1

University Fires Surgeon Who Voiced Safety Concerns About COVID Vaccines for Kids

By Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms | The Defender

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represents Dr. Francis Christian, clinical professor of general surgery at the University of Saskatchewan and a practicing surgeon in Saskatoon. Christian was called into a meeting Wednesday, suspended from all teaching responsibilities effective immediately, and fired from his position with the University of Saskatchewan as of September 2021.

There is a recording of Christian’s meeting yesterday between Christian and Dr. Preston Smith, the Dean of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Dr. Susan Shaw, the Chief Medical Officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and Dr. Brian Ulmer, head of the Department of Surgery at the Saskatchewan College of Medicine.

In addition, the Justice Centre will represent Christian in his defense of a complaint that was made against him and an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. The complaint objects to Christian having advocated for the informed consent of COVID vaccines for children.

Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed director of the Surgical Humanities Program and director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Christian is also the editor of the Journal of the Surgical Humanities.

On June 17, Christian released a statement to over 200 doctors which contained his concerns regarding giving the COVID shots to children. In it, he noted that he is pro-vaccine and that he did not represent any group, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, or the University of Saskatchewan. “I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being.”

Christian noted that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a patient should always be “fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of the intervention and if any alternatives exist to the intervention.”

“This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in humans … before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must know the risks of mRNA vaccines,” he wrote.

Christian expressed concern that he had not come across “a single vaccinated child or parent who has been adequately informed” about COVID vaccines for children.

Among his points, he stated that:

  1. The mRNA vaccine is a new, experimental vaccine never used by humans before.
  2. The mRNA vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada or the U.S. CDC, and are in fact under “interim authorization” in Canada and “emergency use authorization” in the U.S. He noted that “full vaccine approval takes several years and multiple safety considerations — this has not happened.”
  3. That in order to qualify for “emergency use authorization” there must be an emergency. While he said there are a strong case for vaccinating the elderly, the vulnerable, and health care workers, he said, “COVID does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of COVID is less than 0.003% — this is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu. There is no emergency in children.”
  4. Children do not readily transmit the COVID virus to adults.
  5. mRNA vaccines have been “associated with several thousand deaths” in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) in the U.S. “These appear to be unusual, compared to the total number of vaccines administered.” He called it a “strong signal that should not be ignored.”
  6. He noted that vaccines have already caused “serious medical problems for kids” worldwide, including “a real and significantly increased risk” of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. Dr. Christian notes the German national vaccine agency and the UK vaccine agency are not recommending the vaccine for healthy children and teenagers.

The Saskatchewan Health Authority/College of Medicine wrote a letter to Christian on June 21 alleging that they had “received information that you are engaging in activities designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving COVID-19 vaccination contrary to the recommendations and pandemic-response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian public health authorities.”

Christian’s concerns regarding underage COVID vaccinations are not isolated to him. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had an “emergency meeting” early this week to discuss the growing cases of myocarditis (heart inflammation) in younger males after receiving the COVID-19 vaccines.

The CDC released new data today that the risk of myocarditis after the Pfizer vaccine is at least 10 times the expected rate in 12 – 17 year old males and females. The German government has issued public guidance against vaccinating those under the age of 18.

The World Health Organization posted an update to its website on Monday, June 21, which contained the statement in respect of advice for COVID-19 vaccination that “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.” Within 24 hours, this guidance was withdrawn and new guidance was posted which stated that “COVID vaccines are safe for those over 18 years of age.”

Christian says there is a large, growing “network of ethical, moral physicians and scientists” who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed consent. He said physicians must “always put their patients and humanity first.”

Dr. Byram Bridle, a prominent immunologist at the University of Guelph with a subspecialty in vaccinology, recently participated in a Press Conference on Parliament Hill on CPAC organized by MP Derek Sloan, where he discussed the censorship of scientists and physicians. Bridle expressed his safety concerns with vaccinating children with experimental mRNA vaccines.

Justice Centre Litigation Director Jay Cameron also has concern over the growing censorship of medical professionals when it comes to questioning the government narrative on COVID. “We are seeing a clear pattern of highly competent and skilled medical doctors in very esteemed positions being taken down and censored or even fired, for practicing proper science and medicine,” says Mr. Cameron.

The Justice Centre represented Dr. Chris Milburn in Nova Scotia, who faced professional disciplinary proceedings last year after a group of activists took exception to an opinion column he wrote in a local paper. The Justice Centre provided submissions to the College on Milburn’s behalf, defending the right of physicians to express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square and arguing that everyone is entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — including doctors.

The Justice Centre noted that attempting to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of public interest amounts to bullying and intimidation for speaking out against the government.

Last week, Milburn also faced punishment for speaking out with his concerns about public health policies, as he was removed from his position as the head of emergency for the eastern zone with the Nova Scotia Health Authority. In an unusual twist, a petition has been started to have Milburn replace Dr. Strang as the province’s Chief Medical Officer.

“Censoring and punishing scientists and doctors for freely voicing their concerns is arrogant, oppressive and profoundly unscientific,” states Mr. Cameron.

“Both the western world and the idea of scientific inquiry itself is built to a large extent on the principles of freedom of thought and speech. Medicine and patient safety can only regress when dogma and an elitist orthodoxy, such as that imposed by the Saskatchewan College of Medicine, punishes doctors for voicing concerns,” Mr. Cameron concludes.

Originally published by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.




18 Connecticut Teens Hospitalized for Heart Problems After COVID Vaccines, White House Says Young People Should Still Get the Shots

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

One week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced it was investigating heart inflammation in recently vaccinated young adults, Connecticut reported 18 new cases of heart problems among teens who had received a COVID vaccine.

All 18 cases resulted in hospitalization — the vast majority for a couple of days, reported NBC Connecticut. The cases were reported to the Connecticut Department of Public Health by vaccine providers, said Deirdre Gifford, acting health commissioner.

“One individual that we’re aware of is still hospitalized,” Guifford said Monday. “The other 17 have been sent home and they’re doing fine.”

The first case at Connecticut Children’s was Rachel Hatton’s 17-year-old son, Gregory.

“It’s terrifying,” said Hatton. Her son started complaining of severe chest pain three days after his second vaccine dose. It worsened on the fourth day, causing back pain.

After blood work and an x-ray, doctors diagnosed Gregory with pericarditis, an inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart that can cause sharp chest pain and other symptoms.

“They hooked him up to a heart monitor, did more EKGs, echocardiograms. The infectious disease actually came and ran their own blood work set to figure out if it could have been caused by something else, some sort of infection, something else, like Lyme disease. They tested him for all sorts of things and one by one those tests came back negative,” said Hatton.

Doctors couldn’t confirm Gregory’s condition was caused by the COVID vaccine, but two more recently vaccinated patients presented to the hospital with similar symptoms. A spokesperson from Connecticut Children’s said patients have presented with both pericarditis and myocarditis

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”

Mayo Clinic doctors say treatment focuses on the cause of the condition and symptoms, such as heart failure and shortness of breath.

Hatton said her son is now out of work, on medication, and hooked up to a heart monitor. He will have another MRI in June to see if his condition has improved.

“I don’t sleep because … if I hear my son sneeze or if he sounds like he’s out of breath when I call him on my break at work, I get nervous because I just don’t know what else could happen. He basically has a heart condition now and it’s terrifying,” she said.

NBC Connecticut spoke with other parents of teens who received their first dose of the COVID vaccine and are scheduled to get their second.

“I can’t believe the government would really put out a shot that would really negatively impact the health of my child so I’m behind the vaccine 100%,” said Heather Salgado.

“I’m just trusting the science and the recommendation is to get the vaccine,” said Theresa Galizia.

Other parents, like Siobhan Cefarelli, had reservations. “It’s one thing for me to get the vaccine, but for my child to get the vaccine, it’s kind of scary not knowing what’s going to happen and not having a lot of research having been done on it.”

Hatton said she shared her son’s story because she wanted parents to be aware. Despite doctors saying the condition is rare, Hatton explained it doesn’t feel rare when it’s affecting your own child.

The CDC has not determined if vaccines were the cause of the reported heart condition in the Connecticut cases. But the CDC safety committee released an advisory on May 17 alerting doctors to reports of myocarditis, which seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose, and typically within four days after vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing Monday the Biden administration will continue to advise young people to get vaccinated, despite reported cases of myocarditis.

“Our health and medical experts still continue to convey that it is the right step for 12- to 15-year-olds to get vaccinated, that these are limited cases, and that, obviously, the risks of contracting COVID are certainly significant even for people of that age,” Psaki said.

According to CDC data, the death rate among adolescents ages 0 to 17 who get COVID and are subsequently hospitalized is 0.7%, with many experiencing either mild or no symptoms at all. The COVID death rate in all adolescent age categories is less than 0.1%.

While the CDC numbers appear to contradict Psaki’s assessment of young people’s risk of getting COVID, new research suggests that even the CDC’s numbers are too high.

As The Defender reported, two papers published May 19 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.




Bombshell Video, Leaked Documents Detail How Facebook Censors Vaccine Facts When They Don’t Fit CDC, Big Pharma Narrative

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Investigative journalist James O’Keefe from Project Veritas on Monday released a bombshell video of two Facebook insiders blowing the whistle on the tech giant’s effort to secretly censor — on a global scale — COVID vaccine questions and concerns.

The Facebook whistleblowers alleged the company is pushing an initiative to censor vaccine hesitancy on its platform.

According to newly leaked documents, the social media giant uses algorithms to target users who disseminate messaging that runs counter to the company’s political ideology and vaccine narrative — even if the comments are factually accurate.

An internal memo obtained by Project Veritas explained “Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion.” O’Keefe told Sean Hannity on Monday that Facebook initiated a “beta” test for the algorithm that classifies some users under two incremental tiers of what they dub “vaccine hesitancy” or a “VH Score,” and does so without the user’s knowledge.

The stated goal of the new feature is to “drastically reduce user exposure” to “VH” comments, O’Keefe’s team reported, and decrease “other engagement of VH comments including creating, likes, reports [and] replies.”

“Based on that VH score, we will demote or leave the comment alone depending on the content within the comment,” an anonymous whistleblower said.

The insider, who is described by O’Keefe as a “data center technician” for Facebook, revealed the tech giant was running the “test” on 1.5% of its 3.8 billion users with the focus on the comments sections on “authoritative health pages.”

“They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it,” the insider told O’Keefe.

Another leaked document addressed “Borderline Vaccine Framework,” which classifies content with another expressed “goal” to “identify and tier the categories of non-violating content that could discourage vaccination in certain contexts, thereby contributing to vaccine hesitancy or refusal.” The framework states: “We have tiered these by potential harm and how much context is required in order to evaluate the harm.”

The ratings are divided into two tiers: “Alarmism & Criticism” and “Indirect Vaccine Discouragement,” which includes celebrating vaccine refusal and “shocking stories” that may deter others from getting vaccinated even if events or facts are potentially or actually true.

The algorithm flags key terms in comments to determine whether or not it can remain in place but allows human “raters” to make a ruling if the algorithm cannot do so itself.

“What’s remarkable about these private documents that Facebook has not wanted you to see until tonight is that ‘Tier 2’ [violation] says even if the facts are true that you will be targeted and demoted — your comments will be targeted and demoted,” O’Keefe said.

The first whistleblower told O’Keefe that Facebook, led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, wants to “build a community where everyone complies — not where people can have an open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions.”

“The narrative [is] get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you, everyone should get it. If you don’t, you will be singled out as an enemy of society.”

In response to the leaked documents, Facebook told Project Veritas, “We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.”

O’Keefe, however, said the change in policy has largely been private while Facebook holds itself out as being a free speech town square.

Facebook working with CDC to censor reports of vaccine injury from its own VAERS system

Facebook insiders and leaked internal documents allege the company coordinates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to censor vaccine content, including reports submitted to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

“So the VAERS is a Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. It looks like [Facebook] is measuring the comments where they’re mentioning where, you know, that the patient died,” said the Facebook whistleblower. “Really they [the CDC] support all of this because you know they release the standards, the CDC themselves. And that’s really one of, one of the primary things that Facebook is basing their policy off of.”

Under Facebook’s Borderline Vaccine Framework, content pointing to VAERS data is censored because it suggests “extreme risk without providing context.”

The insider said Facebook is open about the fact they’re coordinating with the CDC.

Ultimately, any facts that don’t fit a particular narrative are omitted, demoted, deboosted, banned, or considered dangerous to society, said O’Keefe.

Children’s Health Defense sues Facebook over censorship

In August 2020, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit charging Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and several fact-checking organizations with censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming the children’s health organization.

The complaint alleges Facebook has “insidious conflicts” with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies, and details factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation, and the World Health Organization’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg, calling into question Facebook’s collaboration with the government in a censorship campaign.

Facebook censors CHD’s page, targeting factual information about vaccines, 5G, and public health agencies. Facebook-owned Instagram de-platformed CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Feb. 10 without notice or explanation.

Lawyers for Children’s Health Defense are awaiting the ruling of Judge Susan Illston after the defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss in the CHD lawsuit alleging government-sponsored censorship, false disparagement, and wire fraud.




Analysis of VAERS Shows the COVID Shots are Likely Cause of Deaths, Spontaneous Abortions, Cardiovascular, Neurological, and Immunological Adverse Events

https://rumble.com/embed/veow35/?pub=4

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News

America’s Frontline Doctors has published a video of a presentation by Dr. Jessica Rose, Ph.D., MSc, BSc, who has analyzed the data in the VAERS database related to the COVID shots. The presentation was for “Vaccine Choice Canada.”

Dr. Jessica Rose has a BSc in Applied Mathematics and completed her MSc in Immunology at the Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada. She completed her Ph.D. in Computational Biology at Bar Ilan University and then did her first Post Doctorate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Molecular Biology.

She is now doing a second Post Doctorate at the Technion where she will explore the structure and function of transport proteins in bacteria from both experimental and computational points of view. (Source.)

Dr. Rose challenges the “official” position of the political health authorities who keep telling the public that these thousands of reported deaths, and hundreds of thousands of adverse events reported to VAERS, have nothing to do with the COVID shots.

Her presentation of the statistics clearly shows that this cannot possibly be true, although she welcomes others to challenge her findings.

She concludes:

This work summarizes VAERS data to date and serves as information for the public and a reminder of the relevance of any adverse events, including deaths, that likely occurred as a direct result of vaccine administration.

Based on analysis of the VAERS numbers, it may appear that AEs are not currently imposing a significant burden on the fully vaccinated population; however, the weekly releases of VAERS data do not include all of their reports made to date — they are all the reports the CDC has processed to date — and the backlog is likely to be staggering.

Thus, due to both the problems of under-reporting and the lag in report processing, this analysis reveals a strong signal from the VAERS data that the risk of suffering an SAE following injection is significant and that the overall risk signal is high.

Analysis suggests that the vaccines are likely the cause of reported deaths, spontaneous abortions, and anaphylactic reactions in addition to cardiovascular, neurological and immunological AEs.

Based on the precautionary principle, since there is currently no precedent for predictability with regards to long-term effects from mRNA injections, extreme care should be taken when making a decision to participate in this experiment. mRNA platforms are new to humans with regard to mass injection programs in the context of viruses.

There is currently no way to predict potential detrimental outcomes with regards to SAE occurrences in the long-term.

Also, with regards to short-term analysis, this data is limited based on reporting that likely significantly underestimates actual events. (Source.)

I learned a few new things from Dr. Rose’s analysis.

She isolated the “breakthrough” cases of COVID recorded in VAERS. “Breakthrough” is the term they are using to describe people who come down with COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated.

According to Dr. Rose, 6% of all breakthrough cases resulted in death.

This is significant because one of the main reasons people are encouraged to get one of the experimental COVID shots is to prevent death. The drug companies have admitted that the injections are not proven to stop transmission of COVID, but supposedly the symptoms are supposed to be lessened among those getting the injections.

When 6% of those who get the shots end up dying with COVID, that challenges their claims. Dr. Rose did state that the statistics show that the majority of these deaths are among the elderly.

And there are statistically more breakthrough cases for the Pfizer shot, than the other two.

Of particular concern, were the “spontaneous abortions” immediately following the injections.

This was published on Dr. Rose’s YouTube channel.

If we were to embed it into this article and drive a lot of traffic to it, most likely YouTube would remove it, so we also have it on our Rumble and Bitchute channels.




COVID Vaccines May Not Work on Millions Who Have Underlying Conditions, Yet CDC Continues to Recommend They Get the Shot

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Emerging research shows that 15% to 80% of people with certain medical conditions aren’t generating many antibodies, if any, after receiving a COVID vaccine.

According to NBC News, people taking medications that suppress their immune system, those on medication for inflammatory disorders and those with blood cancers showed a significantly weaker antibody response to the vaccine.

An organ transplant study published in JAMA found 46% of 658 transplant patients did not mount an antibody response after two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. Researchers think the lack of reaction is probably a result of taking a class of immunosuppressive drugs, called antimetabolites.

“Although this study demonstrates an improvement in … antibody responses in transplant recipients after dose two … these data suggest that a substantial proportion of transplant recipients likely remain at risk for COVID-19 after two doses of mRNA vaccine,” researchers from Johns Hopkins wrote.

“I am quite disappointed that a significant amount of transplant patients did not get a reasonable response from both doses of the vaccine,” said Dr. Dorry Segev, author of the study, associate vice chair for research, and professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University.

“The overwhelming majority of transplant patients, even after a second dose of the vaccine, appear to have suboptimal protection — if any protection — from the vaccine, which is frightening, disappointing, and a bit surprising,” Segev said.

One of Segev’s trial participants, Laura Burns, received a double lung transplant in 2016 and was taking immunosuppressive medications to prevent her body from rejecting the new lungs. Despite two doses of Moderna’s vaccine, her body did not mount any detectable antibodies to the virus.

However, Segev said he was hopeful because the number of participants who developed antibodies after two doses were higher than the number of people who developed antibodies after just one dose. He and other researchers said scientists are prepared with potential solutions, including a third booster or high-dose shots — though no clinical trials have been conducted yet.

Mounzer Agha, a hematologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, led a study on blood cancers and COVID vaccines posted online before peer review. Agha said he was crushed when he saw the low antibody results for nearly half of the 67 patients his group tracked.

Patients on treatments that impact B-cell function appeared to have the weakest results, and those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia had a very weak response even if they were not undergoing treatment.

“When I found patients who had never received therapy still did not respond to the vaccine, that was very disheartening,” Agha said.

Current guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate those with compromised immune systems should be vaccinated for COVID, though “no data are available to establish COVID vaccine safety and efficacy in these groups.”

The agency’s website also states recipients should “be aware of the potential for reduced immune responses to the vaccine.”

People with compromised immune systems or those who take immunosuppressants for a medical condition were largely excluded from vaccine clinical trials.

“There are millions of Americans who are immunocompromised and the CDC has failed to tell us which categories of immunocompromised persons are not going to get any benefit from the vaccine,” said Dr. Meryl Nass, an internal medicine physician.

“Some of these people are on steroids, some are undergoing cancer treatments, some have immune disorders — so which of those people can safely or effectively be vaccinated is entirely unknown.”

Nass said it’s the responsibility of the CDC to determine the risks and benefits of every vaccine for different groups of people. “If you look at the contraindications for each vaccine, which is part of what the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices publishes, you will see that certain groups should not have certain vaccines for certain reasons,” Nass said.

For COVID vaccines, Nass said, the CDC has failed to publish that information, or tell the public which groups might be at a higher risk of suffering an adverse reaction that far outweighs any potential benefit.

“If you’re not going to gain immunity and you can’t protect yourself or the others around you, then why should you get it?” Nass asked.

Anecdotal evidence, including deaths among fully vaccinated, supports the study’s findings

On May 18, Wisconsin State Journal reported a 75-year-old Madison woman died from COVID after getting the illness more than a month after being fully vaccinated.

According to the woman’s sons, she was on immunosuppressant medications for chronic disease, and this is believed to be the underlying cause of her reduced vaccine protection.

“My thought is that the combination of … medications impaired her immune response to the vaccine, so she probably did not produce as many antibodies,” said Dr. Seth Kingree, the woman’s son, who works in West Virginia where he treats COVID patients.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services in Nebraska, a woman in her 80s with underlying medical conditions developed COVID and died more than 14 days after receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

Alan Sporn, owner, and president of Spornette International near Chicago died from COVID after being fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine. He had chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 2019, which did not require treatment.

In Dallas, Texas, a recipient of an organ transplant died from COVID after being fully vaccinated with a COVID vaccine.

On April 30, Dallas County health officials reported four people died from COVID after being fully vaccinated. All four breakthrough deaths occurred in people with underlying health conditions, and three of the four were immunocompromised or on immunosuppressant medication, reported NBC DFW.

“We really don’t know whether this group of patients developed a good immune response,” said Dr. Mezgebe, an infectious disease specialist at Baylor University Medical Center.

As The Defender reported May 14, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System showed that between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 7, there were a total of 192,954 total adverse events reported after COVID vaccination, including 4,057 deaths and 17,190 serious injuries.




Why COVID Vaccines Are Dream Come True for Central Banks

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

Primed by the media to equate COVID-19 injections with “escape from COVID-19’s long siege,” about half of U.S. adults (54%) have now accepted at least one dose of vaccine.

However, according to the latest CBS News poll, at least four in 10 Americans remain in the “maybe” or “no thanks” categories.

Though some media and medical and public health officials mock the uninjected as know-nothing rubes, the objections of so-called “vaccine holdouts” are far from uninformed or frivolous.

Reports of “rare” blood clots and other serious adverse events are emerging on an almost daily basis. As of April 26, 3,848 post-vaccine deaths had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Faced with widespread recalcitrance, health officials like Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have been upping their public relations offensive, including dangling the threat of COVID vaccine mandates.

This is unsurprising coming from a pharma-beholden and conflict-of-interest-riddled health agency like the NIH. But why are financial gurus like Jerome Powell, U.S. Federal Reserve chair — a wealthy lawyer and investment banker — also heavy-handedly making the COVID vaccines the centerpiece of their public prognostications?

In a recent 60 Minutes interview, Powell returned to the COVID jabs, again and again, trying to make the case that economic recovery depends on everyone getting vaccinated.

Powell’s preoccupation with COVID vaccines makes little sense — unless one recognizes the growing convergence of the financial, techbiopharmaceutical, and military-intelligence sectors, as well as the “global policy coordination” being engineered by private central banks.

Pilot programs that bundle biometric digital identity, vaccination and payment systems “into a single cohesive platform,” plus the aggressive worldwide push for “vaccine passports” that would make access to businesses and events contingent on proof of vaccination, provide a further hint of bankers’ ultimate vision: a surveillance-driven totalitarian system that uses new technologies to centralize economic flows — including controlling the ability to transact at the individual level.

Vaccines as operating systems

To understand central bankers’ aims, it is important to recognize that COVID has furnished a pretext for deploying waiting-in-the-wings vaccine biotechnologies that differ substantially from the already problematic lab techniques used to create earlier generations of vaccines.

This 21st-century vaccine paradigm draws on the exploding fields of biocomputing and synthetic biology, with the latter cheerfully defined as the redesign of an organism’s genetic code for “useful purposes.”

Dazzled by the endless vistas opened up by these technologies, proponents envision a rosy future filled with “programmable ‘smart vaccines’” — concoctions that would permit synthetic biologists to become the puppet masters of human biology.

Nowhere is this intention more apparent than in Moderna’s description of its messenger RNA (mRNA) technology platform. Moderna openly refers to its technology as an “operating system … designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs.” The company even suggests that the unique mRNA sequences it develops for vaccines be viewed as “apps.”

Mixed public reactions to this dispassionate language propelled Reuters, in February, to publish a fact check claiming that Moderna is referring to operating systems only “in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one.”

However, in a 2017 TEDx talk, Moderna chief medical officer Tal Zaqs’ earnest declaration that “we’re actually hacking the software of life” sounded anything but “metaphorical.” Stating that the genetic instructions transmitted by RNA are “critical information that determines what a cell will actually do,” Zaqs characterized his company’s mission as one of introducing or changing “lines of code” for the purposes of “information therapy.”

Other scientists engaged in “mRNA modifications” agree. However, while describing the approach as “powerful,” “dynamic” and “versatile,” they concede that “many aspects. . . remain elusive.”

In fact, despite the hubristic claims of Zaqs and other scientists that this genetic tinkering has no downside, the long-term risks are largely unknown.

Name of the game: centralization and control

Vaccine and drug manufacturers have interpreted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) decisions to grant Emergency Use Authorization to the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines as a signal the FDA “is open to broader use of the previously unproven [mRNA] technology.”

As a result, mRNA-focused companies are attracting billions in new capital. Reuters reported at least 150 mRNA vaccines and therapeutics are currently in development globally.

As pleased as these medical-pharmaceutical players may be to accrue additional funding and prestige, they are far from the sole beneficiaries of the new technologies’ rollout. Circling back to the centralizing aims of the world’s central bankers, British writer David O’Hagan said, “The combination of biocomputing within the body and external silicone-based technology is foundational to the implementation of transhumanism, a new data-driven economic system, and complete control.”

O’Hagan quotes former investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts, who has warned from the beginning of the pandemic that COVID vaccines are the equivalent of “human ‘operating systems.’”

Paired with the promotion and rollout of related surveillance technologies — including digital tracking devicesvaccine passportsbrain-machine interfaces, and planet-wide 5G — Fitts views the vaccines as one component of central bankers’ plan to establish a global control grid.

Addressing the topic of vaccine passports, author and tech company CEO Naomi Wolf cautioned their implementation would mean “literally the end of human liberty in the West.”

In the operating system framework, it is also clear the vaccines are not a matter of “one [or two] and done.” Pfizer’s CEO has already said not only will a third COVID injection “likely” be needed within 12 months of the two initial injections, but that annual coronavirus vaccines are a distinct possibility.

U.S. government contracts (jointly awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Defense) for monthly production of up to 330 million prefilled syringes ominously hint at plans for even more frequent “updates” to the operating system.

Unvaccinated individuals — in the U.S. and globally — likely have many different reasons for wanting to take a pass on COVID injections. Recognizing the vaccines have little to do with medicine or health and much more to do with centralization and control is an important step in pushing back against liberty-suffocating restrictions and central bankers’ vision of an all-powerful on-off switch controlling each person’s participation in the financial system and wider society.