.

As these and other incidents make clear, while Americans have a constitutional right to question the legality of police action or resist an unlawful police order, doing so can often get one arrested, shot, or killed.

Third, there is the question of how the government plans to use the information it obtains during these knock-and-talk visits.

Because the stated purpose of the program is to promote vaccination, homeowners and others who reside at the residence will certainly be asked if they are vaccinated. Again, you have a right not to answer this or any other question. Indeed, an argument could be made that even asking this question is improper if the purpose of the program is merely to ensure that Americans “have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is.”

Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency should only collect and maintain information about an individual as is “relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency.” In this situation, the government agent could accomplish the purpose of assuring persons have information about the vaccine simply by providing that information (either in writing or orally) and would not need to know the vaccination status of the residents. To the extent the agents do request, collect and store information about residents’ vaccination status, this could be a Privacy Act violation.

Of course, there is always the danger that this program could be used for other, more nefarious, purposes not related to vaccination encouragement. As with knock-and-talk policing, government agents might misuse their appearance of authority to gain entrance to a residence and obtain other information about it and those who live there. Once the door is opened by a resident, anything the agents can see from their vantage point can be reported to law enforcement authorities.

Moreover, while presumably, the targeting will be of areas with demonstrated low vaccination rates, there is no guarantee that this program would not be used as cover for conducting surveillance on areas deemed to be “high crime” areas as a way of obtaining intelligence for law enforcement purposes.

We’ve been down this road before, with the government sending its spies to gather intel on American citizens by questioning them directly, or by asking their neighbors to snitch on them.

Remember the egregiously invasive and intrusive American Community Survey?

Unlike the traditional census, which collects data every ten years, the American Community Survey (ACS) is sent to about 3 million homes per year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, while the traditional census is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages, and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling, and telephone numbers, the ACS is much more intrusive, asking questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.

At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. This concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among others. For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race, and their physical, mental, and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes, and so on.

However, that’s not all.

The survey also demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives, and employer. The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak, and when they last worked at a job, among other things.

While some of the ACS’ questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government, or with whom it will be shared.

Finally, you have the right to say “no.”

Whether the police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm, as long as you’re being “asked” to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation, you don’t really have much room to resist, not if you value your life.

Mind you, these knock-and-talk searches are little more than police fishing expeditions carried out without a warrant.

The goal is intimidation and coercion.

Unfortunately, with police departments increasingly shifting towards pre-crime policing and relying on dubious threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state, we’re going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tactics by which police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and a prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Here’s the bottom line.

These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind: to collect information on you.

It’s a form of intimidation, of course. You shouldn’t answer any questions you’re uncomfortable answering about your vaccine history or anything else. The more information you give them, the more it can be used against you. Just ask them politely but firmly to leave.

In this case, as in so many interactions with government agents, the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments (and your cell phone recording the encounter) are your best protection.

Under the First Amendment, you don’t have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you.

You can also post a “No Trespassing” sign on your property to firmly announce that you are exercising your right to be left alone. If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows, in my opinion, you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government officials can ring the doorbell, but once you put them on notice that it’s time for them to leave, they can’t stay on your property.

It’s important to be as clear as possible and inform them that you will call the police if they don’t leave. You may also wish to record your encounter with the government agent. If they still don’t leave, immediately call the local police and report a trespasser on your property.

Remember, you have rights.

The government didn’t want us to know about—let alone assert—those rights during this whole COVID-19 business.

After all, for years now, the powers-that-be—those politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong to—have attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no right to think for ourselves, make decisions about our health, protect our homes and families and businesses, act in our best interests, demand accountability and transparency from government, or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.

But we have every right, and you know why?

Because as the Declaration of Independence states, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights—to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—that no government can take away from us.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the government from constantly trying to usurp our freedoms at every turn. Indeed, the nature of government is such that it invariably oversteps its limits, abuses its authority, and flexes its totalitarian muscles.

Take this COVID-19 crisis, for example.

What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including our own) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents.

The government has made no secret of its plans.

Just follow the money trail, and you’ll get a sense of what’s in store: more militarized police, more SWAT team raids, more surveillance, more lockdowns, more strong-armed tactics aimed at suppressing dissent and forcing us to comply with the government’s dictates.

It’s chilling to think about, but it’s not surprising.

In many ways, this COVID-19 state of emergency has invested government officials (and those who view their lives as more valuable than ours) with a sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant, Big Brother Knows Best approach to top-down governing, and the fall-out can be seen far and wide.

It’s an ugly, self-serving mindset that views the needs, lives, and rights of “we the people” as insignificant when compared to those in power.

That’s how someone who should know better such as Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, can suggest that a free people—born in freedom, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and living in a country birthed out of a revolutionary struggle for individual liberty—have no rights to economic freedom, to bodily integrity, or to refuse to comply with a government order with which they disagree.

According to Dershowitz, who has become little more than a legal apologist for the power elite, “You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business… And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

Dershowitz is wrong: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, while the courts may increasingly defer to the government’s brand of Nanny State authoritarianism, we still have rights.

The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to declare martial law and nullify them, but it cannot litigate, legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence.

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is the founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.




FDA to Add Warning to J&J Vaccine of ‘Serious But Rare’ Autoimmune Disorder

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is will announce a new warning on Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID vaccine saying the shot has been linked to Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), a “serious but rare” autoimmune disorder. The Washington Post attributed the news to “four individuals familiar with the situation.”

According to The New York Times, the chances of developing GBS after receiving the J&J shot is three to five times higher than would be expected in the general population in the U.S.

About 100 preliminary reports in the U.S. of GBS have been detected after receiving J&J’s vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a statement to CNN today. Most cases were reported about two weeks after vaccination, mostly in men 50 and older.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is expected to discuss the GBS cases during an upcoming meeting, the CDC said.

GBS is a rare neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks part of its peripheral nervous system — the network of nerves located outside of the brain and spinal cord — and can range from a very mild case with brief weakness to paralysis, leaving the person unable to breathe independently.

While the cause of GBS is not fully known, it often follows infection with a virus and has been linked to other vaccines.

The FDA has concluded the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any danger but will include the proviso in fact sheets about the drug for providers and patients.

“It’s not surprising to find these types of adverse events associated with vaccination,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, former acting chief scientist at the FDA. The data collected so far by the FDA, Borio said, suggest the vaccine’s benefits “continue to vastly outweigh the risks.”

Reports of GBS are rare, the CDC said, “but do likely indicate a small possible risk of this side effect following” the J&J vaccine.

Federal officials identified the 100 suspected cases of GBS among recipients of the J&J shot through the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) — a federal monitoring system that relies on patients and health care providers to report adverse effects of vaccines.

According to the most recent data from VAERS, between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 2, there were 398 reports of GBS with 187 cases attributed to Pfizer, 159 to Moderna, and 76 cases to J&J.

No link has been found between GBS and mRNA COVID vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna despite reports in VAERS.

The VAERS database indicates the onset of GBS symptoms after the J&J vaccine within about three weeks of vaccination, The New York Times reported. One recipient, a 57-year-old man from Delaware who had suffered both a heart attack and a stroke within the last four years, died in early April after he was vaccinated and developed GBS.

As The Defender reported July 8, a third-grade teacher-developed GBS three weeks after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. Stacie [last name unknown] went to the emergency room several times after getting the shot because she was experiencing numbness of the lower extremities, but was sent home when tests were inconclusive.

The numbness continued to progress and Stacie eventually lost her ability to stand and walk. She was then hospitalized and diagnosed with GBS.

Gary Spaulding was an active landscaper who experienced a severe headache after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine, causing him to go to the emergency room. Doctors immediately diagnosed Spaulding with Lyme Disease. Treatment was started, but numbness and tingling in his extremities progressed. After doctors initiated tests to determine the cause of the escalating series of symptoms, Spaulding was diagnosed with GBS.

Doctors believe Spaulding’s immune system, which was fighting Lyme Disease, was overstimulated by the COVID vaccine causing it to attack the myelin — the protective insulation that surrounds nerves, including those in the brain and spinal cord.

Treatment was immediate and successful in arresting the progression of the disease, but not before Spaulding was almost completely paralyzed.

In April, The Defender reported on a Texas teenager diagnosed with GBS a few weeks after his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The teen said he believed the vaccine was to blame, according to a local Houston news channel KPRC2 report.

“I wanted to get the vaccine,” said Wyatt McGlaun, a high school senior from The Woodlands. “I felt it was the right thing to do. I wanted to travel and enjoy my last summer before college.”

A few weeks after receiving the vaccine, McGlaun became weak and had difficulty walking. He was admitted to CHI St. Luke’s Health where he was diagnosed with GBS. News reports did not disclose which vaccine the teen received.

J&J linked to blood-clotting disorders

This is the second time J&J’s COVID vaccine has been linked to a severe adverse reaction. On April 13, federal officials temporarily paused the J&J shot after confirming health officials were investigating six cases of blood clots in the U.S.

During the April 23 meeting, the ACIP said it had found 15 women diagnosed with rare blood clots, including three who died. Only two of the women were older than 50, with the risk highest in women ages 30 to 39.

The CDC advisory safety committee said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits still outweigh the risks and recommended the vaccine for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

On April 26, the FDA amended its EUA for the J&J vaccine to reflect the risk of rare blood clots and said vaccinations could resume immediately.




“Ignore No Soliciting Signs, Use Your Script”: Vaccine Door-Knocking Documents Revealed

Image Source: Babylon Bee

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge

In preparation for the coming campaign, Lake County, Illinois has published ‘Helpful Hints’ for volunteers taking part in their “Community Health Ambassador Outreach Door Knocking Project to Increase COVID Vaccine Acceptance.”

The ‘Helpful Hints!’ include:

  • If you’re nervous, that’s ok! We all still get nervous, even if we’ve done this before.
  • You don’t need to have all the answers. If you are unsure of an answer, be honest. Tell the person asking that you are a volunteer, and you will take down their question so that a health department staff person can get them the correct answer.
  • Inform, don’t convince. Your job is to equip the person at the door with the information/resources they need to make an informed decision about their health. You are not trying to convince anyone to do something they don’t want to do.
  • Ignore no soliciting signs. You’re not soliciting! You’re offering critical information and resources. What you are doing is not illegal.

  • Knock and then back up [zh: so you don’t get shot?]. Follow COVID-19 distancing protocols and speak clearly. If someone is uncomfortable with you being there in person, offer to give them more distance or leave them a flyer.
  • Use your script. This will give you the basics. Once you get comfortable with it, feel free to make it sound more like you as long as all the key information is there. Make clear upfront that the building has let you in and you’re from the health department.

Perhaps most importantly, volunteers are told to keep a list of who’s been naughty or nice.

  • Report on your work! Be sure to fill out the Doorknocking Spreadsheet with the counts of who still needs a vaccine, who is already vaccinated, who needs more info, etc. This is important information that the Health Department is relying on!

The door knockers are then given various scenarios in an attached script. For example:

PM (property manager) /CAM (community association manager): We don’t allow solicitation on our property.

CHM (community health ambassador): I understand but I am not selling anything, we want to provide accurate information to the seniors in your community. Our goal is to maximize the vaccination effort so that ALL of your seniors receive the COVID vaccine when the clinic comes on-site. All I want is to see your seniors protected against COVID.

And…

Senior: I’ve had allergic reactions to medications and foods years ago, is this vaccine safe for me?

CHAThe only true contraindication to this vaccine is a severe (anaphylactic) reaction to an injectable/vaccine in your past [ZH: *coughwhat?]. Or an allergy to an ingredient in the vaccine, like polysorbate. After your vaccination, they will observe you for 15 minutes to be sure you’re doing well. With a history of other allergic reactions, they may want to watch you for a total of 30 minutes, instead of the standard 15 minutes, just to be sure you’re feeling ok. But if you have any question about your past allergies and vaccine compatibility, you should ask your doctor/healthcare provider.

Apparently, door knockers are already operating in various towns.

And to nobody’s surprise, the concern is growing over the sudden surge in vaccine ‘awareness’ campaigns.




Pfizer to Seek Emergency Use Authorization for COVID Booster Shots — But CDC, FDA Say Science Is Lacking

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Pfizer announced Thursday it will seek Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August for the third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. The drugmaker predicted those who have been fully vaccinated will need a booster shot within six to 12 months of receiving their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But hours later, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a joint statement by the FDA and Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC) saying, “Americans who have been fully vaccinated do not need a booster shot at this time.”

The statement did not explicitly mention Pfizer but said: “a science-based, rigorous process” headed by the CDC, FDA and the National Institutes of Health would determine when or whether boosters were necessary.

According to the HHS statement:

“FDA, CDC, and NIH are engaged in a science-based, rigorous process to consider whether or when a booster might be necessary. This process takes into account laboratory data, clinical trial data, and cohort data — which can include data from specific pharmaceutical companies, but does not rely on those data exclusively.”

In a statement to CNN Friday, the World Health Organization said:

“We don’t know whether booster vaccines will be needed to maintain protection against COVID-19 until additional data is collected,” adding, “limited data [is] available on how long the protection from current doses lasts, and whether an additional booster dose would be beneficial and for whom.”

Scientists “applauded the statement” from HHS, The Washington Post reported, saying boosters were not imminent and the science isn’t clear on if or when they will be needed.

“My opinion right now … is that current vaccination seems to be large‘ holding,’” said E. John Wherry, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. “But the companies seem to suggest their continued follow-up of their trial patients shows concerning levels of the waning of immunity. Not much of these data from the companies are publicly available yet. I agree we need as much independent data and assessment as possible on this topic.”

John P. Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, said:

“No one is saying we’ll never need a booster, but to say we need it now and give the public the impression the vaccines are failing and something needs to be done as a matter of urgency. … The time isn’t now. The decisions that are going to be made will be made by federal agencies.”

The HHS statement followed recommendations made June 23 by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization and Practices (ACIP). Members of the ACIP COVID-19 working group said they would recommend booster shots only if there were a demonstrated decline in efficacy — not just a waning antibody response.

Boosters may be recommended if there’s a variant that’s able to evade the vaccines, according to slides presented by Dr. Sara Oliver, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Dr. Sharon Frey, ACIP member and clinical director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University Medical School, said:

“I would have to agree with the interpretation of the working group in the sense that there’s no data to support recommendations to support boosters at this time. There’s no evidence against declining protection at this time.”

Pfizer CEO insists boosters are needed

Pfizer has been working on two different booster strategies it anticipates could carry sales beyond the immediate pandemic need: a third 30 mg dose of its current vaccines and an updated vaccine that targets the South African variant.

All U.S. pharmaceutical companies involved in making COVID vaccines are working on formulating and testing booster shots to prepare for the possibility, The Washington Post reported.

Pfizer argued that as antibody blood concentration wanes, boosters will be required to ensure the broad population can’t carry the virus. This would quench the epidemic faster, the company said.

Pfizer said its vaccine’s effectiveness had eroded, citing two lines of evidence outside scientists have not seen in detail. This included an Israeli government analysis that showed reduced efficacy with Pfizer’s vaccine and the Delta variant and data from Pfizer’s continued follow-up of people who were vaccinated last summer.

“While protection against severe disease remained high across the full six months, the observed decline in efficacy against symptomatic disease over time, and the continued emergence of variants, are key factors driving our belief that a booster dose will likely be necessary to maintain highest levels of protection,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Pfizer said it would submit data to regulators within weeks showing the third dose of its vaccine at six months caused antibody levels to shoot up to five to 10 times higher than the original two-dose regimen. Moderna announced similar data in May.

Pfizer motivated by profit margins

Less than 24 hours after Pfizer announced plans to seek emergency use authorization of a third dose, the drugmaker’s stock was up 1.6%.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has said for months a booster would likely be needed within a year of the initial two-dose inoculation — followed by annual vaccinations, even as public health officials and academic scientists said it wasn’t clear yet when a booster would be needed.

Booster shots for COVID are expected to serve as a key revenue driver in the years to come for Pfizer and its primary rival in the U.S., Moderna. Pfizer in May projected global sales of its COVID vaccine to reach $26 billion in 2021.

The company has also been frank that it’s current pricing — $19.50 per dose in the U.S. — is temporary. On an earnings call in February, Frank A. D’Amelio, Pfizer’s executive vice president of global supply, assured investors the company sees the vaccine market evolving as the pandemic wanes, and will likely be able to charge more per dose than it was getting under pandemic supply deals.

D’Amelio said a more typical price for vaccination was $150 or $175 per dose.

“Now, let’s go beyond a pandemic-pricing environment, the environment we’re currently in. Obviously, we’re going to get more on price,” D’Amelio said. “So clearly, there’s a significant opportunity for those margins to improve once we get beyond the pandemic environment that we’re in.”

Pfizer said it would begin testing a booster shot specifically programmed to combat the Delta variant in August, reaffirming concerns by scientists who predicted in April that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, would create a vaccine treadmill with continuous booster shots targeted at emerging variants.




CDC Experts Disagree With Pfizer on COVID Boosters, Threatening Pharma Giant’s Billion Dollar Revenue Stream

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

As Pfizer makes plans to keep its billion-dollar revenue stream going — by assuring investors yearly COVID booster doses will be needed long after the pandemic ends — a group of scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said there isn’t enough data to recommend COVID booster shots to the general population.

The COVID-19 working group of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) said on June 23, they would only recommend booster shots if there’s a demonstrated decline in efficacy –– not just a waning antibody response.

Boosters may also be recommended if there’s a variant that’s able to evade the vaccines, according to slides presented by Sara Oliver, M.D., a medical epidemiologist with CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Currently, there’s no evidence to suggest a booster is needed, the experts said. Boosters may be appropriate for special risk groups in the future, including elderly people and transplant recipients. To be sure, the nation’s top public health officials said they would continue to monitor the situation.

“I would have to agree with the interpretation of the working group in the sense that there’s no data to support recommendations to support boosters at this time,” said Dr. Sharon Frey, member of the ACIP and clinical director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University Medical School. “There’s no evidence against declining protection at this time.”

Dr. Grace Lee, chair of the ACIP safety panel and professor of pediatrics at Stanford University School of Medicine, said she would like to see more evidence of breakthrough cases before recommending a booster shot.

“I would want greater certainty on the safety data if we’re talking about boosting before it’s clear what the risk data will look like,” Lee said. “If we’re seeing severe breakthrough cases then I think the decision-making moves forward even if there’s uncertainty with the safety data.”

CDC expert recommendations threaten Pfizer profits

Booster shots for COVID are expected to serve as a key revenue driver in the years to come for Pfizer and Moderna. Pfizer executives have assured investors the company sees the vaccine market evolving as the pandemic wanes, and will likely be able to charge more per dose than it was getting under pandemic supply deals.

Pfizer has been working on two different booster strategies it anticipates could carry sales beyond the immediate pandemic need — a third 30 mg dose of its current vaccines and an updated vaccine that targets the South African variant, Fierce Pharma reported.

No one is completely sure when a booster will be needed, but it’s possible that some of those who were vaccinated early on may need an extra jab as early as September, or roughly 8 to 12 months after their initial regimen, CEO Albert Bourla told Axios in May.

Pfizer has argued that boosters would be required “as antibody blood concentration wanes to ensure the broad population can’t carry the virus and thus quench the epidemic faster,” the Bernstein analysts, led by Ronny Gal, wrote to clients. That’s not the industry’s standard, and it’s also not what the CDC’s ACIP suggested at its meeting on June 23, analysts wrote.

A Pfizer spokesperson told Fierce Pharma the company’s “current thinking is that until we see a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 circulation and COVID-19 disease, we think it is possible that a third dose, a boost of our vaccine, could be needed to help provide protection against COVID-19,” subject to regulatory approval.

Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is already the second-highest revenue-generating drug in the world, with a projected revenue forecast of $26 billion in 2021 alone — a 70% increase in its originally projected profits.

The forecast is based on contracts to deliver 1.6 billion vaccine doses this year. The company expects to sign more deals for this year and is in supply talks with several countries for 2022 and beyond.

During an investor conference in March, Pfizer’s CFO Frank D’Amelio said the company sees “significant opportunity” for its COVID vaccine once the market shifts from a “pandemic situation to an endemic situation.”

At that point “factors like efficacy, booster ability, the clinical utility will basically become very important, and we view that as, quite frankly, a significant opportunity for our vaccine from a demand perspective, from a pricing perspective, given the clinical profile of our vaccine,” D’Amelio told the analyst.

During the Barclays’ Global Health Conference in March, D’Amelio said the company doesn’t see this as a one-time event, but “as something that’s going to continue for the foreseeable future.”

Bourla said a third dose of the company’s COVID vaccine was “likely” to be needed within a year of the initial two-dose inoculation — followed by annual vaccinations.

“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine,” Bourla said. “It’s going to be the same with COVID. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for COVID to be protected.”

Like Pfizer, Moderna’s chief commercial officer, Corinne M. Le Goff said during a call with investors in April that Americans could start getting booster shots of its vaccine later this year to protect against COVID variants.

“It is likely that the countries that have already achieved high vaccine coverage are going to be ready to shift their focus to boosters in 2022, and possibly even starting at the end of this year,” Le Goff said.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has said its vaccine will probably need to be given annually, despite being heavily marketed to consumers as a one-dose vaccine.

As The Defender reported in May, pharmaceutical companies and their CEOs have made billions from COVID vaccines, massive compensation packages, and questionable stock sales while reassuring investors that plans were underway for boosters and annual shots.




COVID Vaccine Manufacturer Ordered to Pay $263 Million for Role in Largest Overdose Epidemic in History

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

Despite the state spending thousands of dollars a second – ticketing, kidnapping, caging, and killing evil drug users, the rate of lethal drug overdoses in the last 15 years has skyrocketed at near-exponential rates. According to the most recent data on overdose deaths, despite the state’s immoral war on drugs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 92,000 Americans died of an overdose in the 12-month span ending in November — the highest number ever recorded. To understand how we got to this point, we have to look at how Americans became so addicted to opioids. Spoiler alert, it was not by chance.

Across the board, drug use and deaths associated with drug use have increased at alarming rates. No amount of AR-15s, SWAT police, MRAPs, or any other military gear has had a hand in lowering these statistics. In fact, the increase in overdose deaths nearly perfectly coincides with the increase in militarization of police in the last decade and a half.

Instead of deterring drug use, it’s been expanding, getting worse, and drugs have become more available and more dangerous. How did this happen?

There are legitimate needs for opioids just like there are legitimate needs for cannabis. But when people are taught their entire lives to blindly trust the medical industry, who clearly choose to deceive them, we end up with problems like we have today.

The government making drugs illegal does absolutely nothing when a person puts blind trust in a medical establishment who then deliberately addicts them to opioids to make billions. Even when it’s illegal, after these people have been duped into their addictions, they still seek it out. This is why we see soccer moms overdosing on dangerous black market fentanyl in front of Hobby Lobby.

They put blind trust in the government and medical industry to protect them and instead were turned out for a buck.

Drug manufacturers deliberately deceived patients and doctors about the risks of opioids, pushed prescribers to keep patients on the drugs longer, and aggressively targeted vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and veterans.

One such company was Johnson & Johnson, which was ordered this week to pay $263 million to resolve claims it fueled an opioid epidemic in New York state and two of its largest counties.

“The opioid epidemic has wreaked havoc” across the nation, New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Johnson & Johnson helped fuel this fire.”

Indeed, they did. According to the original $465 million lawsuits out of Oklahoma, J&J deliberately deceived doctors and patients about their opioid drugs which played a major role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Yes, hundreds of thousands. According to the CDC, nearly 500,000 people died from opioid overdoses from 1999 to 2019.

Given J&J’s history is fueling the opioid crisis, one would be naturally skeptical of blindly receiving a vaccine developed by the same company in record time. What’s more, while the opioid crisis is bad enough J&J’s past is far more insidious than just opioids.

Johnson & Johnson also knew for decades their baby powder was tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and they kept that information from regulators and the public. A government-funded study from the mid-1990s found that Johnson’s baby powder caused cancer in rats and other studies have found an increased risk of cancer in women who used their talc-based products. The potential risks have been known to the company for decades.freestar

What’s more, in 2018, the pharma giant was ordered to pay $4.7 billion to thousands of victims who reportedly developed cancer from using Johnson & Johnson’s products. In that case, 22 women alleged the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contained the known carcinogen, asbestos, which caused them to develop cancer. According to reports, there are over 9,000 similar talc lawsuits against the company.

Currently faced with several major lawsuits for fueling the opioid crisis in the United States, Johnson & Johnson also has a history of bribing doctors and government officials. Even more disturbing still, a Reuters investigation found that J&J knowingly sold a baby powder product that they knew had asbestos in it, which causes mesothelioma.

When this information is brought up, those who report on it are fact-checked into oblivion. In April, we discovered that these companies are actually tied to the fact-checkers, providing a possible reason for such massive censorship.

According to their own source, Factcheck.org is funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. According to the foundation’s 2019 financial statement, the project holds over $1.8 billion of stock in the COVID-19 manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.

To be clear, no one here is claiming that these vaccines will hurt massive amounts of people or that they will not be beneficial in stopping the virus. No one here at TFTP is telling anyone what to do in regard to vaccinations. We are, however, advocating for safety at all levels of this process. Nevertheless, those who promote vaccine safety are increasingly being treated as outcasts and lawmakers and media alike are calling for them to be silenced.

Skepticism is not dangerous, as the media would have you believe. It is necessary for producing a safe product yet Johnson & Johnson has a highly questionable history of operating procedures that are the antithesis of safety. It’s not just J&J either.

In 2000 the Washington Post published a major exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous new antibiotic called Trovan on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents. The experiment occurred during a 1996 meningitis epidemic in the country. In 2001 Pfizer was sued in U.S. federal court by thirty Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as human guinea pigs.

Now, the Washington Post is defending the same company in regards to the vaccination.

The pharmaceutical giant also paid out $2.3 billion in 2009 to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.

“Pfizer violated the law over an extensive-time period. Furthermore, at the very same time, Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws,” Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts said at the time.

But that was only a single case, this company has a track record dating back decades that includes everything from bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them — leading to multiple deaths. Despite making the largest payout in history, Pfizer has continued to be called to the carpet since 2009 multiple times for misleading the public about their drugs — up to and including vaccines.

If we applied the “three-strike” rule to these companies as we do to individuals, they would be in prison for life. Instead, they are receiving tens of billions in taxpayer dollars to help push their fast-tracked vaccines on Americans.

Are we supposed to forget the track record of these companies who deliberately misled regulators about the hazards of their products, knowingly contributing to the deaths of more than 125 people? Or who experimented on children? Or who has paid out hundreds of millions in settlements for the deaths of scores of patients?

The fact is that these companies have track records that include bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them.

The ability of Americans to forget the pasts of these companies and blindly line up for a jab that has set off a historical number of adverse reaction reports to the CDC’s VAERS database is uncanny. Yet those who question it are silenced. This is the state of “science” in the modern world.

About the Author

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on TwitterSteemit, and now on Minds.




The Biggest Crime Committed During Vaccine Heist

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program
  • The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available
  • Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”
  • According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average of 86%
  • Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance

While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.

The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten a EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.

One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.

What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up the viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.

Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin

Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher, and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.

Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings, and real-world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6

Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7

Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).

Two months later, on March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with a high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.

(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)

Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021, in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8

“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.

Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”

World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin

Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.

Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.

Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for the standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.

Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11

Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored

If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.

Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.

His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14

But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15

“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?

What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?

The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’

The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.

The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”

The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised

The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements, and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second-largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16

As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17

“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …

Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.

In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.

The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.

The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”

FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin

In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22

As noted by the FLCCC:23

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”

The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:

  • I-MASK+24 — prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
  • I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26 in mid-December 2020
  • I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for the long-haul syndrome

In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.

This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”

Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death

The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.

In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow-up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.

In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”

The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicates that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to their residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.

In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.

It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.

Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome

The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.

Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.

Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.

While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.

A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.




Why Children Should Not Receive the COVID Shot

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • While Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%
  • While benefits from COVID “vaccination” in children between the ages of 12 and 15 are rare and short-lived, side effects are common and long-term effects are completely unknown
  • In the 12-to-15 age group, 75.5% experienced headaches, along with a long list of other transient side effects. Serious systemic adverse events occurred in 2.4% of the trial subjects receiving Pfizer’s mRNA shot
  • While Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in 12- to 15-year-olds, this conclusion is a statistical trick. Fewer than 2% of fully vaccinated children avoided COVID-19; 98% of them would not have gotten COVID anyway. So, the benefit is small
  • Even if vaccinated children were found to reduce infection among adults, it would be unethical and against regulations to do so, because the FDA can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population, and in children, the benefits do not outweigh the risks

Many scientists and medical experts have warned that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is both unnecessary and risky in the extreme. The video above features comments by Peter Doshi, Ph.D., made during a June 10, 2021, public hearing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Doshi is an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and the senior editor of The BMJ. He has previously pointed out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%.1 As such, the COVID-19 vaccine is of dubious benefit, to say the least.

If you choose to watch the video above I must warn you to stop after Doshi finishes and not view the presentation by Dr. Jacqueline Miller. She’s a paid shill pediatrician and the head of development for infectious diseases at Moderna. The reason I advise this caution is that if you understand reality, you will be shocked at how easily a physician can sell out and sacrifice even her own children in the delusional belief that Moderna’s shot provides any benefit to children.

Meanwhile, largely because of irresponsible beliefs and comments like Miller’s, harms are rapidly mounting, which skews the risk-benefit ratio even further. Considering the potential for harm, children should not get the COVID-19 vaccine, Doshi says, citing trial evidence from Pfizer — the very same evidence used to support its emergency use authorization application for 12- to 15-year-olds. In this trial, the harms clearly outweighed the benefits.

Risk-Benefit Analysis

While benefits were rare and short-lived, side effects were common and long-term effects are completely unknown. In the 12-to-15 age group, 75.5% experienced headache, along with a long list of other transient side effects. However, more serious systemic adverse events also occurred in 2.4% of the trial subjects receiving the actual mRNA shot.

Now, Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in this age group. This, Doshi explains, was based on 16 cases occurring in the placebo group, while no cases were recorded in the vaccine group. However, since there were about 1,000 placebo recipients, fewer than 2% of the placebo group actually tested positive for COVID-19.

“Put another way, 2% of the fully vaccinated avoided COVID,” Doshi says, adding “98% of the vaccinated wouldn’t have gotten COVID anyway … So, the benefit is small.”

One of the reasons why children reap so little benefit from this jab is because a significant portion of American children are already immune and aren’t at risk of infection, to begin with. Doshi cites Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing an estimated 23% of children under the age of 4 and 42% of those age 5 through 17 have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection and now have robust and long-lasting immunity.

While most side effects in children have been short-lived, at least seven deaths among 12- to 17-year-olds had been reported as of June 11, 2021, as well as 271 events rated “serious.”2 In the long term, there’s really no telling what might happen, and that’s a really important point.

As noted by Doshi, during the 2009 swine flu pandemic, narcolepsy didn’t become apparent until nine months after vaccination with the Pandemrix vaccine, and it wasn’t until four months into Israel’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign that heart damage was recognized as a side effect in young men and boys.

Cocooning Does Not Work

Doshi goes on to explain why vaccinating children will not likely benefit adults, as claimed. This practice sometimes referred to as “cocooning,” has never actually been proven. Doshi cites a 2021 BMJ editorial3 in which the authors stressed that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is “hard to justify right now,” seeing how children experience only mild disease and transmission by children is limited, while the possibility of unintended consequences is high.

“Should childhood infection (and re-exposures in adults) continue to be typically mild, childhood vaccination will not be necessary to halt the pandemic,” the authors state.4

“The marginal benefits should therefore be considered in the context of local healthcare resources, equitable distribution of vaccines globally, and a more nuanced understanding of the differences between vaccine and infection induced immunity.

Once most adults are vaccinated, circulation of SARS-CoV-2 may in fact be desirable, as it is likely to lead to primary infection early in life when disease is mild, followed by booster re-exposures throughout adulthood as transmission blocking immunity wanes but disease blocking immunity remains high. This would keep reinfections mild and immunity up to date.”

Doshi points out that even if you believe that a small benefit is better than nothing, you must remember that this is an unproven hypothetical benefit. We would need a proper randomized controlled trial to ascertain whether vaccinating children might actually benefit adults. “We need confirmatory evidence, not just assumptions,” Doshi says.

Vaccinating Children to Benefit Adults Is Unethical

However, even if vaccinating children were found to reduce infection among adults, we may still not be able to do so. Why? Because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population.

This means that even if adults were to benefit, if children don’t benefit from it themselves, then we cannot authorize the vaccine for children. So, if children reap no benefit, then whether or not vaccinating them might benefit adults is a moot argument. You cannot authorize a drug for use in a population that reaps no benefit.

In conclusion, Doshi points out that the FDA has no basis on which to grant COVID-19 vaccines emergency use authorization for children in the first place, as COVID-19 is not an emergency in children. The threat this infection poses to children is negligible and no more serious than that of the common cold or flu.

Since demonstrated risks far outweigh demonstrated benefits in children, the vaccines also fail to meet the biologics license application required for ultimate market approval.

Already, healthy children have died shortly after the jabs, dozens of cases of heart inflammation have been reported, and Pfizer’s own biodistribution study raises serious questions about the shot’s potential to cause infertility. Last but not least, since there’s no “unmet need,” there’s also no need to rush to approve these injections for children.

To be clear, the only way they can even try to justify vaccinating children is by sacrificing them as shields to protect the elderly, which is completely unethical. Children are not harmed by COVID-19 itself, yet they keep using the slogan that “Nobody is safe until everyone is vaccinated,” which simply isn’t true.

Carefully Consider the Many Risks

While long-term effects are unknown, there’s reason to suspect they may be severe. A Pfizer biodistribution study5,6 demonstrates the synthetic mRNA does not stay near the injection site as initially assumed. It is, in fact, widely disseminated in your body within hours of injection.

It enters your bloodstream and accumulates in a variety of organs, primarily your spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and, in women, the ovaries. The spike protein — which we now know is pathogenic and causes disease in and of itself — also travels to your heart, brain, and lungs. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, one of several things can occur:

  1. It can cause platelets to clump together — Platelets, aka thrombocytes, are specialized cells in your blood that stop bleeding. When there’s blood vessel damage, they clump together to form a blood clot. This is why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with both COVID-19 and the vaccines
  2. It can cause abnormal bleeding
  3. In your heart, it can cause heart problems
  4. In your brain, it can cause neurological damage
  5. In your blood vessels, it can cause vasculitis, including Kawasaki disease, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, and Sjogren’s disease.7 These conditions significantly increase your risk of death, in some cases raising mortality by 50 times compared to people who do not have these conditions

Regardless of the tissue, the spike protein can also impair your mitochondrial function, which is imperative for good health, innate immunity, and disease prevention of all kinds.

When the spike protein interacts with the ACE2 receptor, it can disrupt mitochondrial signaling, thereby inducing the production of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. If the damage is serious enough, uncontrolled cell death can occur, which in turn leaks mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into your bloodstream.8

Aside from being detected in cases involving acute tissue injury, heart attack, and sepsis, freely circulating mtDNA have also been shown to contribute to a number of chronic diseases, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS, heart disease, liver failure, HIV infection, rheumatoid arthritis, and certain cancers.9

The spike protein is also expelled in breast milk, which could be lethal for babies. You are not transferring antibodies. You are transferring the vaccine itself, as well as the spike protein, which could result in bleeding and/or blood clots in your child. All of this suggests that for individuals who are at low risk for COVID-19, children, and teens in particular, the risks of these vaccines outweigh the benefits by a significant margin.

How Spike Protein Harms Your Health

I’ve written several articles detailing the mechanisms by which the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can decimate your health. For a refresher, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., featured in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”

I recently came across yet another paper that describes a very important mechanism that, to my knowledge, is not widely known, despite being published in July 2020. The paper, “Genetic Polymorphisms Complicate COVID-19 Therapy: Pivotal Role of HO-1 in Cytokine Storm,”10 explains that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has a far higher affinity for porphyrin molecules in the cell membrane than ACE-2.

Porphyrins are molecules with optical properties. Their ability to absorb light accounts for many of the beneficial health effects of sunlight.11 Porphyrins are also the building blocks of heme, the precursor to hemoglobin, which is necessary to bind oxygen in your blood.

According to this paper, porphyrins not only facilitate SARS-CoV-2 invasion into the cell, but they also allow the virus to bind functional hemoprotein within the cell, thereby increasing oxidative stress.

When the spike protein bind to porphyrins, it upregulates free heme and iron, which causes oxidation and fuels inflammation. It also increases reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, while decreasing levels of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) enzymes. HO enzymes degrade heme into free iron, bilirubin (which has antioxidant effects), and carbon monoxide (which is antiapoptotic). As such, the HO system plays a crucial role in cellular defense.

The spike protein essentially overwhelms the anti-inflammatory cytoprotection normally offered by HO-1. As dysfunctional porphyrins are no longer capable of making heme, more hemoprotein becomes available for SARS-CoV-2 to bind to, which results in the release of more free iron. As the cycle continues, inflammation builds. Iron released by dying cells also has toxic effects. All of this has devastating consequences for your mitochondria, and, as noted in this paper:12

“If insufficient mitochondria in cells are evident, such as in white adipose cells, these cells are unable to accommodate the severe ROS formed leading to overwhelming inflammation. Brown adipose cells are better at handling ROS due to higher concentrations of mitochondria.”

This explains why obese individuals are at much higher risk. Because their fat cells have fewer mitochondria, they’re less able to counteract the ROS and therefore end up with higher levels of inflammation. The unprecedented outpouring of toxic iron into the body may also help explain why some end up with “long-hauler syndrome” after recovering from COVID-19.

Worst of all, since all of this is related to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the COVID shots may also end up promoting cancer, as excess iron is tightly associated with tumorigenesis in multiple human cancer types through a variety of mechanisms, including catalyzing the formation of mutagenic hydroxyl radicals, regulating DNA replication, repair, and cell cycle progression, affecting signal transduction in cancer cells, and acting as an essential nutrient for proliferating tumor cells.

Do You Have Vaccine Regret?

If you’ve already had one or two COVID shots and are now having second thoughts, first, be sure to never have another vaccination again, with any vaccine of any kind. Even if you’re not having discernible symptoms as of yet, you’d be wise to start building your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet.

I interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko on June 23, 2021, and that interview should go live on July 4, 2021. We discussed what Dr. Mike Yeadon — a former chief scientist at Pfizer, which is one of the primary manufacturers of COVID shots — believes, which is that those who are vaccinated are already condemned to certain and agonizing deaths.

He believes those who have received the injection will die prematurely and three years is a generous estimate for how long they can expect to remain alive.

If Yeadon’s projections are true, it changes EVERYTHING. There is no way to know if it is accurate or not, but Yeadon is someone who has serious insights as Pfizer’s former chief scientist. I was a Boy Scout and their motto is to “Be prepared.” Clearly, this is one contingency that needs to be planned for. Zelenko happens to share this belief. We discuss in great detail the strategies that can be used to lower the risk of Yeadon’s predictions coming true.

Use time-restricted eating and eat all your meals for the day within a six- to an eight-hour window. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure, and include plenty of sulfur-rich foods to keep your mitochondria and lysosomes healthy. Both are important for the clearing of cellular debris, including these spike proteins. You can also boost your sulfate by taking Epsom salt baths.

You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L), ideally through sensible sun exposure. Sunlight also has other benefits besides making vitamin D.

To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, you’ll want to optimize autophagy, which may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins and also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal. It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields.

Other remedies that might be helpful if you’re experiencing side effects from your COVID shot(s) include:

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin treatments. Ivermectin appears particularly promising as it actually binds to the spike protein. To learn more, please listen to the interview that Brett Weinstein did with Dr. Pierre Kory,13 one of Dr. Paul Marik’s collaborators
Low-dose antiretroviral therapy to reeducate your immune system
Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, developed by interferon researcher Dr. Joe Cummins, stimulate your immune system
Peptide T (an HIV entry inhibitor derived from the HIV envelope protein gp120; it blocks binding and infection of viruses that use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells)
Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways
Dimethylglycine or betaine (trimethylglycine) to enhance methylation, thereby suppressing latent viruses
Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver



Pfizer COVID Vaccine Linked to Rare Blood Clot Disorder, Israeli Researchers Say

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Israeli researchers on Monday said they discovered a link between Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), a rare blood disease.

Scientists with the Institute of Hematology at Shamir Medical Center said they began researching the possible link after reports of a sudden increase in TTP across Israel — four cases detected in one month compared to two or three cases per year.

TTP is an autoimmune disorder that causes blood clots to form in small blood vessels throughout the body. According to the National Institutes of Health, these clots can cause serious health problems if they block vessels and restrict blood flow to organs, such as the brain, kidneys, and heart.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the medical team said they found a “chronological connection” between vaccination and the onset of TTP symptoms. They stressed this occurred in both new patients and in patients with pre-existing TTP whose disease had been in remission but flared up soon after getting the vaccine.

The Health Ministry, which is evaluating the research, asked doctors not to provide interviews until the evaluation is complete.

Dr. Maya Koren-Michowitz, head of the Hematology and the Translational Hemato-Oncology Laboratory and lead author of the study, recommended people with a history of TTP get vaccinated only with special permission from their doctor — and if they do vaccinate, get a follow-up clinical evaluation.

Koren-Michowitz also called on “healthy people” who are vaccinated to be vigilant and seek medical help immediately if symptoms appear.

“Physicians and patients need to be alert to the clinical symptoms: weakness fatigue, neurological disorders, hemorrhage, and chest pain,” the Israeli team said in a press release.

A spokesperson said the study is very small and “should not deter individuals from getting the COVID vaccine.”

Experts have long warned mRNA vaccines may cause blood clots

A search of the government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), using search criteria including reports of blood clots associated with blood coagulation disorders, produced a total of 6,352 events reported between Dec. 14, 2020, through June 11, 2021.

Of the 6,352 reported cases, 2,705 were attributed to Pfizer, 2,197 were attributed to Moderna, and 1,408 were attributed to the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.

As The Defender reported in April, U.S. regulatory officials were alerted as far back as December 2020 that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — like AstraZeneca and J&J COVID vaccine — could pose similar risks of blood clots.

On Dec. 8, 2020, before any COVID vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S., J. Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D., wrote the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for vaccines designed to create immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein “to cause microvascular injury and blood clots throughout the body including the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys, in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”

As The Defender reported in February, Whelan, a Harvard-trained physician with a background in biochemistry, medicine, and rheumatology, did not dispute the vaccines’ potential to quickly arrest the spread of the virus — assuming the vaccines prove to actually prevent transmission, which also was not assessed in the clinical trials.

But Whelan cautioned “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 other organs.”

In a study published by Oxford University, researchers found the number of people who developed cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) blood clots after COVID vaccines were about the same for Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca.

According to the Oxford study, 4 in 1 million people experienced CVST during the two weeks following vaccination with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, versus 5 in 1 million people who developed the condition after getting the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Although researchers found a significantly higher incidence of blood clots in people who were infected with COVID, the incidence of blood clots following vaccines was still much higher than the background incidence of 0.41 — a strong signal the vaccines pose this specific risk.

“These findings are consistent with what we know about how vaccine-induced spike proteins can on their own cause cell signaling through interactions with the ACE-2 receptors,” said Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, president emerita of Children’s Health Defense.

Redwood said:

“When this happens, it can result in inflammation and a host of other potentially pathological events in the epithelial lining of the blood vessels which can then trigger pro-inflammatory cytokines capable of activating coagulation systems and down-regulating anticoagulant pathways resulting in clot formation.”

A study published in February in the Journal of Hematology examined thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna vaccination in response to the death of a 56-year-old Florida physician — the first identified patient who died from a brain hemorrhage after receiving Pfizer’s vaccine.

After examining 20 case reports of patients who suffered blood clots following vaccination — including 17 without pre-existing thrombocytopenia — and analyzing data from U.S. health agencies, VAERS and treatment providers, researchers behind the Journal of Hematology study could not exclude the possibility that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines had the potential to trigger ITP. They recommended additional surveillance.

In April, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) informed the FDA that mRNA products, through spike proteins, may have “the potential to cause microvascular injury [inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi] to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.” The FDA did not respond.

The AAPS identified at least 37 people at the time who developed a rare platelet disorder after receiving the Pfizer or Moderna shot.

On April 13, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a physician-scientist, and advocate for ethics who specializes in cardiothoracic surgery joined Tucker Carlson on his show to discuss blood clots and vaccines.

Noorchashm, commenting on the FDA decision to temporarily pause J&J’s vaccine after reports of blood clots, said although it was a good sign the FDA was taking seriously blood clot complications with the J&J vaccine, the agency was missing similar thrombotic complications with Pfizer and Moderna.

Noorchashm said:

“I don’t know why this cluster is sort of affecting J&J. There are certainly other examples of thrombotic events with Pfizer and Moderna that have been entered into the VAERS system.”

According to Redwood, it’s “only logical to assume” that when the vaccine creates the identical spike protein that occurs in infection, and which has been identified as the culprit causing a myriad serious and life-threatening injuries, “we are going to see these same injuries in individuals who receive the vaccines.”




WHO: ‘Children Should Not Be Vaccinated for the Moment’

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) latest guidance clarifying who should get the COVID vaccine states, “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.”

According to the WHO website: “There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have the milder disease compared to adults.”

The WHO had previously said vaccinating children against COVID was not a priority given the limited global supply of doses, Fox News reported.

During a social media session on June 3, Dr. Kate O’Brien, a pediatrician, and director of the WHO’s vaccines department said children should not be a focus of COVID immunization programs, even as increasing numbers of wealthy countries authorize the shots for teens and children.

“Children are at [a] very, very low risk of actually getting COVID disease,” said O’Brien. She said the rationale for immunizing children was to stop transmission rather than to protect them from getting sick or dying.

O’Brien added it wasn’t necessary to vaccinate children before sending them back to school safely.

“Immunization of children in order to send them back to school is not the predominant requirement for them to go back to school safely,” O’Brien said. “They can go back to school safely if what we’re doing is immunizing those who are around them who are at risk.”

The U.S., Canada, and European Union have all given the green light to some COVID vaccines for children 12 to 15 years old. In the UK, a decision to vaccinate all 12- to 17-year-olds is unlikely to be recommended by experts anytime soon, BBC NEWS reported.

One argument for not vaccinating children against COVID is they get relatively little benefit from it.

“Fortunately one of the few good things about this pandemic is children are very rarely seriously affected by this infection,” said Adam Finn, who sits on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

Infections in children are nearly always mild or asymptomatic, which is in sharp contrast to older age groups who have been prioritized by vaccination campaigns.

A study across seven countries — including the U.S. — published in the Lancet, found that fewer than two out of every 1 million children died with COVID during the pandemic.

Even children with medical conditions that would raise the risks of COVID infection in adults are not being vaccinated in the UK. Only those at “very high risk of exposure and serious outcomes” are recommended to be vaccinated.

For kids, the benefits of COVID vaccines don’t outweigh the risks

As The Defender reported, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 10 held a meeting to discuss granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID vaccines for children under 12. Numerous experts spoke out against the plan saying the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for young children.

Peter Doshi, Ph.D., associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor of The BMJ, said during the open public hearing session there is no emergency that would warrant using EUA to authorize COVID vaccines for children.

Pointing to Pfizer’s trial of 12- to15-year-olds which supported the recent EUA, Doshi said the harms outweighed the benefits, and those who had the placebo were “better off” than those who received the vaccine.

In terms of the benefits, Doshi said “the reported 100% efficacy in Pfizer’s trial was based on 16 COVID cases in the placebo group versus none in the fully vaccinated group. But there were about 1,000 placebo recipients so just 2% got COVID. Put another way, 2% of the fully vaccinated avoided COVID, whereas 98% of the vaccinated wouldn’t have gotten COVID anyway.”

On the other side of the ledger, Doshi said, side effects were common:

“Three in 4 kids had fatigue and headaches, around half had chills and muscle pain, around 1 in 4 to 5 had a fever and joint pain. The list goes on. In sum, all the fully vaccinated 12- to 15-year-olds avoided symptomatic COVID but most wouldn’t have gotten COVID even without the vaccine. So, the benefit is small but it came at the price of side effects that were mild to moderate in severity and lasted a few days.”

Doshi pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing 23% of 0- to 4-year-olds and 42% of 5- to17-year-olds have already had COVID and have robust natural immunity.

Kim Witczak, an FDA consumer representative, expressed great concerns over the premature approval of COVID vaccines for children. Witczak said data shows children are neither in danger or dangerous, and the growing evidence of harm caused by COVID vaccines should not be ignored.

Witczak and Doshi were two of 27 researchers and clinicians around the world who launched a citizen’s petition demanding the FDA withhold full approval of COVID vaccines until efficacy and safety measures are met.

Dr. Sidney Wolf, founder and senior advisor of Health Research Group, also pointed out during the FDA meeting that CDC data from Jan. 1 to March 31 showed only 204 hospitalizations and 0 deaths in the 12- to17-year-old age group due to COVID.

As The Defender reported May 26, two papers recently published in the journal of Hospital Pediatrics, found pediatric hospitalizations for COVID were overcounted by at least 40%, carrying potential implications for nationwide figures used to justify vaccinating children.

COVID vaccine causing heart inflammation in teens

Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, said during the June 10 FDA meeting, “there are ‘very few’ reports of myocarditis or pericarditis in 12- to 15-year-olds who have been given coronavirus vaccines.”

However, the CDC data Shimabukuro presented showed a higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation among young people recently vaccinated with their second doses of mRNA vaccine. The agency identified 226 reports that might meet the agency’s “working case definition” of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots.

Among 16- to 17-year-olds through May 31, 79 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported. The expected rate among people in this age group is between two and 19 cases, Shimabukuro said during his presentation.

CDC data also showed that among 18- to 24-year-olds, there were 196 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis. The expected rate is between eight and 83 cases.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) scheduled an emergency meeting for June 18 to update data and further evaluate myocarditis following vaccination with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the CDC delayed the meeting until the June 23-25 ACIP meeting in observation of the Juneteenth National Independence Day holiday. Register here to watch Wednesday’s meeting.

According to the latest data from VAERS, there have been 1,117 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) in all age groups reported in the U.S. following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020, and June 11, 2021. Of those, 109 reports occurred in children 12-to-17-years-old with 108 attributed to Pfizer.

 

Currently, Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in people as young as age 12. Moderna is authorized for people 18 and older, although the company has asked the FDA to authorize its use in children as young as 12. Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine is authorized in people 18 and older.




Canadian Politician, Doctors Condemn Censorship of Scientific Inquiry and Suppression of Information on Vaccine Risks to Kids

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

Canadian politician Derek Sloan and three medical professionals — who say they represent hundreds of their colleagues — said last week in a press conference on Parliament Hill the Canadian government is suppressing information about the harmful effects of lockdowns, vaccine risks in children, and the efficacy of certain COVID treatments.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) issued a “dire statement” in late April threatening doctors who spoke out about what they witnessed in their local hospitals and communities while working on the frontlines of COVID, said Sloan.

“The purpose of CPSO is to protect the public,” said Sloan, “not stifle legitimate scientific inquiry or dissent by professional doctors.”

The government’s attempt to intimidate doctors had the opposite effect, said Sloan. Instead, his office was flooded with calls from doctors, nurses, and other scientific medical experts who said they’ve been threatened and blocked from sharing their stories.

Byram Bridle, associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, is one of many medical professionals who said they’ve faced extreme censorship for asking legitimate scientific questions about COVID.

The bridle was asked on a radio program if he believed COVID vaccines were linked to heart inflammation in young males. He gave his honest opinion, saying he did believe there is a link. He pointed to evidence to support it.

Within 24 hours, Bridle said he was attacked on all fronts. A “libelous website” and a fake Twitter account were created to slander him, said Bridle. He was harassed daily via phone, email, and social media, and one of his colleagues even went as far as to release confidential medical information about his parents, Bridle said.

It was an “egregious act,” said Bridle. “A practicing physician should know they shouldn’t be releasing confidential medical information.”

In search of a place where he could speak freely, Bridle joined the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, a group of independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and healthcare practitioners committed to providing balanced evidence-based information to the Canadian public about COVID.

Bridle warned that suppressing open discussions of science and medicine in Canada violates the “hallmark of a Democratic society.”

Also speaking at the press conference was Dr. Patrick Phillips, a family and emergency medicine physician, and Dr. Don Welsh, professor of physiology and pharmacology at Western University.

Both expressed concerns about their inability to speak the truth about the negative effects of lockdowns and the benefits of using treatments such as vitamin D for COVID.

Phillips said “massive lockdowns” have caused a lot of harm and, until now, he’s never seen so many suicidal children in his practice.

“Science has not been functioning properly for the last 15 months,” Welsh said. The government’s lockdowns, masks, infectious disease tracing, and social distancing have “created a remarkable list of hardships for Canadians that will take this country many years to recover from.”

Watch here: 

https://youtu.be/vUrp5PlnBwQ




Researcher: ‘We Made a Big Mistake’ on COVID-19 Vaccine

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., has gained access to Pfizer’s biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency. The research, previously unseen, demonstrates a huge problem with all COVID-19 vaccines
  • The assumption that vaccine developers have been working with is that the mRNA in the vaccines would primarily remain in and around the vaccination site. Pfizer’s data, however, show the mRNA and subsequent spike protein are widely distributed in the body within hours
  • This is a serious problem, as the spike protein is a toxin shown to cause cardiovascular and neurological damage. It also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries
  • Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, it can cause platelets to clump together, resulting in blood clots, and/or cause abnormal bleeding
  • Pfizer documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency also show the company failed to follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies and that key studies did not meet good laboratory practice standards

The more we learn about the COVID-19 vaccines, the worse they look. In a recent interview1 with Alex Pierson (above), Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., dropped a shocking truth bomb that immediately went viral, despite being censored by Google.

It also was featured in a “fact” check by The Poynter Institute’s Politifact,2 which pronounced Bridle’s findings as “false” after interviewing Dr. Drew Weissman,3 a UPenn scientist who is credited with helping to create the technology that enables the COVID mRNA vaccines to work. But, as you can see below, unlike Bridle, Politifact neglected to go beyond interviewing someone with such a huge stake in the vaccine’s success.

RELATED POST: Fauci Email Proves He Knew Face Masks Don’t Work

In 2020, Bridle was awarded a $230,000 government grant for research on COVID vaccine development. As part of that research, he and a team of international scientists requested a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access to Pfizer’s biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency. The research,4,5 previously unseen, demonstrates a huge problem with all COVID-19 vaccines.

“We made a big mistake,” Bridle says. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen; we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”

This toxin, Bridle notes, can cause cardiovascular damage and infertility — a claim echoed by researchers such as Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., whom I’ve interviewed about these issues.

Pfizer Omitted Industry-Standard Safety Studies

What’s more, TrialSite News reports6 that Pfizer documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency [EMA] reveal the company “did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies … as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP).”

Neither reproductive toxicity nor genotoxicity (DNA mutation) studies were performed, both of which are considered critical when developing a new drug or vaccine for human use. The problems now surfacing matter greatly, as they significantly alter the risk-benefit analysis underlying the vaccines’ emergency use authorization. As reported by TrialSite News:7

“Recently, there has been speculation regarding potential safety signals associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Many different unusual, prolonged, or delayed reactions have been reported, and often these are more pronounced after the second shot.

Women have reported changes in menstruation after taking mRNA vaccines. Problems with blood clotting (coagulation) — which are also common during COVID-19 disease — are also reported. In the case of the Pfizer COVID mRNA vaccine, these newly revealed documents raise additional questions about both the genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity risks of this product.

Standard studies designed to assess these risks were not performed in compliance with accepted empirical research standards. Furthermore, in key studies designed to test whether the vaccine remains near the injection site or travels throughout the body, Pfizer did not even use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) but instead relied on a ‘surrogate’ mRNA producing the luciferase protein.

These new disclosures seem to indicate that the U.S. and other governments are conducting a massive vaccination program with an incompletely characterized experimental vaccine.

It is certainly understandable why the vaccine was rushed into use as an experimental product under emergency use authority, but these new findings suggest that routine quality testing issues were overlooked in the rush to authorize use.

People are now receiving injections with an mRNA gene therapy-based vaccine, which produces the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in their cells, and the vaccine may be also delivering the mRNA and producing spike protein in unintended organs and tissues (which may include ovaries).”

Toxic Spike Protein Enters Blood Circulation

The assumption that vaccine developers have been working with is that the mRNA in the vaccines (or DNA in the case of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca’s vaccines) would primarily remain in and around the vaccination site, i.e., your deltoid muscle, with a small amount draining into local lymph nodes.8

Pfizer’s data, however, show this isn’t the case at all. Using mRNA programmed to produce luciferase protein, as well as mRNA tagged with a radioactive label, Pfizer showed that the majority of the mRNA initially remain near the injection site, but within hours become widely distributed within the body.9

The mRNA enters your bloodstream and accumulates in a variety of organs, primarily your spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, and, in women, the ovaries. The spike protein also travels to your heart, brain, and lungs, where bleeding and or blood clots can occur as a result and is expelled in breast milk.

This is a problem because rather than instructing your muscle cells to produce the spike protein (the antigen that triggers antibody production), spike protein is actually being produced inside your blood vessel walls and various organs, where it can do a great deal of damage.

“It’s the first time ever scientists have been privy to seeing where these messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination,” Bridle told Pierson.10

“Is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is: absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting … We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein.

It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation … The spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.”

The Spike Protein Is the Problem

Indeed, for many months, we’ve known that the worst symptoms of severe COVID-19, blood clotting problems in particular, are caused by the spike protein of the virus. As such, it seemed really risky to instruct the body’s cells to produce the very thing that causes severe problems.

Bridle cites research showing that laboratory animals injected with purified spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 straight into their bloodstream developed cardiovascular problems and brain damage.

Assuming that the spike protein would not enter into the circulatory system was a “grave mistake,” according to Bridle, who calls the Japanese data “clear-cut evidence” that the vaccine, and the spike protein produced by it, enter your bloodstream and accumulates in vital organs. Bridle also cites recent research showing the spike protein remained in the bloodstream of humans for 29 days.

Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. As explained by Bridle, when that happens, one of several things can occur:

  1. It can cause platelets to clump together — Platelets, aka thrombocytes, are specialized cells in your blood that stop bleeding. When there’s blood vessel damage, they clump together to form a blood clot. This is why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with both COVID-19 and the vaccines
  2. It can cause abnormal bleeding
  3. In your heart, it can cause heart problems
  4. In your brain, it can cause neurological damage

Importantly, people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 absolutely should not donate blood, seeing how the vaccine and the spike protein are both transferred. In fragile patients receiving the blood, the damage could be lethal.

Breastfeeding women also need to know that both the vaccine and the spike protein are being expelled in breast milk, and this could be lethal for their babies. You are not transferring antibodies. You are transferring the vaccine itself, as well as the spike protein, which could result in bleeding and/or blood clots in your child. All of this also suggests that for individuals who are at low risk for COVID-19, children, and teens, in particular, the risks of these vaccines far outweigh the benefits.

The Spike Protein and Blood Clotting

In related news, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted an article11 on his website on June 3, 2021, in which he discusses the links between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and vasculitis, a medical term referring to inflammation (“itis”) in your vascular system, which is made up of your heart and blood vessels.

There are many different types of vasculitis, including Kawasaki’s disease, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, and Sjogren’s disease. According to Kendrick, all of them have two things in common:12

1.Your body for some reason starts to attack the lining of your blood vessels, thereby causing damage and inflammation — The “why” can differ from one case to another, but in all cases, your immune system identifies something foreign in the lining of the blood vessel, causing it to attack. The attack causes damage to the lining, which results in inflammation.

Blood clots are a common result and can occur either because the platelets clump together in response to the vessel wall damage, or because your anti-clotting mechanism has been compromised. Your most powerful anticlotting system is your glycocalyx, the protective layer of glycoproteins that lines your blood vessels.

Among many other things, the glycocalyx contains a wide variety of anticoagulant factors, including tissue factor inhibitor, protein C, nitric oxide, and antithrombin. It also modulates the adhesion of platelets to the endothelium. When blood clots completely block a blood vessel, you end up with a stroke or a heart attack.

A reduction in platelet count, known as thrombocytopenia, is a reliable sign that blood clots are forming in your system, as the platelets are being used up in the process. Thrombocytopenia is a commonly-reported side effect of COVID-19 vaccines, as are blood clots, strokes, and lethal heart attacks — all of which are pointing toward spike proteins causing vascular damage.

2.They significantly increase your risk of death, in some cases raising mortality by 50 times compared to people who do not have these conditions.

The take-home message Kendrick delivers is that “If you damage the lining of blood vessel walls, blood clots are far more likely to form. Very often, the damage is caused by the immune system going on the attack, damaging blood vessel walls, and removing several of the anti-clotting mechanisms.” The end result can be lethal, and this chain of events is exactly what these COVID-19 vaccines are setting into motion.

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein May Damage Mitochondrial Function

Other research suggests the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can have a serious impact on your mitochondrial function, which is imperative for good health, innate immunity, and disease prevention of all kinds.

When the spike protein interacts with the ACE2 receptor, it can disrupt mitochondrial signaling, thereby inducing the production of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. If the damage is serious enough, uncontrolled cell death can occur, which in turn leaks mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into your bloodstream.13

Aside from being detected in cases involving acute tissue injury, heart attack, and sepsis, freely circulating mtDNA has also been shown to contribute to a number of chronic diseases, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS, heart disease, liver failure, HIV infection, rheumatoid arthritis, and certain cancers.14 As explained in “COVID-19: A Mitochondrial Perspective”:15

“Apart from its role in energy production, mitochondria are crucial for … innate immunity, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, and apoptosis; all of these are important in COVID-19 pathogenesis. Dysfunctional mitochondria predispose to oxidative stress and loss of cellular function and vitality. In addition, mitochondrial damage leads to … inappropriate and persistent inflammation.

SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) … enters cell by attaching to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors on cell surface … Following infection, there is internalization and downregulation of ACE2 receptors.

At vascular endothelium, ACE2 performs conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin (1–7). Thus, a low ACE2 activity subsequent to SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to imbalance in renin-angiotensin system with relative excess of angiotensin II.

Angiotensin II through binding to its type 1 receptors exerts pro-inflammatory, vasoconstrictive, and prothrombotic effects, while angiotensin (1–7) has opposing effects … In addition, angiotensin II increases cytoplasmic and mitochondrial ROS generation leading to oxidative stress.

Increased oxidative stress may lead to endothelial dysfunction and aggravate systemic and local inflammation, thus contributing to acute lung injury, cytokine storm, and thrombosis seen in severe COVID-19 illness …

A recent algorithm showed that majority of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and structural RNAs are targeted for mitochondrial matrix. Thus it appears that SARS-CoV-2 hijacks mitochondrial machinery for its own benefit, including DMV biogenesis. Manipulation of mitochondria by virus may lead to mitochondrial dysfunction and increased oxidative stress ultimately leading to loss of mitochondrial integrity and cell death …

Mitochondrial fission enables removal of the damaged portion of a mitochondrion to be cleared by mitophagy (a special form of autophagy). Metabolomic studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 inhibits mitophagy. Thus, there is accumulation of damaged and dysfunctional mitochondria. This not only leads to impaired MAVS [mitochondrial antiviral signaling] response but also aggravates inflammation and cell death.”

The author, Pankaj Prasun, points out that the virus’s impact on mitochondria helps explain why COVID-19 is so much deadlier for older people, the obese, and those with diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.

All of these risk factors have something in common: They’re all associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. If your mitochondria are already dysfunctional, the SARS-CoV-2 virus can more easily knock out more mitochondria, resulting in severe illness and death.

The Spike Protein Is a Bioweapon

In my interview with Seneff and Mikovits (see earlier hyperlink), they both stressed that the key danger — both in COVID-19 and with the vaccines — is the spike protein itself. However, while the spike protein found in the virus is bad, the spike protein your body produces in response to the vaccine is far worse. Why?

Because the synthetic mRNA in the vaccine has been programmed to instruct your cells to produce an unnatural, genetically engineered spike protein. Specific alterations make it far more toxic than that found on the virus itself. Mikovits goes so far as to call the spike protein a bioweapon, as it is a disease-causing agent that demolishes innate immunity and exhausts your natural killer (NK) cells’ ability to determine which cells are infected and which aren’t.

In short, when you get the COVID-19 vaccine, you are being injected with an agent that instructs your body to produce the bioweapon in its own cells. This is about as diabolical as it gets.

In her paper, “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh,16 Seneff explains why the unnatural spike protein is so problematic.

In summary, normally, the spike protein on a virus will collapse on itself and fall into the cell once it attaches to the ACE2 receptor. The vaccine-induced spike protein does not do this. Instead, it stays open and remains attached to the ACE2 receptor, thereby disabling it and causing a host of problems that lead to heart, lung, and immune impairment.

What’s more, because the RNA code has been enriched with extra guanines (Gs) and cytosines (Cs), and configured as if it’s a human messenger RNA molecule ready to make protein by adding a polyA tail, the spike protein’s RNA sequence in the vaccine looks as if it is part bacteria,17 part human18 and part viral at the same time.

There’s also evidence suggesting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein may be a prion, which is yet another piece of really bad news, particularly as it pertains to vaccine-induced spike protein. Prions are membrane proteins and when they misfold, they form crystals in the cytoplasm resulting in prion disease.

Since the mRNA in the vaccines has been modified to spew out very high amounts of spike protein (far greater than that of the actual virus), the risk of excessive buildup in the cytoplasm is high. And, since the spike protein doesn’t enter into the membrane of the cell, there’s a high risk that it can become problematic if indeed it works like a prion.

Remember, the research cited by Bridle at the beginning of this article found the spike protein accumulates in the spleen, among other places. Parkinson’s disease is a prion disease that has been traced back to prions originating in the spleen, which then travel up to the brain via the vagus nerve. In the same way, it’s quite possible COVID-19 vaccines may promote Parkinson’s and other human prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

What Are the Solutions?

While all of this is highly problematic, there is help. As noted by Mikovits, remedies to the maladies that might develop post-vaccination include:

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin treatments. Ivermectin appears particularly promising as it actually binds to the spike protein. Please listen to the interview that Brett Weinstein did with Dr. Pierre Kory,19 one of Dr. Paul Marik’s collaborators
Low-dose antiretroviral therapy to reeducate your immune system
Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, developed by interferon researcher Dr. Joe Cummins, stimulate your immune system
Peptide T (an HIV entry inhibitor derived from the HIV envelope protein gp120; it blocks binding and infection of viruses that use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells)
Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways
Dimethylglycine or betaine (trimethylglycine) to enhance methylation, thereby suppressing latent viruses
Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver

From my perspective, I believe the best thing you can do is to build your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet. You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L), ideally through sensible sun exposure. Sunlight also has other benefits besides making vitamin D.

Use time-restricted eating and eat all your meals for the day within a six- to an eight-hour window. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure, and include plenty of sulfur-rich foods to keep your mitochondria and lysosomes healthy. Both are important for the clearing of cellular debris, including these spike proteins. You can also boost your sulfate by taking Epsom salt baths.

To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, you’ll want to optimize autophagy, which may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins and also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal. It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields.