Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (74)

Andrew McColl, 18th January, 2022

(From Geoffrey Bodkin’s Newsletter, 29th December)

            Why Were 2021 Autopsies Blocked by Authorities?

Number 79, December 29, 2021

Invalid Positives, Invalid Negatives, Invalid Science

As I have reported here on several occasions, every PCR test is invalid because it cannot accurately identify SARS CoV-2. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is finally admitting this.  Effective December 31, 2021, they are withdrawing the PCR test for COVID because the science was false from the day it was rolled out in February, 2020. The “test” is seriously flawed and is incapable of identifying or distinguishing between any two influenza viruses. The CDC has finally admitted that the PCR test cannot, and never could, identify SARS-CoV-2.  The announcement, being ignored by big media, is here:

You should print this out and show it to any authority asking you for, or demanding from you, a fresh PCR test.  

Why Have Authorities Resisted or Blocked Autopsies in 2021?

Two main reasons:  

a)  Because the artificially high number of “Covid” deaths was artificially created and elevated to induce fear.  Many so-labelled “Covid victims” died of other causes, which would have been discovered and recorded in autopsy reports.

b) Because so many people were dying of spike-protein vaccine injuries.  How many?  Columbia University’s study estimated some 400,000 Americans.  These fatal injuries would have been discovered in autopsies.  

German pathologist and professor Dr. Arne Burkhardt[1] has now penetrated the autopsy veil.  He applied his 40 years of experience in the field to examine 15 dead vaccinated patients.[2]  He moved forward with full autopsies.  As he examined tissues and organs, he proved that the vax was the common denominator which had caused the individuals’ bodies to self-destruct in a high percentage of the cases.  Only one showed no evidence of vaccine poisoning.

What he discovered:  A specific type of immune cell called a lymphocyte was found to have invaded various parts of the body, eventually causing early death.  Burkhardt has presented slides at the recent Covid Ethics Symposium showing that lymphocytes infiltrated the heart muscle in particular, causing systemic inflammation. The resulting lesions were small, “but the destruction of just a few muscle cells may have a devastating effect,” he warns.

“If the inflammatory infiltration is found where the impulse for the contraction of the heart is given, this may lead to heart failure,” he further said.

It was also discovered that a lymphocyte invasion occurred in other vital organs such as the liver, kidneys, uterus, brain, thyroid and skin, all of which showed signs of autoimmune damage.

Numerous presenters at the same symposium, including Dr. Peter McCullough, who has also long stood against the injections, revealed scientific evidence to support these and other claims.

McCullough has come out to say that Covid “vaccines” are the “most dangerous biological medicinal product rollout in human history.” He remains one of the most vocal opponents to the current agenda.

Some Important Lists for Your Files: 

Dead Pilots from Air Line Pilot Association

A list of deaths published in the Air Line Pilot Association magazine shows that most of the deaths in 2021 happened after the vaccines rolled out, at a 1,750% increase from 2020.

Dead Athletes, a Corroborated List

A former CIA-trained analyst checked the stories and found they were true.

Leg Amputations Following Vaccination

Did You Get the Spike Protein Injection?

There may be hope for remorseful vax recipients. The World Council for Health has released a spike protein detox guide, which provides straightforward steps you can take to potentially lessen the effects of toxic spike protein in your body. Spike protein inhibitors and neutralizers include pine needles, ivermectin, neem, N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and glutathione. The top 10 spike protein detox essentials include vitamin D, vitamin C, nigella seed, quercetin, zinc, curcumin, milk thistle extract, NAC, ivermectin and magnesium.  Please send the following link to those you know who have received the injection.

The Two-Tier Society 

“I think anything that encourages the vaccine-hesitant [to get the jab] is sensible,” said one UK Cabinet Minister, who then warned: “The mood in the country is hardening against people who refuse to be vaccinated.”

This hardening is happening all over the world, by deliberate policy. The non-vaxxed are being treated as criminals with no rights.  In Austria, the government is moving to criminalize every non-vaccinated citizen, including doctors.  But an open letter signed by 199 Austrian physicians and doctors has been sent to the President of the Austrian Medical Association

This highly significant number of doctors have accused their President of violating basic medical ethics by threatening colleagues who don’t comply with disciplinary sanction. They point out to him the duties by which physicians are bound.  It’s worth reading.


The mood in New York is also hardening against the unvaccinated.  On January 5th, the New York legislative session begins. Here are just a few of the bills awaiting passage:  

  • Forced COVID shot mandates,
  • forced database posting of all adult vaccine records,
  • forced COVID shots for college attendance,
  • forced flu shots to attend school, preschool and daycare,
  • elimination of religious exemptions for work and college,
  • elimination of parent parental consent to shots when a child reaches age 14,
  • and of course elimination of access to health insurance by the unvaccinated.
  • Assembly Bill A416 allowed the governor to imprison without trial anyone considered a threat to public health. But the sponsor of this bill has recently withdrawn it due to negative public resistance. 

Who Wants to be a Bounty Hunter?

Linz, Austria was the city chosen by Hitler to host his grand, international Art Museum of stolen art. The building was never built. Today Linz is cracking down on the unvaccinated, Gestapo-style.  They are recruiting a Covid police force. The job description says it will suit those who “take pleasure in working with legislation and administrative procedures.”

The assignment involves hunting down the unvaxxed, relentlessly, forcing them to get the jab or pay ongoing fines for refusing to do so.  Relentlessly.  The bounty hunters will punish the dissidents with punishments not yet made public.  

Austria is the first nation in Europe to have announced a sweeping vaccine mandate for all its citizens. Vienna was also the first in the world to impose a strict nationwide lockdown specifically for the unvaccinated in November, only for it to be expanded to also include the vaccinated citizens weeks later. The lockdown expired on December 12, but unvaccinated Austrians still remain banned from non-essential outings.

Do You Know Who the Fact-Checkers Are?

Back on November 9th, I directed readers to Brook Jackson’s stunning expose of the FDA and Pfizer for the suppression of alleged criminal activity and professional negligence in vaccine trials.   It was published in The British Medical Journal, which thoroughly corroborated her evidence of malfeasance, misconduct, falsification of data, the refusal to report adverse reactions, fabrication of data, and bribery of participants.  Before publication, there was a legal review of the article and a broad peer-reviewed examination of facts and science within the article.

Beginning November 10, many of you who tried to share the article ran into flags and warnings, like this one: “Missing context … Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” You were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.

The British Medical Journal has just written to Mark Zuckerberg to say, “We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.

— It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong

— It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”

— The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”

— It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article

— It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert.”

Do you realize just how dishonest, misleading, false and politicized big-tech “fact-checks” can be? Zuckerberg is now facing lawsuits for defamation.  However, his clever attorneys counter by asserting that the “fact check” was an “opinion,” not an actual check of facts and declaration of error. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.

Rutherford and His ‘Lex, Rex’ Are Still Vital for Today

“To oppose tyranny is to honour God. The office of the magistrate demands our respect, but we need not blindly respect the ruler in that office.”


A hugely significant figure in what is known as resistance theory is Samuel Rutherford, the Scottish theologian, pastor and political theorist. Especially of significance is his major contribution to political philosophy, Lex, Rex. This brief article will look a bit further at the man and the book.


  • 1600 Born in Roxburghshire
  • 1617-1621 A student at Edinburgh University
  • 1627 Parish work in Anworth in Galloway
  • 1636-1638 Exiled to Aberdeen
  • 1639 Professor of Divinity at St Mary’s College, St Andrews
  • 1643-1647 A Commissioner from the Church of Scotland to the Westminster Assembly
  • 1644 Lex, Rex published
  • 1651 Appointed Rector of the University of St Andrews
  • 1661 Dies

The Scottish Presbyterian pastor and writer is famous for many things, including his Letters. Spurgeon once said of them: “When we are dead and gone let the world know that Spurgeon held Rutherford’s Letters to be the nearest thing to inspiration which can be found in all the writings of mere men.” Indeed, there are tremendous devotional gems to be gleaned from them. Various volumes exist with some of these terrific quotes, including:Advertisement

MacLean, Malcolm, ed., The Fiery Edge of Love: A Collection of Quotes From Samuel Rutherford. Christian Heritage, 2021.
Wilson, Jim and Bessie, ed., The Loveliness of Christ: Selections from the Letters of Samuel Rutherford. Community Christian Ministries, 1909, 2018.

But it is his vitally important 1644 volume Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince, that is so very crucial in the debate and discussions of what rulers are allowed to do under God, and whether resistance to them is ever justified. His title refers to the biblical truth that the law is king, and is under the law of God. Even the king is subject to the law. It offers a theory of limited government and makes the case for constitutionalism – a very significant work in the history of political philosophy.

The book’s 44 questions are answered in great detail, comprising some 600 pages in the edition that I have. All this detail cannot be properly discussed here, so let me offer some general overviews and summaries of the book. I begin with two paragraphs from my chapter in Augusto Zimmermann’s important work, Fundamental Rights in the Age of COVID-19 (Connor Court, 2020):

Very simply stated, Rutherford argued that there are limits to monarchies, since everyone, from kings to the common man, are subject to the rule of law – God’s law. When a king or magistrate violates God’s law, he loses his authority, and people may then have the right to overthrow this ruler. Tyrannical governments are immoral and can and must be opposed. Indeed, tyrannic government is satanic government, and the believer must resist it. To oppose tyranny is to honour God. The office of the magistrate demands our respect, but we need not blindly respect the ruler in that office.

His important book of course deals with far more than the place of revolution against unjust authorities. It is a comprehensive discussion of key issues such as the rule of law, the case against royal absolutism, the importance of constitutionalism and limited government, and the nature of political theory based on biblical law and natural law. The book was certainly a volatile volume, and was later burned in Edinburgh. But it was hugely influential, not only in refuting the then widely-accepted notion of the divine right of kings, but paving the way for resistance to government tyranny, most notably as found in the American Revolution.

Rutherford was of course not thinking and writing in a vacuum but draws upon the thoughts of others (others who I have covered or will cover in this series on resistance thinking). A few quotes on this will suffice. Donald Macleod for example says this of the book:

Prima facie, it was Rutherford’s reply to a Royalist treatise from the pen of John Maxwell, the deposed Bishop of Ross, but it also had the more positive object of providing justification to the Parliamentary and Presbyterian campaign in the English Civil War. We must keep in mind, however, that in propounding his theology of resistance Rutherford was drawing on a long Scottish tradition going back to John major, John Knox, George Buchanan, Andrew Melville and Alexander Henderson. He was also drawing on a significant body of continental thought in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas. . . . Beyond that, he drew substantially on such early church fathers as Tertullian and Cyprian, and on Classical authors, especially Aristotle…

Or as Douglas Wilson recently wrote:Advertisement

Rutherford held that the people were the “fountain-power” of political authority, and that they were the ones who delegated this authority to the magistrates. He also demonstrated that when such authority was abused, the people had the authority to rescind that delegation. This kind of thinking was evident in Book IV of Calvin’s Institutes, in Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, which was the work of “Junius Brutus” (a 16th century French Huguenot), John Knox and the Scottish Presbyterians, Oliver Cromwell and company, the English Puritans, and, of course, Samuel Rutherford.

One more quote on this. John Coffey reminds us of this background:

Although it is true that Lex, Rex repeated the familiar arguments of English writers like Parker, Goodwin, Prynne and Hunton, it was also the distinctive contribution of a Scottish divine, peppered with references to Scottish resistance, and marked by explicitly theological arguments. Even Prynne, who dealt with biblical and natural-law arguments in some detail, had focused primarily on legal and historical precedents, and Rutherford probably felt that the theological case needed a fuller treatment. Maxwell had written his book because he felt that it was appropriate for a divine to put the case for absolutism, since it had already been convincingly argued by eminent lawyers like Bodin and Barclay, and since it was so strongly supported by Scripture and Christian tradition. Rutherford clearly could not let this go unchallenged. The natural-law contractualism of the Scottish-parliamentarian alliance needed to be defended by a theologian.

These are not old and arcane debates for old times. They are quite relevant for today. Indeed, given the past two years, they are even more relevant. Francis Schaeffer was someone who was greatly influenced by Rutherford, and he devoted several chapters of his important 1981 book, A Christian Manifesto to him. In it he says this about his continuing relevance:

Rutherford held that a tyrannical government is always immoral. He said that “a power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power, but a licentious deviation of a power; and is no more from God, but from sinful nature and the old serpent, than a license to sin.”

Rutherford presents several arguments to establish the right and duty of resistance to unlawful government. First, since tyranny is satanic, not to resist it is to resist God—to resist tyranny is to honor God. Second, since the ruler is granted power conditionally, it follows that the people have the power to withdraw their sanction if the proper conditions are not fulfilled. The civil magistrate is a “fiduciary figure”—that is, he holds his authority in trust for the people. Violation of the trust gives the people a legitimate base for resistance. 

It follows from Rutherford’s thesis that citizens have a moral obligation to resist unjust and tyrannical government. While we must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible.

Rutherford offered suggestions concerning illegitimate acts of the state. A ruler, he wrote, should not be deposed merely because he commits a single breach of the compact he has with the people. Only when the magistrate acts in such a way that the governing structure of the country is being destroyed—that is, when he is attacking the fundamental structure of society—is he to be relieved of his power and authority.

That is exactly what we are facing today. The whole structure of our society is being attacked and destroyed. It is being given an entirely opposite base which gives exactly opposite results. The reversal is much more total and destructive than that which Rutherford or any of the Reformers faced in their day.

Much more can be said about this great man and this great book. But hopefully this short piece – and the books recommended below – will inspire the reader to pursue this further.Advertisement

For further reading

There is a huge amount of literature on all this, so I offer a very brief and selective bibliography here. Various versions of Lex, Rex are available. The one I have is from Canon Press (2020), with an introduction by Douglas Wilson. As to other books worth perusing, see these:

Coffey, John, Politics, Religion and the British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford. Cambridge University Press, 1997, 2002.
Cook, Faith, Samuel Rutherford and His Friends. Banner of Truth, 1992, 2013.
Hewison, J.K., The Covenanters, 2 vols. Banner of Truth, 1908, 2019.
Macleod, Donald, Therefore the Truth I Speak: Scottish Theology 1500-1700. Mentor, 2020, chs. 8-9.
Rendell, Kingsley, Samuel Rutherford. Christian Focus, 2003.

Published by Bill Muehlenberg

Bill is involved in a ministry of pro-faith and pro-family activism. He is head of an apologetics/ethics ministry called CultureWatch.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (73)

Pharma’s War on Scientists to Mandate Jabs for Life

By Joseph Mercola December 30, 2021


  • Another cache of emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) reveals Dr. Anthony Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, colluded to quash dissenting views on the lockdowns
  • October 4, 2020, three medical professors — Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunetra Gupta from Oxford and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford — launched the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for focused protection of high-risk individuals rather than the continuation of blanket lockdowns
  • As support of the declaration rapidly spread, Fauci and Collins discussed how they could stop the call for a sane, science-based approach. In an email to Fauci, Collins wrote, “There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises”
  • The emails between Fauci and Collins are the smoking gun showing that it is they who are waging war against science
  • Despite having a combined annual budget of $58 billion, and a combined staff of 31,000, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH/NIAID have not yet conducted an actual study to determine how natural immunity stacks up against the COVID jab, likely because they don’t want to know the answer

The more we learn about Dr. Anthony Fauci, the worse he looks. The grandfatherly figurehead has now had two years in the limelight, urging people to “follow the science,” which he has shamelessly equated to his own ever-shifting opinion.

Another cache of emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) now reveals Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, colluded behind the scenes to quash dissenting views on the lockdowns.1

Fauci and Collins Conspired to Destroy Dissent

October 4, 2020, three medical professors — Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunetra Gupta from Oxford and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford — launched the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement anyone could sign onto that called for focused protection of high-risk individuals, such as the elderly, rather than the continuation of blanket lockdowns. AIER sponsored the declaration.

“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health,” the declaration stated. “Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

As support of the declaration rapidly spread, Fauci and Collins seemingly panicked, and discussed how they could possibly stop the growing call for a sane, science-based approach. In an October 8, 2020, email to Fauci, Collins wrote:2,3,4,5

“The proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention … There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises …”

“Don’t worry, I got this,” Fauci replied. Later, Fauci sent Collins links to newly published articles refuting the focused protection solution, including an op-ed in Wired magazine, and an article in The Nation, titled “Focused Protection, Herd Immunity and Other Deadly Delusions.” “Excellent,” Collins replied.

This correspondence is a real peek behind the curtain as to who Fauci and Collins really are. They’re not interested in debating scientific merit. Their go-to strategy is simply to demolish the opposition by any means necessary.Fauci and Collins are just ‘nasty bureaucrats who want to destroy anyone who challenges their power.’ ~ Daniel McAdams

Clearly, there’s nothing “fringe” about these scientists. Bhattacharya, for example, has conducted NIH-funded research for decades.6 If he’s a “fringe” scientist, why is Collins funding him?

As noted by Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Liberty Report (video above), behind the scenes, Fauci and Collins are just “nasty bureaucrats who want to destroy anyone who challenges their power … The scientific method does not involve, ‘Oh my gosh, that guy said something that contradicts me, I must destroy him.’”

Fauci’s War on Science

As noted by Jeffrey Tucker in a December 19, 2021, Brownstone article,7 the attacks on the declaration and its creators were particularly shocking considering “They were merely stating the consensus based on science and experience. Nothing more.”

Indeed, March 2, 2020, 850 scientists signed a letter8 to the White House warning against the use of lockdowns, travel restrictions and the closing of businesses and schools.

Fauci himself had even told a Washington Post reporter that “The epidemic will gradually decline and stop on its own without a vaccine”9 — a scientifically correct stance he’s since abandoned. According to Tucker, the emails between Fauci and Collins are the smoking gun showing that it is they who are waging war against science.

“What we find in these emails are highly political people who are obsessed not with science but with messaging and popular influences on the public mind,” Tuckerwrites.10

“What do we learn from these emails? The attacks on tens of thousands of medical professionals and scientists were indeed encouraged from the top. The basis for the attacks were not scientific articles. They were heavily political popular pieces.

This adds serious weight to the impression we all had at the time, which was that this was not really about science but about something far more insidious. You can discover more about this in Scott Atlas’s book on the topic [‘A Plague Upon Our House’]. These new emails confirm his account. It was an outright war on top scientists …

My own estimate is that the convinced advocates of lockdowns when they took place were probably fewer than 50 in the U.S. How and why they managed to grab hold of the reins of power will be investigated by historians for many decades.

The incredibly positive response to the Great Barrington Declaration, which has garnered 900,000 signatures in the meantime, demonstrates that there was and is still life remaining in traditional public health measures deployed throughout the 20th century and still respect for human dignity and science remaining among medical professionals and the general public.

This war on dissent against lockdowns is not only a scandal of our times. The lockdowns and now the mandates have fundamentally transformed society …

We seem ever more to be on the precipice of total disaster, one that will be difficult to reverse. It is urgent that we know who did this, as well as how and why, and take steps to stop it before more damage is done and then becomes permanent.”

Bhattacharya Speaks Out

When news of the Fauci-Collins collusion broke, Bhattacharya tweeted,11 “Now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path.”

According to Bhattacharya, Collins and Fauci cooked up the false counternarrative that focused protection would “let the virus rip” through populations with devastating effect. This erroneous talking point was then thrown at them again and again.

“When reporters started asking me why I wanted to ‘let the virus rip,’ I was puzzled,” Bhattacharya tweeted December 19, 2021.12 “Now I know that Collins and Fauci primed the media attack with the lie.

I was also puzzled by the mischaracterization of the GBD [Great Barrington Declaration] as a ‘herd immunity strategy,’ Biologically the epidemic ends when a sufficient number of people have immunity, either through COVID recovery or vax. Lockdown, let-it-rip, and the GBD all lead to that.

As Martin Kulldorff has said, it makes as much sense to say ‘herd immunity strategy’ as it does to say ‘gravity strategy’ for landing an airplane. The only question is how to land safely, not whether gravity applies.

So the question is how to get through this terrible pandemic with the least harm, where the harms considered include all of public health, not just COVID. The GBD and focused protection of the vulnerable is a middle ground between lockdown and let-it-rip.

Lockdowners like Collins & Fauci … could have engaged honestly in a discussion about it, but would have found that public health is fundamentally about focused protection … Instead, Fauci & Collins decided to smear Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, me and supporters of the GBD. They lied about the ideas it contains and orchestrated a propaganda campaign against us …

Fauci & Collins are silent about lockdown harms because they are culpable. The sad fact is that they won the policy war, they got their lockdowns, and now … own the harms. They cannot deny it. The GBD warned them.

They also cannot say that the lockdowns worked to suppress COVID. In the U.S., we followed the Fauci/Collins lockdown strategy and we have 800k COVID deaths. Sweden — more focused on protecting the vulnerable — did better and cannot be ignored …

[History] will judge those in charge of the COVID policy, and it will not judge kindly. [Collins] smears the GBD and its authors because he has no substantive argument left … Collins’ interview with Baier marks a sad end to an illustrious career, and I take no joy in saying so. Fauci should join him in retirement. They have done enough damage.”

Against Fading Odds, Fauci Tries to Keep Narrative Alive

The damaging character revelations emerge just as Fauci and President Biden struggle to whip up panic about Omicron to keep the need for pandemic countermeasures going. It’s a challenge, for sure, as most people have already realized that Omicron is no worse than a common cold.

During a December 19, 2021, CNN interview, Fauci stated that they “did not anticipate the extent of mutations” that occurred in Omicron.13 So, basically, despite sinking billions of dollars into research, scientists were unable to predict the mutations. That should tell us something.

Disturbingly, there’s now evidence suggesting Omicron might be yet another lab creation. In a recent Bannons War Room interview, Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,14 reviewed what we know so far about the Omicron variant.

As noted by Malone, the press has been talking about “everything except for the obvious, which is that this is a ‘vaccine’-escaped mutant.’” The variant appears highly resistant to the COVID shots, which is a sign of it having mutated within one or more COVID-jabbed individuals, yet the first recommendation from the mental giants in charge of COVID responses was to push COVID booster shots. This is as irresponsible and irrational as it is unscientific.

“The boosters are a perfect way to bias our immune system so we’re LESS able to respond to this new variant,” Malone explained. “This is [like] jabbing everybody with a flu vaccine from three seasons ago and expecting it to have effects against the current [flu strains].”

Omicron Emerged From Old 2020 Strain

As for the nature and origin of Omicron, Malone said:

“It has the hallmark of a viral agent under tight genetic selection for evolution to escape the ‘vaccine’ responses against the receptor bonding domain. The question that is outstanding right now is — because this is so different from the other strains that are being tracked; it’s in its own separate little evolutionary branch — how did this happen?”

What Malone is referring to is the fact that the closest genetic sequences to Omicron date back to mid-2020. It doesn’t seem to belong to any of the evolutionary branches that have emerged since.15 In the time-lapse graphic16 below, Twitter user Chief Nerd illustrates the genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 from the original strain until now, using data from

It’s a great illustration of just how odd an unnatural Omicron’s emergence really is. As the time-lapse gets toward the end of 2021, suddenly there’s Omicron, emerging like a straight line from a mid-2020 strain, having no semblance to any of the other strains. There’s no precedent for this oddity occurring in nature.

In all, Omicron is said to have some 50 mutations from the original Alpha strain, many of which specifically allow it to circumvent COVID shot-induced antibody defenses.

According to molecular biologist and cancer geneticist Philip Buckhaults, Ph.D.,18 Omicron has 25 nonsynonymous and only one synonymous spike mutation compared to its most recent common ancestor (AV.1). Were it a natural occurrence, that ratio ought to be somewhere between 25 to 50 and 25 to 100.

Until and unless we end up with conclusive proof of its origin, we need to keep all options open, Malone says, and that includes the possibility of Omicron being cooked up in a lab from a previous strain.

One plausible theory is that scientists enabled an early SARS-CoV-2 variant to build antibody resistance, possibly by passaging them through human or humanized cell lines in the presence of convalescent plasma.

Congressman Calls for Natural Immunity Study

December 14, 2021, a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis held a remote hearing in which they debated the need for an accelerated vaccination effort. In the outtake from that meeting (video above), Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, points out that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH/NIAID have a combined annual budget of about $58 billion, and a combined staff of 31,000.

With that kind of budget and an army of staff, why has the U.S. government not done a study to determine how natural immunity stacks up against the COVID jab? Jordan asked. The answer he received (from an, unfortunately, unidentified doctor) was refreshingly direct:

“I don’t think they want to know the answer,” because “it would undermine the indiscriminate vaccination policy for every single human being, including extremely low risk people.”

According to a Columbia University study, more than half the American population have now been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in one form or another, and have natural immunity, and according to an Israeli study, natural immunity is 27 times more effective than the COVID shot.19

So, why are government leaders and so-called health authorities still acting as though natural immunity is irrelevant and the only way to control the pandemic is through repeated injections with experimental — and clearly hazardous — gene transfer technology?

I believe the answer is they’re ignoring natural immunity because their primary objective and goal it to have everyone injected. They want everyone routinely jabbed so they can justify the rollout of health passports, which will become the foundation for an all-encompassing digital ID control system.

In short, our public health agencies have been hijacked and are carrying out an anti-human, anti-health agenda intended to enslave the public in a technocratic control grid.

There’s no doubt anymore that the vaccine passports will be expanded to encompass financial transactions and incorporate a social credit system. Together, all of these pieces will allow an unelected elite to control the lives of every person on the planet, down to the minutest details of our everyday lives.

While Fauci and Collins are certainly not alone in this effort, and likely not even close to the top of the technocratic food chain, they have played very important roles. It’s time to see them for who and what they are, and demand that they be held to account for their actions.

Sources and References

The Best of Joseph Mercola

Copyright © Dr. Joseph Mercola

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (72)

What are the Truly Verifiable Facts Surrounding Covid 19?

By David Skripac, Global Research, 14/12/2021

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.

Those words, uttered by two-time Nobel Prize-winning chemist and physicist Marie Curie, are as relevant today as they were in her era (1867–1934). With most of the planet under some form of medical martial law, we would do well to follow her advice: understand more and fear less about the pandemic. The way to do that is to establish the verifiable, scientific facts about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and separate those facts from the fiction being touted by a fear-mongering news media. Only then will we stop surrendering our inherent freedoms to COVID-19 propaganda.

Fiction #1: Wearing a face mask will protect you and others from the coronavirus.

Fact #1: Contrary to what many medical and government officials tell us, there is no evidence to support the claim that face masks—whether N95, surgical, or cloth—protect the wearer from any virus. These so-called “medical experts” usually reference a purportedly scientific publication to support their claim. However, when the studies they point to—namely, in The Lancet and from the Mayo Clinic—are put under closer scrutiny, they fail to pass one crucial test: they never used a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). Reputable scientists consider the RCT the Holy Grail when it comes to conducting a study on a large group of people, because it eliminates the possibility of any population bias in the testing.

When we look at trials that have used the RCT method to analyze the efficacy of face masks, we find starkly different results from those that have not.

For instance, an exhaustive dental study conducted in 2016 revealed that disposable surgical face masks are incapable of providing protection from respiratory pathogens.

Then there was the study conducted this past February by Long Y, Hu T, Liu, et al., titled “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza.” It involved a total of six RCTs and 9,171 participants. The study concluded that “the current meta-analysis shows the use of N95 compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staffs those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.” 

Even the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has done studies on face masks by correctly using RCTs. In one report, titled “Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol.26, No.5” and published in May 2020, the CDC did ten Randomized Controlled Trials before concluding, “Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect against accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

As for those people who wear a cloth mask in the belief that “it’s better than wearing nothing,” a RCT conducted in 2015 showed that cloth masks do not work at all. In actuality, a cloth mask puts the wearer at increased risk of respiratory illness and viral infections.

In light of the plethora of available science on face masks, it is heartening to see that some governments are making rational decisions based on that science. In the Netherlands, for example, officials are refusing to mandate mask-wearing in public.

                                                                                                                                                    In the end, the face mask should be viewed as a device used by authoritarians to control the masses and enforce compliance to lawless edicts. The mask lulls wearers into feeling protected from biological harm. Meanwhile, the real harm being done to them is psychological and spiritual. By submitting to mandatory face-covering orders based on flawed science and imposed by either unelected-but-politicized medical officials and technocrats or elected-but-compromised politicians who hold positions in all levels of government—these mask wearers don’t realize that they’re handing over their precious liberties, their individuality, and even, one might say, their very souls to soulless tyrants.

Fiction #2: Scientists have isolated and purified the SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus.

Fact #2: To date, not a single team of scientists has isolated and purified the SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus. Some researchers claim to have done so. But when their findings are scrutinized, they fall short. Just as Randomized Controlled Trials are required to do accurate studies of the efficacy and safety of medical devices like face masks or products such as prescription drugs, so, too, is there a major benchmark that must be satisfied if one is to prove that he has indeed correctly identified and isolated a virus.

That benchmark has been, since 1890, a set of principals known as the Koch postulates, named after famed German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch. All researchers must apply his four postulates if they are to prove or disprove a cause-and-effect relationship between a pathogen and a particular clinical disease.

For example, in February 2020, Chinese and Dutch researchers published studies purporting to show that they had isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus by satisfying all of the Koch postulates. Four months later, however, freelance writer Armory Devereux and molecular biologist and researcher Rosemary Frei revealed the truth about those studies in an Off-Guardian article. Their heavily investigated and well-documented piece confirms that the Chinese and Dutch researchers did not fulfill Koch’s third postulate, which involves replicating or cloning the DNA to form a new copy of the virus and then injecting that new copy into a significant number of living hosts (usually lab animals) with the intent to reproduce the same discrete diagnostic symptoms associated with the virus. In fact, Frei discovered, after reviewing numerous research papers from all over the world, that not a single group of scientists was able to replicate or clone the DNA to form a new copy of the virus. In short, they failed to meet Koch’s third postulate.

Another team of investigative journalists, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, wrote an equally comprehensive article on the same subject for Off-Guardian. They, too, concluded that there is not a single research paper out there demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been successfully isolated and finally purified. In addition, Engelbrecht and Demeter discovered that “there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.” In other words, by not successfully fulfilling all of Koch’s postulates, scientists have thus far not proven the existence of any new coronavirus.

This is why molecular biologist Dr. Andrew Kaufman has suggested in numerous interviews—on The Highwire and The Last American Vagabond and elsewhere—that the current coronavirus is not a new disease. Dr. Kaufman submits, moreover, that the particles scientists say they are looking at through their electron microscopes are perhaps not the virus at all but are, rather, exosomes being produced by the body. These exosomes, containing the same genetic material as a virus, are naturally produced by the human body as a defence mechanism in response to an external attack by a toxin emanating from our polluted environment. This would be a possible explanation as to why the “pandemic” started in China’s Wuhan province. This area of China is one of the most polluted places on earth. In Wuhan, the ecosystem in all its glorious biodiversity has been utterly destroyed by man-made pollutants and the heavy use of glyphosate in industrial farming.

Besides pollution, there is yet another plausible explanation as to why this particular coronavirus (if it exists, which some reputable experts highly doubt) may have possibly started in Wuhan. The internationally funded Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has proven financial ties to the US government and is known for its poor safety standards, was involved in dangerous gain-of-function research to make bat viruses more lethal to humans. Several disturbing studies conducted by the lab “successfully” combined animal and human virus traits in ways that made them more dangerous to humans. This description of the institute’s research raises many questions. At present, there is not enough evidence to prove whether a pathogen was either intentionally released by the lab or was accidentally leaked into the environment. And, even if a virus was intentionally released into the environment as a bioweapon, the developers of this weapon did not do a good job. As we will see in the last fiction versus fact (below), this coronavirus has had virtually the same global infection fatality rate as the average seasonal flu. If anything, the influenza virus of 2017 was far more lethal than this year’s coronavirus.

Finally, this brings us to the multi-billion-dollar question on the virus isolation issue: If scientists have not properly identified the virus or the RNA gene sequences associated with the virus, how on earth are the vaccine companies developing a mRNA vaccine against a novel coronavirus, and what exactly will be in this vaccine? Perhaps this is why the initial vaccine trials conducted by biotech company Moderna, the US vaccine front-runner, and AstraZeneca, which leads the British Oxford Vaccine Group, have been unsatisfactory.

Fiction #3: The Reverse Transcriptase quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) test is the best way to diagnose a patient with COVID-19.

Fact #3: The PCR test, which is currently being used by every nation to test for COVID-19, was initially designed by Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Kary Mullis. From its inception, the PCR was, and still is, a thermal cycling method used to replicate billions of copies of a specific DNA sample. Simply put, the PCR makes the DNA large enough so that scientists can study it. Although Mullis unexpectedly passed away in August 2019, we know what his thoughts were when it came to using his test as a diagnostic tool, thanks to an invaluable interview he did in 1994 with investigative journalist Celia Farber. The interview leaves no doubt that Mullis argued against using the PCR as a diagnostic tool for detecting viruses.

Granted, the PCR test is capable of detecting even the minutest piece of DNA or RNA, but this is meaningless if scientists have not determined what specific RNA sequences they are actually searching for. And, in light of Fact #2, which established that no correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has been executed, the PCR test is scientifically illogical.

That the PCR test is being misused, either unwittingly or wittingly hence fraudulently, on COVID-19 diagnoses cannot be overstated. According to the aforementioned Off-Guardian article by Torsten Engelbrecht, “it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with. This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be validated to determine their ‘sensitivity’ and ‘specificity’—by comparison to a ‘gold standard,’ meaning the most accurate method available.” Engelbrecht makes clear that, to date, there is no valid gold standard for the PCR test because, thus far, no one has isolated and purified the alleged virus. Only unequivocal proof of the existence of a new SARS-CoV-2 can be considered the gold standard.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise when we find that the PCR test is plagued with outcomes that can indicate “false negatives” of up to 20 percent or “false positives” of up to an outrageous 70 percent! Both the US CDC and the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) are well aware that the PCR test has some major pitfalls. The CDC, for instance, states that “this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” Meanwhile, the FDA has reviewed and summarised, for Accelerated Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) purposes, Laboratory Corporation of America’s LabCorp COVID-19 RT-PCR test and has slapped on it a warning label: “This test has not been FDA cleared or approved.” In the same summary, the FDA explains that “the agent detected may not be the definite cause of the disease.”

Given everything we now know about the inaccuracy of the PCR test, why is the World Health Organization (WHO) still insisting that every nation continue testing as many people as possible with this method?

Could it be because the entire narrative about the “pandemic” is riding on the distorted PCR test results? Could it also be that the very high “false positive” rate perfectly fits an agenda of inflating the infection case numbers (not the mortality numbers) so as to instil fear into the minds and hearts of as many people as possible?

Could it be that injecting fear into the population enables the technocrats and their pawns to continue the draconian stay-at-home lockdowns and economically devastating business shutdowns and the ridiculous containment measures (such as physical distancing) and other punitive restrictions (e.g., fourteen-day quarantines after travel, even when the travel is a simple car trip between adjoining US states)? Could it be that they are purposely placing the lives of millions of people under enormous stress and in precipitous poverty?

Is this all part of a behaviour modification process that will make it easier for social engineers (technocrats) to completely redesign society so that the distribution of all goods and services to the entire population and the consumption of energy by that population will be orchestrated by a select few self-appointed “experts”?

Technocracy News & Trends’ researcher/writer Patrick Wood lays out a plausible explanation for this scenario in his recent interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola. In it, Wood notes that the technocracy movement, which started in the early twentieth century, “was always an economic movement, not a political system.” The destruction of the global economy, the removal of everyone’s inherent freedoms, the elimination of national sovereignty, and the accumulation of layers and layers of rules and regulations based on unsubstantiated science are ingredients that constitute the perfect recipe for any technocrat whose goal is to completely redesign society and implement an entirely new economic system.

Fiction #4: A “second wave” of new COVID-19 cases has already started in the United States.

Fact #4: There is no “second wave” of COVID-19 cases, nor will there be a “third wave.”

Sure, at first glance, it would appear that states like South Carolina, Nevada, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California are indeed experiencing a huge surge in new COVID-19 cases. Upon second glance, though, we find two factors that explain this unnatural phenomenon.

First, what the media assiduously avoids mentioning is that in June these very same states undertook major campaigns to screen a vast swath of their populace with the PCR test—a viral assay that is employed not as an accurate diagnostic tool but, rather, as a means of inflating positive case counts.

While it is true that not all of the positive cases fall into the category of “false positive,” it is equally true, as Fact #2 makes clear, that the PCR assay detects even the minutest particle of RNA associated with any virus. Thus, the test can detect people who have developed antibody T-cells to any previous coronavirus or who are asymptomatic. Either way, these individuals are automatically classified as COVID-19 cases. How convenient for the pandemic-pushers! Such a generous classification means that even those patients undergoing elective surgery who happen to test positive during the hospital admission process are categorised as “hospitalised with COVID-19.”

John Thomas Littell, MD, a family physician in Ocala, Florida, wrote an astute letter to the editor of the Orlando Medical News, in which he perfectly summarises the COVID-19 data manipulation:

“So, in essence, any person with an influenza-like illness (ILI) could be considered a ‘case’ of COVID-19, even WITHOUT confirmatory lab testing.  The CDC has even advised to consider any deaths from pneumonia or ILI as ‘COVID-related’ deaths—unless the physician or medical examiner establishes another infectious agent as the cause of illness.

“Now perhaps you see why the increasing number of cases, and even deaths, due to COVID-19 is fraught with misinterpretation and is NOT in any way a measure of the ACTUAL morbidity and mortality FROM COVID-19.”

Second, the news media rarely, if ever, mentions the all-important point that, although cases may be on the rise, the rates of mortality allegedly caused by the supposed new coronavirus are actually decreasing in the US, just as they are in the rest of the world.

How could that be? Because this non-novel, run-of-the-mill virus is on its way out. In reality, the states that were hit first at the start of the year—predominantly northern states like WashingtonOhio, and New York—were also the first to experience a consistent downward trend in mortality rates, commencing around mid-to-late April.

(See the Worldometers website, which, despite its bloated fatality numbers, is nevertheless a good source for interpreting trends in mortality rates.) States in warmer climates, such as CaliforniaArizonaTexas, and Florida, are only now, in mid-to-late-summer months, reaching their peak daily death rates. Soon they, too, will begin to show a decline in mortality rates.

                                                                                                                                                       Why is there a difference in the timing of these peaks and descents among the states? It just means that for any number of reasons—for instance, a variation between individuals in their susceptibility to infection and their propensity to infect others—different regions of the country have reached the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) at different times. The HIT is the percentage of the population that needs to be immune in order to prevent the disease from spreading. This value varies among not only regions but nations as well. It is usually around the 10 percent to 20 percent mark for the seasonal flu—meaning that once the HIT value passes 20 percent, the rate of new infections starts to decline until the virus is extinguished.

In January 2020, health officials and scientists originally thought that the HIT value for COVID-19 was going to be over 60 percent. But after five months a very different picture emerged. From a team of international research scientists who released a paper on herd immunityin late July, we learn that the global HIT this year was in the aforementioned 10–20 percent range. And thanks to the intrepid research done by J.B. Handley, a frequent contributing writer to the Children’s Health Defense websitewe now know that the HIT value for COVID-19 in the US this year has also been in the 10-20 percent range, just like any seasonal flu. Hence, we can conclude from this data that over 70 percent of the population has already developed a natural immunity to the virus from previous exposure to corona-type viruses.

                                                                                                                                                   All of this proves that our complex and beautifully designed immunity system, which produces killer T-cells and antibodies to fight off all viruses for the purpose of building herd immunity, is doing exactly what it has been doing for the past 200,000 years. Not incidentally, most of those years were before vaccines were dreamed up, developed, and brought to market. Had this not been the case, the human species would have vanished off the face of the earth long ago.

Despite the empty rhetoric of our politicians, we now know that the draconian, counterproductive lockdown measures (read: the shutdown of the global economy) imposed by local, state, provincial, and national governments (read: and their technocrat handlers) have nothing to do with defeating the spread of the virus. If anything, the mandatory lockdowns only postpone the day when herd immunity is inevitably reached. Even New Zealand, which completely closed itself off from the rest of the world at the start of the fake pandemic, was simply delaying its day of reckoning.

If one wanted to delay a society from reaching herd immunity from the flu for as long as possible, one would do the following to everyone (including healthy people, who have no comorbidities): impose strict, lengthy quarantine measures after travel, isolate even non-travellers in their homes for most hours of the day, enforce physical distancing rules, require the use of face masks, close everything from beaches and amusement parks and stadiums to restaurants and hair salons and, God forbid, churches and temples and mosques! Oh, and shut down schools. As we have seen, this is exactly what the political and medical “rulers”—including fake philanthropists—of most countries did, to their barely suppressed delight and to everyone else’s dismay.

A country that stands in stark contrast to this stalling tactic is Sweden. It has refused to participate in the total lockdown strategy. Instead, from the first, it allowed herd immunity to build up naturally. Yet Sweden’s HIT value is at 14 percent—in the same range as the nations that did impose lockdowns. By keeping its economy open and isolating only its vulnerable citizens (the elderly and people with comorbidities), Sweden was the only major economy in the world that grew in the first quarter of the year. Meanwhile, according to the data collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the US decreased 34.3 percent, or $2.15 trillion, in the second quarter, to a level of $19.41 trillion. This is the most devastating collapse in GDP ever recorded.

The GDP drop doesn’t take into account the incalculable human losses—the slide into poverty, the despair, the mental breakdowns, the suicides—that the cruelly counterproductive lockdown has created. Commenting on these detrimental effects, Stanford University’s 2013 Chemistry Nobel Laureate Dr. Michael Levitt said in an interview: “There is no doubt in my mind that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by the lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor.”

Fiction #5: The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for COVID-19 is far greater than the seasonal influenza.

Fact #5: The IFR is the ratio of deaths attributed to a disease divided by the number of actual infections. Unique to COVID-19, the IFR includes both confirmed and undiagnosed cases, as perversely directed by the CDC. Family physician Dr. Scott Jensen, who is also a Minnesota state senator, explains in an interview on Fox News that this practice of combining both diagnosed and undiagnosed cases is simply a tool to “game the numbers” so that the government can conveniently inflate the death toll and scare the public into believing COVID-19 is more deadly than it actually is.

(Aside: Jensen’s refreshing candor stands in stark contrast to the apparent go-along-to-get-along mentality of the many doctors who remained silent when he sounded the alarm over the health authorities’ suspicious-sounding instructions. Not that Jensen is without equally courageous colleagues. In fact, he belongs to a new group of more than 600 physicians who call themselves America’s Frontline Doctors and who are calling out US authorities for suppressing information about and access to the coronavirus-slaying drug Hydroxychloroquine. Their July 27th press conference video from the steps of the US Supreme Court went viral before being banned across all social media platforms.)

In the developed world, the Infection Fatality Rate for a seasonal influenza is 0.1–0.2 percent. Bizarrely, the WHO’s initial estimate in March 2020 pegged the IFR for COVID-19 at 3.4 percent. We have since learned, from the meticulous serological studies done by Stanford University epidemiologist and professor of medicine Dr. John Ioannidis (and from many other equally scrupulous scientists around the world), that the global average for COVID-19 is actually about 0.2 percent—in line with the seasonal flu and vastly lower than the WHO’s 3.4 percent gross overestimate. In light of this scientific fact, we must ask the obvious question: Why do we need a global vaccine regimen imposed on everyone for a virus that has the same low fatality rate as the seasonal flu?

Though Dr. Ioannidis’ study was published in late May, he had determined as early as April—after analysing twelve separate IFR studies conducted by researchers around the world—that the IFR for COVID-19 was in the range 0.07 to 0.2 percent. In addition, one month after his conclusion was published, the US CDC admitted that the overall IFR rate is just 0.26 percent. Yet even this number is slightly high. For when the CDC calculates the mortality rate, it includes both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19. The CDC announcement should have caused every government to pause and rethink their restrictive, hurtful strategies. But nothing changed. Instead, this desperately needed perspective from the world’s leading scientists never even made headlines. Why? Apparently it fit neither the official narrative of COVID-19’s dangers nor the promises being made by “public health expert” Bill Gates of the wonders of the coming anti-COVID-19 vaccine.

Cui Bono?

From the inception of this manufactured crisis, way back in January 2020 (which now feels like a lifetime ago!) the stated purpose for the lockdown measures was to “flatten the curve” so that hospitals everywhere would not be overwhelmed by the inevitable wave of incoming COVID-19 patients. Governments around the world did exactly that: they flattened the curve to the point of destroying the lives of millions of people and ruining their own national economies.

Strange, isn’t it, that apparently very few hospitals, including in big cities, have been overrun by patients. Take for example, the Berlin hospital that a German journalist walked through at the height of the pandemic, only to discover, to his surprise, that no one was there. Or check out what citizen journalists were video recording in supposedly maxed-out-with-patients hospitals around the US. Incidentally, this Dana Ashlie video, which can be seen on BitChute, was banned from YouTube for purportedly violating Terms of Service. (Translation: Facts that contradict the pandemic propagandists’ fakery mustn’t be seen or heard by the general public, lest their fear of a virulent, fatal disease be deflated like a popped balloon.)

Strange, too, that many so-called COVID-19 cases were anything but. Consider, for example, the situation in Italy, where “only 12 per cent of the death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity—many had two or three.”

Strange, too, that in New York State, all the cases deemed to be COVID-19 were elderly patients who were removed from hospitals and dumped in nursing homes, where neglect and overcrowding and even the emotional toll produced by loneliness and fear resulted in many sickeningly sudden and sad deaths.

And isn’t it especially strange that one of the most obvious outcomes of flattening the curve was the loss of everyone’s constitutional, civil, medical, parental, and religious rights? It was as if there had been a plan all along to dispense not only with lives, but also with rights—including the right to dissent!

Now here we are, months later, still being bombarded by scary scenarios. Every major news outlet pounds us with fear-mongering predictions of second and third waves. The engineered-to-skyrocket cases of COVID-19 in the US are dominating the headlines. Some state governors and state and county health authorities and privately owned establishments are imposing ever-more-onerous rules regarding face masks and physical distancing—rules they realize would never pass the legal smell test in normal times, much less in a court of law. Meanwhile, the same dictators are doubling down on their innocent-sounding “let’s all get tested” message.

As the above five facts have shown, all of these public health measures are based on unsubstantiated science. Moreover, we have not even begun to feel the long-lasting economic effects of the “pandemic.” In the coming months and years, our national economies will become much more precarious. Is it possible that we already cash-strapped citizens will be ordered to pay back the billions of dollars that have been divvied out to us by our Big Brother governments?

In some places, lockdowns may be gradually easing. But the relief measures being implemented have not helped the countless mid-sized and small business owners who have, one by one, decided to board their doors and close up shop forever. They are suffering twice-over: they must watch their own families be penalized and at the same time feel guilty for having to bid farewell to their employees, who by the millions are looking for non-existent jobs and standing in long unemployment lines. As layoffs keep mounting, nations are facing a massive fiscal crisis at the very time when their badly needed tax revenues are disappearing. In the near future, national governments will be forced to hand over entire sectors of the economy to their creditors, such as Goldman Sachs and BlackRock. In the end, private financial oligarchies will literally own the US and other nations, further eviscerating the concept of national sovereignty.

So, why are we being forced to travel down this rocky road? One possible explanation could be that many governments may consider it political suicide to admit that their approach has been wrong. Thus, instead of immediately correcting their course of action, they are incrementally shifting gears. But could there be something far more sinister at play here? Could this entire “pandemic” be a gigantic smokescreen designed to conceal the diabolical actions of the globalist technocrats, whose agenda is to literally create, possess, and control a single worldwide economy and a single worldwide government?

If we follow the money trail, we can determine who some of the possible beneficiaries of such a fiendish agenda could be.

To begin, let’s look at the financial sector. Since the US mortgage and market crash of 2008, none of the mechanisms that allowed the crash to occur have been removed. True, for the past twelve years, the stock market has appeared to recover. In reality, though, the market is the opposite of healthy. It has been surviving mainly on stock buybacks by companies that have been using some of their profits to buy their own stocks in order to prop up prices. This scheme has provided the illusion that the economy is thriving. But the stock market’s action is not an absolute indicator of the real economy’s production and consumption.

Indeed, by the summer of 2019 it had become evident that not even the stock buyback strategy was going to keep the lumbering economy alive. Thus, as a short-term solution, the New York Federal Reserve last September started injecting billions of dollars into the stock market in the form of short-term loans (repos).  While the intent was to keep the stock market chugging along, the effect was more like kicking an empty tin can down the road for as long as possible until finally the road ends. Eventually, a long-term solution would have to be found to reset the entire world economy. Enter the “shadow bank” BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with over $7 trillion dollars in assets under direct management and another $20 trillion managed through its Aladdin risk-monitoring software.

In a statement released in August 2019 on Bloomberg News, BlackRock observed that “the current policy space for global central banks is limited and will not be enough to respond to a significant, let alone a dramatic, downturn.” To solve this problem, BlackRock hired former central bankers from the US, Canada, and Switzerland. Their orders were to devise a plan that would enable BlackRock to expand its role in the global fiscal and monetary policy arena by blurring the lines between government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy. The plan was due by the end of August.

Are we surprised that the COVID-19 crisis precipitated the very dramatic downturn to which BlackRock alluded mere months earlier? Hardly. Both the pandemic and the ensuing stock market crash have presented the perfect opportunity for BlackRock and other central banks to take full control of global monetary policy. The economic reset that the globalists have been talking about since 2014, both at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)—and, more recently, in June 2020, at the World Economic Forum (WEF)—is now well underway.

After the market crashed in late February, the Federal Reserve came out with a $10 trillion USD bailout package, of which $454 billion is to be administered by BlackRock under the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). In other words, this money from taxpayers to the government will be used to directly buy stocks, bonds, junk bonds, mortgages, and junk mortgages from Wall Street investment firms. These purchases are designed to inflate the value of stock market assets. In the US, some 85 percent of these assets are held by the richest 10 percent of Americans. BlackRock has also been hired by the Bank of Canada and Sweden’s central bank, Riksbank, to implement their respective stimulus plans.

Keep in mind that none of this money will be fueling real economic activity. None of it will be used to help millions of people revive their small businesses and improve their living standards. It is, pure and simple, a bailout package for the players in the global stock market. It provides the illusion that the Main Street economy is on the mend. Governments claim the stimulus money will be used to build the means of production and help small business. Truthfully, the exact inverse is occurring: the largest redistribution of wealth in human history is taking place, which will only increase the gap in income inequality throughout the world.

Although there is no “smoking gun” to definitively prove that the COVID-19 pandemic was the pre-planned pretext for launching the much-vaunted “Great Reset,” the timing is nonetheless too coincidental to ignore.

Now, let’s look at another group that could massively gain from this supposed pandemic: the pharmaceutical industry. If this industry, with Bill Gates at its helm, successfully launches its campaign to vaccinate every person on the planet against SARS-Cov-2, the drug-and-vaccine-makers could potentially rake in tens of billions of dollars.

Big Pharma holds tremendous sway in the political realm—both internationally and domestically. In mid-April, President Donald Trump announced that the US would be ending its financial support for the World Health Organization, which he accused of “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.” In previous years, the top funder for WHO had been the US government, followed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The third-biggest donor to WHO was Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance. Thus, if Trump’s move to defund that international body goes through, it will elevate both the Gates Foundation and Gates’s GAVI to the top of the global health pyramid. This would further tighten Bill and his wife Melinda’s already firm grip on WHO and thus strengthen their ability to formulate global “health” policy.

As if further signalling its disdain for WHO, in early June the Trump administration boosted its support for GAVI with a donation of a $1.16 billion USD (again, taxpayer dollars) via the first-ever virtual Global Vaccine Summit. That huge sum stands in stark contrast to the US government’s modest contributions to WHO of $401 million in 2017 and $281.6 million in 2018.

During the same summit, GAVI received from many other nations large contributions that totalled $8.8 billion USD. (The Rockefeller Foundation, which has numerous ties to the vaccine agenda, kicked in $5 million of that sum.) These injections of liquidity—ominously reminiscent of the injections of liquid that are known as vaccines—will provide GAVI with all of the funding it needs for the purpose of pushing the global vaccine agenda on governments and for maintaining its role in “public-private partnerships” with governmental bodies and private companies.

For those of us who may not be conversant with the lobbying process, here’s how it works across national borders. Because neither Bill Gates nor his foundation can directly lobby a foreign government, being a founding partner of GAVI enables Gates to seek out and hire representatives in targeted nations who will lobby on behalf of his interests.

In Canada, for instance, GAVI has hired Crestview Strategy, an Ottawa-based lobbying firm that specialises in shaping government policy by speaking directly to the Canadian government’s key decision-makers and opinion leaders.

The government relations page on Crestview’s website defines its mission thusly:

“Crestview Strategy effectively represents the interests of corporations, not-for-profits and industry associations to achieve results with governments around the world.”

While representing “the interests of corporations, not-for-profits and industry associations” in pushing the vaccine message on behalf of GAVI, has Crestview crossed an ethical threshold? In other words, has there been any collusion between Gates proxy Crestview and the Canadian government? Or is it pure coincidence that Prime Minister Trudeau shares Bill Gates’s view that only a mass vaccination program will allow populations to return to lives of normalcy?

It depends who you ask and what they know. Journalists at Canuck Law, an independent media outlet that investigates political corruption in Canada, answer “yes” to collusion and “no” to pure coincidence. Canuck Law researchers dug up the fact that Crestview Strategy employs two former Liberal Party associates, Jason Clark and Zakery Blais, to lobby the Canadian government on behalf of GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance. These two Liberal Party operatives-turned-lobbyists met with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) staff—the chief of staff, the director of policy and planning, a policy advisor, and a special assistant—as well as with members of Parliament on at least nineteen occasions between March 2018 and January 2020 to push the GAVI vaccine message. Records show that a third Crestview employee, Jennifer Babcock, who has since left the firm, lobbied the government for GAVI just one time.

Canuck Law explains: “These are just 20 reports that are on file with the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. It’s fair to assume that there have been many, many more talks that aren’t documented.” It therefore comes as no surprise that Ottawa has thus far shelled out some $800 million for Gates’s global vaccine agenda and that PM Justin Trudeau constantly refers to society as living in “the new normal until a vaccine is found.”

In the US government, the level of corruption among vaccine promoters is more entrenched and insidious. Big Pharma far outpaces all other industries in spending on lobbying in Washington, D.C. In 2019, for instance, it spent twice as much on lobbying as the oil and gas industry and almost three times more than the defense industry. There are more pharmaceutical industry lobbyists than the 435 representatives in the House and the 100 US senators combined. Drug-and-vaccine-makers and their industry associations and paid corporate lobbyists aim to influence any and all related legislation and regulations. They also seek preferential treatment through campaign contributions. No wonder the State of Tennessee has already mandated that students are required to get the COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available. No wonder, too, that the Trump administration on July 31st handed over $2.1 billion in taxpayer money to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Sanofi to expedite further COVID-19 vaccine development.

The Total Surveillance Grid is Forming

Now that we have seen who some of the financial winners are in this orchestrated pandemic, let’s examine how the know-it-all technocrats and parasitic, predator globalists plan to monitor and track our every move.

Their total surveillance grid, hiding in plain sight behind the COVID-19 scamdemic, is being tested in West Africa before it is rolled out in the rest of the world. Here, the Gates-tied GAVI and Mastercard and the AI-powered “identity authentication” company Trust Stamp have joined forces in the effort to link a biometric digital identity system, vaccination records, and a “cashless” payment system all into a single platform.

Under this alliance, Mastercard’s Wellness Pass program will be integrated into Trust Stamp’s biometric identity platform. The Wellness Pass will thus be capable of providing biometric identity information on any person, even in areas of the world lacking internet access or cellular connectivity. Moreover, the Wellness Pass will also be linked to an individual’s cashless payment system. This could potentially provide authorities with the ability to block a person’s account if he does not abide by certain mandates regarding health measures. Such massive surveillance and control are eerily similar to China’s “social credit” system.

This entirely new Trust Stamp platform will be coupled with the COVID-19 vaccination program, if and when a vaccine becomes available, through a COVI-PASS, the brand name for a digital health passport, which authorities will automatically download (push) to your device. The COVI-PASS, which was developed by British cybersecurity company VST Enterprises in partnership with several other tech firms, is slated to be rolled out in fifteen countries across the world, including Canada, Italy, Portugal, France, Spain, Panama, South Africa, Mexico, United Arab Emirates, and the Netherlands. The pass will contain a person’s COVID-19 test results and vaccination history plus any relevant health information. A truly Orwellian prospect!

Gates’s funding is not strictly limited to the field of global health. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in cooperation with GAVI, is also deeply tied to ID2020—a global digital ID system that will combine both birth registration records and vaccination records to create a digital identity for every person on planet Earth.

At first glance, ID2020 may seem like it’s the same concept as the COVI-PASS, but it is actually far more. The COVI-PASS, as mentioned above, relates more to one’s health record, whereas ID2020 is a complete identification record of your entire life. It is your driver’s license, passport, work identification pass, building access card, debt and credit cards, transit passes, police record, health records, and more—all wrapped up in one identification system. It is being sold to us by the statists as a new and improved means of “protecting our civil liberties and personal data,” when in reality the exact inverse is true: as with any electronic device, it can and will be used by the-powers-that-shouldn’t-be to monitor a person’s every move, and if necessary, restrict a person’s movements.

Although ID2020 was originally formed in 2019, when GAVI joined forces with the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft, Accenture, and, it was put into motion by the globalists at the onset of the supposed pandemic. And it is now being tested in Bangladesh. Once again, as we have already seen in the above-mentioned economic reset, the COVID-19 crisis presents the perfect opportunity to launch the ID2020 system.

The Path Forward

We must now ask ourselves: Is it merely coincidence that these measures—the economic reset, the implementation of ID2020, the creation of Trust Stamp, and Mastercard’s Wellness program—are all being put into motion, simultaneously, on the heels of the fabricated pandemic? We may never find out if their joint appearance is a coordinated effort by just a few top technocrats or by all the participants in these schemes—the usually compartmentalization of information and tasks keeps the lower-level actors from knowing the real purpose and the high-up players in any scheme of this sort.

What is certain, though, is that all of the medical martial law edicts that have been issued in united fashion have been based on unsubstantiated science. Equally clear is that the drive for a global COVID-19 vaccine regimen and the global surveillance grid are moving ahead in concert to transform the world as we know it—if we allow it to happen. As Professor Michel Chossudovsky and others have often said, we need mass movements, such as the #ExposeBillGates movement, to counter and dismantle the technocrats’ diabolical designs on us.

When and if our governments ever signal—presumably post-mass vaccination— that it is time to return to normal, beware. We must never go back to the old normal. For it is this old normal—based on a corrupt and broken paradigm—that landed us in pandemic prison in the first place. We must move forward with the new knowledge we have acquired in recent months, and we must build a better paradigm—one based on truth and compassion for all of humanity.

Madame Curie was right. Nothing is to be feared, it is only to be understood. We must fearlessly speak out and share this information.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

David Skripac has a Bachelor of Technology degree in Aerospace Engineering. He served as a Captain in the Canadian Forces for nine years. During his two tours of duty in the Air Force he flew extensively in the former Yugoslavia as well as in Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Djibouti.

Copyright © David Skripac, Global Research,

Coronavirus and the County’s Future (71)

Miscarriages and Other Tragic Side Effects of the mRNA Shots

By Joseph Mercola December 9, 2021

With each passing day, the list of people suffering tragic consequences from the novel gene therapies marketed as COVID “vaccines” gets longer. Slews of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed and died in recent weeks, and mainstream media act as if those things are either normal or inexplicable.

They’re neither. They’re abnormal, and totally explainable when you know how the COVID shot destroys your heart and clumps your blood. Among the latest victims is Florian Dagoury, world record holder in static breath-hold freediving. Before his Pfizer jabs, he was able to hold his breath for 10 minutes and 30 seconds.

After his second dose, his diving performance was slashed by about 30%, and he’s been diagnosed with myocarditis, pericarditis and trivial mitral regurgitation, a condition in which the mitral valve in the heart gets leaky, allowing blood to flow backward into the left ventricle.

Dagoury shared his experience on Instagram:1,2

“After my 2nd dose I noticed that my heart rate was way higher than normal and my breath hold capacities went down significantly. During sleep, I’m at 65-70bpm instead of 37-45bpm. During the day, I’m now always over 100bpm instead of 65bpm, even when I sit down and relax. Once I even reach[ed] 177bpm while having dinner with friends!

Ten days after my 2nd jab, I went to see a cardiologist and he told me it’s a common side effect of Pfizer vaccine, nothing to worry about, just rest, it will pass. 40 days after 2nd jab, I had no progress so I went to see another cardiologist and got diagnosed with myocarditis and trivial mitral regurgitation!

Which is basically an inflammation of the heart muscles cause by the immune system and some tiny leaks of blood from the valves that no longer close properly. I’m now struggling to reach 8 min breath hold, 150m dyn[amic apnea freediving] and I even have a strong urge to breath[e] doing 40m dives. 30% decrease on my diving performance roughly.”

Many Athletes Are Losing Their Careers

Other professional athletes whose careers are now on hold include French tennis player Jeremy Chardy, who commented on his situation:3

“Since I had my vaccine … I am struggling. I can’t train. I can’t play … It’s frustrating, especially that I don’t have 10 years left to play. I regret having the vaccine, but I could not have known that this would happen … it’s difficult because I was having fun and I want to play longer.”

Another one is Antoine Mechin, a 32-year-old triathlete whose career is on indefinite hold, as he developed pulmonary embolism after taking his second dose of Moderna. What makes it all the more tragic is that Mechin suffered pain and shortness of breath after the first shot, but he was told his symptoms were probably just stress and fatigue. He went ahead with the second, and now has severe lung damage. Mechin said:

“Damaging healthy people to preserve the health of the weakest, a choice of backward logic. I would not get vaccinated again if it had to be done again.”

Largest Safety Signal in the History of Medicine

By any objective measure, the COVID shots are the most dangerous drugs ever launched. The safety signal is absolutely massive. Here’s a screenshot summary from OpenVAERS’ November 19, 2021, report (the latest available at the time of this article),4 listing some of the most common effects reported following the COVID jab.

According to calculations by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, adverse events are conservatively underreported by a factor of 41,5 so it’s possible we need to multiply these numbers by 41 to get closer to the real-world impact.

For a visual illustration of how dangerous the COVID shots are in comparison to all other vaccines on the market, just look at this OpenVAERS graph. It speaks for itself.

Ignored Safety Signal: Post-Injection Miscarriages

While we’re starting to hear more about the heart damage and strokes the COVID shots cause, a troubling effect that isn’t getting the attention it deserves is miscarriage. As of November 19, 2021, 3,071 miscarriages had been reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). There were also:6

  • 18,024 cases of menstrual disorders
  • 6,654 cases of vaginal/uterine hemorrhage
  • 1,216 cases of testicular pain or swelling
  • 395 cases of erectile dysfunction

All of these effects point to the shots having an adverse impact on human reproductive health. A recent paper7 in Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law addresses reproductive concerns, noting that while “the use of mRNA vaccines in pregnancy is now generally considered safe … the influential CDC-sponsored article by Shimabukuro et. al.8 (2021) used to support this idea, on closer inspection, provides little assurance …”

In particular, getting the COVID shot during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is extremely risky — the risk of miscarriage is anywhere between 82% and 91% — but Shimabukuro et. al. hid this stunning finding in their paper.9 Here’s how they did it.

How Shimabukuro et. al. Hid Massive Safety Signal

According to Shimabukuro et. al.,10 the miscarriage rate within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy was 12.6% (104 miscarriages out of 827 pregnancies), which is only slightly above the normal average of 10%. However, there’s a distinct problem with this calculation. As explained in the Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law paper:11

“… closer inspection of the 827 women in the denominator of this calculation reveals that between 700 to 713 women were exposed to the vaccine after the timeframe for recording the outcome had elapsed (up to 20 weeks of pregnancy).”

To clarify, Shimabukuro et. al. included women in the group of 827 who actually didn’t get the shot during their first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Since they didn’t get the shot until later in the pregnancy, they would not have been AT RISK for miscarriage from the shot in the first trimester.

Put another way, since the third trimester is after week 20, you should not include women who got the shot in the third trimester when you’re trying to determine the miscarriage rate among those injected BEFORE week 20. I hope that’s clear.

If you only include women who were at risk for side effects during the first 20 weeks, because they actually got the shot during those first 20 weeks, then there are only 114 or, at most, 127 of them left in that group. And that changes the calculation considerably! What we actually have are 104 miscarriages out of 127, which is 82%, or possibly as high as 104 out of 114, which is 91%.

Of those 104 miscarriages, 96 of them occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, which strongly suggests that getting a COVID shot during the first trimester is an absolute recipe for disaster.

The Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law paper points out several other problems with Shimabukuro’s analysis that compound the confusion, including the fact that they used overlapping periods of exposure and outcome:

“Exposure to the vaccine was defined by trimester (periconception, first, second, and third). Outcomes were defined as women first exposed to the mRNA vaccine before 20 weeks’ gestation; and first exposed from 20 weeks’ gestation. The infant was followed for 28 days during the perinatal period (birth-28 days).”12

This strikes me as an intentional misdirection strategy to confuse and obfuscate. They could easily have used the same periods for exposure and outcome, either the three trimesters or weeks 1 through 20 and weeks 21 through 40.

Other adverse event statistics included a preterm birth rate of 9.4% (60 out of 636 births), a 3.2% incidence of small size for gestational age, and a 2.2% incidence of birth defects (16 out of 724 births).

Another Problem With Shimabukuro’s Paper

Another minor detail found in Shimabukuro’s paper hints at an effort to downplay and hide the miscarriage risk. The authors claim the normal rate of miscarriage in the published literature is between 10% and 26%.

However, the 26% rate includes clinically-unrecognized pregnancies, and since the cohort under investigation included only clinically-RECOGNIZED pregnancies — meaning women who knew they were pregnant — that 26% statistic does not apply. Basically, it’s included to confuse you into believing that the miscarriage incidence is far higher than it actually is.

Looking at statistical data, the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20.13

So, when you consider that the normal risk for miscarriage is just 5% by the time you enter Week 6 (and many women don’t even realize they’re pregnant before that time), an 82% to 91% risk of miscarriage is no negligible increase. This should also make everyone realize that recommending this injection to pregnant women is a reprehensible crime against humanity.

Giving pregnant women experimental gene-based therapies is reprehensibly irresponsible, and to suggest that safety data are “piling up” is nothing but pure propaganda. Everything is still in the experimental stage and all data are preliminary. It’ll take years to get a clearer picture of how these injections are affecting young women and their babies.Considering the evidence presented here, we suggest the immediate withdrawal of mRNA vaccine use in pregnancy (Category X) and those breastfeeding, alongside the withdrawal of mRNA vaccines to children or those of child-bearing age in the general population … ~ Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, November 2021

Breastfeeding women also need to be aware that the mRNA in the COVID shot, as well as spike protein, can transfer through breast milk. This is another way by which infants can be put at risk for acute and/or longer term health problems. So, if you got a COVID shot after giving birth, please understand that you are not transferring protective antibodies.

You’re transferring the vaccine itself, and the toxic spike protein your body produces, to your baby. In March 2020, a 5-month-old infant died from thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura within days of his mother receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.14,15 In addition to that lethal case, there are at least 72 other cases where toddlers have had an adverse reaction to breast milk from a vaccinated mother.16

There Are Plenty of Cause for Concern

In closing, I urge you to read through these selected highlights from the Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law paper:17

“The sweeping conclusions of safety that Shimabukuro et al. (2021) make are not convincing … [M]echanisms which may be disrupted by the injection include syncytin-1 (syn1), a fusogenic protein of retroviral origin, essential for cell fusion and placental development.

Studies are required to determine if mRNA encoded spike (S) protein HR1 (or HR1a28) or HR2 has the ability to inadvertently inhibit syn1, preventing the cell fusion required for placental attachment, resulting in pregnancy loss.

The rodent studies carried out by Pfizer and Moderna to determine if there could be an impact on fertility and development may need to be repeated in Old World primates, such as macaques, as they have similar syn1 and syn2 proteins to humans, whereas rats do not.

The presence of autoantibodies to syn1 was investigated by Mattar et al., and although a change from baseline of autoantibodies to syn1 occurred in all 15 pregnant women exposed to the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech product, the change was not deemed high enough to be considered biologically significant.

Given the small sample size, these findings may indicate that further investigation is required. Further, an altered syn1 expression is associated with pre-eclampsia, hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets syndrome, intrauterine growth restriction and gestational diabetes mellitus in observational studies.

Synctyin-1 is also required for gamete fusion (syn1 and ACET2 receptors present in sperm and oocytes) and, additionally, found in the testes34 and ovaries. In the Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine) Package Insert submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the manufacturers state that potential impairment of male fertility has not been evaluated …

We question the conclusions of the Shimabukuro et al. study to support the use of the mRNA vaccine in early pregnancy … The assumption that exposure in the third trimester cohort is representative of the effect of exposure throughout pregnancy is questionable and ignores past experience with drugs such as thalidomide.

Evidence of safety of the product when used in the first and second trimesters cannot be established until these cohorts have been followed to at least the perinatal period or long-term safety determined for any of the babies born to mothers inoculated during pregnancy.

Additionally, the product’s manufacturer, Pfizer, contradicts these assurances, stating: ‘available data on Comirnaty administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine- associated risks in pregnancy,’ and ‘it is not known whether Comirnaty is excreted in human milk’ as ‘data are not available to assess the effects of Comirnaty on the breastfed infant’…

Due to the nature of the mRNA vaccine roll-out, healthcare providers need to report any issues in pregnancy to further determine the safety of this product …

Considering the evidence presented here, we suggest the immediate withdrawal of mRNA vaccine use in pregnancy (Category X) and those breastfeeding, alongside the withdrawal of mRNA vaccines to children or those of child-bearing age in the general population, until more convincing data relating to the safety and long-term impacts on fertility, pregnancy and reproduction are established in these groups.”

Sources and References

Coronavirus and the County’s Future (70)

Alert: Collapsing of the Vaccine Narrative

By Vasko Kohlmayer December 4, 2021

That the vaccines being injected into populations worldwide are useless and do not work against the Coronavirus is being increasingly recognized and acknowledged in different ways.

The Kennedy Center, for instance, requires that all attendees of its annual Honors gala events, which will take place this weekend, present a negative test even as the Center also requires that all must be vaccinated.

This is a direct acknowledgement that the vaccines will not protect attendees against infection.

Switzerland now requires that both vaccinated and unvaccinated travelers take tests when arriving from a long list of countries.

This is another acknowledgement that the vaccines do not protect against infection.

The United Kingdom will begin administering the fourth Covid shot today. This in less than one year!

This is a sobering admission that the previous three shots failed to generate adequate protection against the Coronavirus.

The interval between the second and third shot was six months. The interval between the third and fourth shot is three months now. How long do you think will the quadruply jabbed be protected? What will be the interval between the fourth and the fifth shot?

It was less than six months ago that the narrative of “the wonderfully effective vaccines that will protect us against the virus and end the pandemic” was still being propagated.

It was barely three months ago that Big Pharma, Fauci and their collaborators in the scientific establishment still claimed that this was “the pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

It was only a few weeks ago that they still claimed that the vaccines will “protect against severe Covid and death.”

Now we know that over eighty percent of those seriously ill and dying in England have been vaccinated.

The stark truth is that the vaccines do not provide reliable protection against infection, severe Covid or death.

Some data, in fact, suggests that the vaccines make people vulnerable to the disease and its depredations.

We have seen some of the most vaccinated countries in the world have suffered widespread surges of Covid 19.

In Britain, eight out of ten serious Covid cases and deaths are among the double and triple jabbed even though the country’s vaccination rate is at 70 percent.

It is time for people to wake up and recognize what is happening right before their eyes.

What we are witnessing is the unfolding collapse of the Covid vaccine narrative of which every part is being shown to have been a lie.

If you have long memory, you may still remember when it was said that the vaccines were 95 percent effective.

But since this claim was made years months ago and many people have apparently already forgotten about it, the vaccinators are hoping to flush it down the memory hole.

They are even doubling down and pushing for mandates to force their ineffective and dangerous concoctions into people’s bodies.

They must not be allowed to get away with their treachery.

It is time to remind ourselves of all the false claims and misinformation, and call the vaccinators and their collaborators to account.

Copyright © Vasko Kohlmayer

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (68)

Vaccine Kills 9 out of 10 First Trimester Babies, And the CDC Knew It

New research published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has found that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” are not even close to being safe for pregnant women like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claims they are.

Dr. Simon Thornley, a senior lecturer at the University of Auckland, and Dr. Aleisha Brock, also from New Zealand, say that a re-analysis of the data clearly shows that pregnant women should not be getting injected. It turns out that miscarriages during the first trimester are as high as 91 percent in women who take the shot.

As It Did for Pregnant Moms, CDC “Authorizes” Lethal COVID-19 Vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds, Injections to Begin This Week

Millions of downsized doses are already in the states.  Why is the government pushing so hard for children to be vaxxed against Covid?  There is not one known case of an American child dying from Covid.  There are only 66 known cases of children with serious comorbidities dying with Covid.

But Can’t We Trust the Medical Establishment and Pharma Companies to Give Us the Right Vaccines?

No.  Veteran clinical test auditor Brook Jackson just exposed the FDA and Pfizer for the suppression of alleged criminal activity and professional negligence in vaccine trials.  The British Medical Journal has corroborated her evidence of malfeasance, misconduct, falsification of data, the refusal to report adverse reactions, fabrication of data, and bribery of participants.   See the full report here.

European jurisdictions are now pulling authorizations for the Pzifer Covid vax.  But the American government continues to suppress this report, and the growing record of deaths and injury, in order to achieve universal vaccination of the population.  

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (66)

Dictator Dan has shown his true colours with the Pandemic Management Bill

“For a proposed law to not be debated properly, to be rushed through parliament, for it to violate several individual human rights at the same time as being the harshest ‘pandemic response’ laws based on a ‘potential pandemic’- there is only one thing left: Federal intervention based on section 109 of the Constitution – inconsistency.”

By Andrea Tokaji – posted Tuesday, 2 November 2021

Last week, new legislation was introduced to the Victorian Parliament to ensure that the State’s Premier can pretty much do what he likes, including extending emergencies for three months at a time – a dramatic change from the standard 14 days. Premier Daniel Andrews said the new laws were drafted to reflect the lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Let’s take a look at what those lessons may have been.

Victorian opposition leader Matthew Guy has called the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021 aptly dubbed the Permanent Pandemic Bill as the most extreme” pandemic legislation of any state or territory in Australia. My Guy said: “[p]lacing so much power in the hands of one person … would be unprecedented”.

The current state of emergency extension which has been in place for 21 months in Victoria is due to expire on December 15. Instead of experiencing freedom once again, Victorians may find themselves in lockdown once again based on a potential pandemic. This new Bill will allow the harshest measures for the longest periods ever – anywhere.

Under the new laws, the Health Minister of Victoria, The Hon. Martin Foley would sign off on Public Health Orders, rather than the Chief Health Officer, providing the Health Minister with “broad powers” to make orders where reasonably necessary to protect public health.

The problem with this is: measures such as lockdowns, mask-wearing, mandates and other emergency management measures which are violations of our personal freedoms can all be decided by one person, without parliamentary due process, without the required political and legal consultation of the finer details with colleagues or professionals of the impacts of such measures: resulting in less checks and balances for decision making.

The Chief Health Medical Officer who would usually advise on, and sign off on the health directions and Orders based on his medical background and knowledge, will no longer be a required step by the Health Minister. The Health Minister is an elected member of Parliament and may not have any knowledge or expertise in their political portfolio.

In Victoria’s case, for example, the Health Minister for Victoria has a background as a Union Official. How does this qualify him to make State-based health decisions resulting in orders and directions which affect people’s every day economic and social lives based on ‘health’ advice?

The benefit of having a Chief Health Medical Officer (CHMO) is not only that they are an expert in the required area, but that Professor Brett Sutton in Victoria as the CHMO for example is also somewhat removed from the parliamentary process as a public servant and therefore part of the Executive, rather than the legislature.

Here, we see another erosion of not only the separation of powers, but also of the rule of law, insofar as laws often afford checks and balances that apply to our leaders to ensure that they do not operate beyond, or above the law.

Amendments of concern include the shift in definition of ‘pandemic disease’. Section 7 states: “For the purposes of the Act, an infectious disease is a disease of pandemic potential at a particular time if: (a) at that time,the infectious disease has the potential to give rise to a pandemic, but is not yet a pandemic disease, and (b)(i) before that time, the infectious disease was a pandemic disease”.

The difficulty with this, is the definition of pandemic is so broad, that it includes a ‘potential pandemic’ and before’ the infections disease becomes a pandemic. This is an entirely subjective measure, and the taking away of individual freedoms requires a more objective approach to measure what constitutes a ‘pandemic’.

Part 8A of the Bill, which deals with the Protection of life and public health during pandemics also outlines an intention to preempt pandemics and act in accordance to this ‘potential’, without the required evidence to support the fact that there is an actual pandemic.

Section 165A(1)(a) states: “The objective of this Part is to protect public health and wellbeing in Victoria by establishing a regulatory framework for preventing and managing the serious risk to life, public health and wellbeing presented by the outbreak or spread of pandemics and diseases of pandemic potential“.

Further to this, section 165AB(3)(a) and (b) states: “The Premier may make a pandemic declaration whether or not, at the time the declaration is made; the pandemic disease is present in Victoria; or the disease is a disease of pandemic potential that is occurring or has occurred in Victoria”.

Section 165AE(8)(b) which deals with Variation, extension and revocation of a pandemic declarations specifies that the Premier may vary or extend the pandemic declaration based on the fact that the‘disease’ was “a disease of pandemic potential at that time”. A pandemic potential.

This board definition of ‘pandemic potential’ raises the legal issues of proportionality, inconsistency and unconstitutionality.

Whenever I swim at the ocean, there is a real potential I will be eaten by a shark – especially in Perth! Should we therefore mandate a ban on swimming at the beach?

Whenever I get into my car to drive from A to B, there is always a potential for a car accident – given the amount of idiots on the road! How do we legislate against this potential?

The Bill includes an Independent Pandemic Management Advisory Committee established under section 165CE(1) of the Bill, which will apparently include public health and human rights experts to review public health orders.

Given that Victoria already has a Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, and we have seen a lack of acknowledgement of the rights of Victorians in the last 20 months – what is this apparent Committee to review Orders for potential pandemics‘ going to change?

Rights and freedoms, explicitly outlined in the Victorian Human Rights Charter applicable to all Victorians such as the freedom to privacy (s13); freedom of movement (s12); freedom of expression (s15); peaceful assembly and freedom of association (s16); the right to liberty and security of person (s21); taking part in public life (s18); and the recognition and equality before the law (s8) have all been overlooked and ignored during the “state of emergency”.

Inalienable human rights such as the right to life, the right to work, freedom fo conscience, speech, movement and association and the freedom of religion are endowed upon us by God, as recognised by Elanor Roosevelt, a drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1946, and therefore cannot be taken away from anyone by any other person or by law.

A further problem with this proposed Bill is that the State Government had waited until 6pm the night before the Bill was due to be introduced into parliament to brief Ministers on the laws that affect every Victorian. This is a common political strategy to ensure a lack of parliamentary debate and negotiation in relation to the specific sections of the Bill.

Are Victorian Politicians even aware of the unintended consequences that will arise from such amendments to already-laxed laws in the form of emergency powers?

Indeed, it was through Emergency powers that Hitler rise to power and retained his power under the Enabling Act 1933 for the next five years during WWII. On March 24, 1933, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler executive authority without any pretense of parliamentary power.

For a proposed law to not be debated properly, to be rushed through parliament, for it to violate several individual human rights at the same time as being the harshest ‘pandemic response’ laws based on a ‘potential pandemic’– there is only one thing left: Federal intervention based on section 109 of the Constitution – inconsistency.

It appears that the lessons Premier Andrews was referring to learning from the last 20 months was that he did not wield enough power during the pandemic, and that he wanted more – and has now found a way.

It is now incumbent upon Prime Minister Scoot Morrison to intervene and to tear down the tyranny and abhorrent violations of inalienable human rights and freedoms over Victorian citizens before other State Premiers get any ideas!

ScoMo – where are you?

Australians are counting on you.

With a Federal Election coming up – your decision today will affect your position tomorrow.

 A Thanksgiving Message From Geoffrey Botkin

This Thanksgiving we honor men and women who were willing to be serious about a life-and-death issue most modern Americans do not take seriously: freedom. The Pilgrims understood that there was an historic battle between two definitions of freedom, and they risked everything to line-up on the right side. 

The Pilgrims were citizens of the world’s top nation.  England was the superpower of the day.  King James and the religious bureaucrats in the Church of England promised temporal security and religious salvation for simply conforming to the newest ideas of the political masters.  But the Pilgrims knew they had a duty to recognize and resist false doctrine or they would become part of an ancient historical problem:  living like slaves under a tyrant who took the place of God. 

The Pilgrims were not simply splitting hairs about obscure points of doctrine.  King James believed he had divine prerogatives to rule any way he wanted.  He wanted a church hierarchy to answer to him, manipulate the populace, and redefine Christianity his way.  These policies are little different from those that kept Pharaohs in power for three thousand years.  These are the policies that create false, passive, irresponsible religious cultures, which spring up anywhere God’s truth is suppressed in unrighteousness.

The issue was simple, but it takes wisdom to see it unfolding.  James and his followers wanted the licentious kind of freedom that is gained by stepping away from God’s requirements.   This has been the great issue of history since the days of Babel.  Faithless men want freedom from God so they can pursue a political and spiritual agenda of their own design.  All through history, arrogant men have found this form of freedom by living lives of passive irresponsibility.  They become so irresponsible, they become content living as the slaves of political masters.     

The Pilgrims had a much different attitude toward God and his requirements.  They knew real freedom could be found in active, willing servitude to the God of real freedom and true liberty.  The more they studied and obeyed His laws, the more their new colony benefitted from the maturity they gained through obedience. 

In studying the Puritans of the 17th century, author J.I. Packer simply wrote, “The Puritans exemplified maturity.  We don’t.  We are spiritual dwarfs.  The Puritans, by contrast, as a body were giants[1].”

These giants were our relatives.  “We’re all descended,” reminds American historian David McCullough, “every one of us is descended from someone of enormous courage, fortitude, strength, toughness.[2] 

How are modern American Christians doing in the areas of courage, fortitude, strength, and mental toughness?  

J.I. Packer suggests that our modern faith is at best counterfeit Christianity, an “irrational, emotional romanticism disguised as superspirituality.”[3] 

Packer further suggests that if we had maintained a true Christianity “fixed by law and wisdom” we might have been spared “the egocentric, zany, simplistic, degenerate, half-magic-spell type of evangelicalism which is all that the world sees when it watches religious TV or looks directly at the professedly evangelical community.  Such evangelicalism neither honors God nor blesses man.”[4]

Ideas Rule the World

The Pilgrims honored God by their tough-minded interpretation of culture that were in rebellion against God.  The Pilgrims honored God by taking active steps to base their faith on a Christianity fixed by law and wisdom.  Our younger generation needs to acquire moral discernment as they face the complexities of the 21st Century.

The ideas of bureaucratic security are seductive.  Americans need to identify the dangerous ideas that make men passive, contented consumers of messianic care.  Free “school.”  Free diplomas.  Free entitlements.  Free birth control.  Free vaccines.   Once dependency is locked into the minds of a people, it is very hard to introduce a culture to the ideas of active, mature freedom.  

This is a lesson Americans must learn.  The Bible commands men not to be idolaters, as were some of the Hebrews who came out of Egypt.[5]  David says they did not trust in God’s salvation and were not faithful to His Covenant.[6]  They desperately wanted to drift back into the bondage in Egypt, a place where their spiritual, economic, vocational, and family decisions were made for them by a government that promised perfect order.  Perfect security.  Total salvation.  But it was a Christ-less salvation.  No freedom from sin, and no freedom from death.  

Believing in false promises for a false salvation is feeblemindedness.  Observes Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, “We have willingly adopted the mental habits of people who live under totalitarian dictatorship.”[7]

Let us once again take command of the ideas that free the world, and the ideas that enslave the world, and recover the tough-minded powers of cultural analysis used by our Pilgrim forbears. This Thanksgiving I am thankful for their courageous tough-mindedness. 

 “We have an inexhaustible source of strength to draw upon,” states David McCullough, “and wemustn’t forget it.”[8]

[1] Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), p x

[2] Ibid, p xiii

[3] Ibid, p xiii

[4] Ibid, p xiv

[5] I Corinthians 10:7

[6] Ps. 78: 22, 37

[7] Theodore Dalrymple, Our Culture, What’s Left of It, “How to Read a Society”

[8] David McCullough, The Founders: The Greatest Generation; Kansas State University Landon Lecture, Feb. 1, 2002. In the words of the citation accompanying McCullough’s honorary degree from Yale, “As an historian, he paints with words, giving us pictures of the American people that live, breathe, and above all, confront the fundamental issues of courage, achievement, and moral character.”

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (65a)

Email letter from Geoffrey Bodkin, 13/11/2021

           This Is Not How to Do a Clinical Trial

Said an FDA official in this reprehensible statement about injecting 5-11 year olds: “We’re never gonna learn about how safe this vaccine is until you start giving it.”

“Well,” says Margaret Anna Alice, “we don’t have to wait to find out. A twelve-year-old child just died two days after receiving the Pfizer injection, and the autopsy proves it. And these fourteen children died of such conditions as pulmonary embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, cardiac arrest, and myocarditis post-injection—only to be swept under the rug by BigPharma toady CDC. And deaths of male children have jumped 86 percent in the UK since the vaxx rollout. It is estimated that nearly 800 children have been killed from the injection thus far, and you and your colluders are only ramping up the pedicide program.”

Where Does the FDA Get its Money, Anyway?

Children’s Health Defense notes, “The FDA gets 45% of its budget from the pharmaceutical industry, and fast-tracks more than 50% of the drugs it approves.

A Letter to Your Neighborhood Doctor from Dr. Christopher Keys

Dear Dr._____________,

I am writing to implore you as a medical doctor, based on the oath you took to do no harm, to be as faithful in making your patients aware of the dangers of vaccines as much as you promote their safety.

 Based upon your integrity as a doctor and because every child is made in the image of God, I would like for you to do the right thing in regards to a letter written in 2013 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. This letter stated, “ALL parents and patients should be informed about the risks and benefits of preventative and therapeutic procedures including vaccination.”

Nowhere in the said letter is anything stated concerning the risks of vaccines; conversely, only the benefits of vaccination are described-a very slanted one-sided story. In light of the requirement in the letter, I am providing you with eleven undeniable facts regarding the dangers of vaccines. This information is required to be given to your patients about the risks associated with vaccinations to comply with the letter cited above.

10 Undeniable Facts Concerning Vaccination:

1.      The U.S. Supreme Court rules all vaccines unavoidably unsafe.

2. None of the vaccines on the U.S. CDC recommended childhood vaccine schedule were tested against an inert saline placebo in clinical trials. The Facts About the FDA’s Questionable Practices • Children’s Health Defense

3. This HHS lawsuit shows that no safety studies have been conducted on vaccines for thirty-three years.

4. Compensation for vaccine injury to date: $4.4 billion and counting.

Description of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) • Children’s Health Defense

5. The CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns at least fifty vaccine patents and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program. Examining RFK Jr.’s claim that the CDC “Owns over 20 vaccine ( FY 2018 Budget in Brief – CDC |

6. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act freeing companies from liability for injuries resulting from childhood vaccines no matter how toxic the ingredients, how negligent the manufacturer, or how grievous the harm. H.R.5546 – 99th Congress (1985-1986): National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 | | Library of Congress NCVIA: The Legislation that Changed Everything—Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health: Part II • Children’s Health Defense

7. There are two Hepatitis B vaccines licensed for one day old babies in the United States-one manufactured by Merck and the other by GlaxoSmith Kline. Merck’s Hepatitis B was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for only five days after vaccination. Similarly, GlaxoSmithKline’s Hepatitis B Vaccine was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for only four days after vaccination. recombivax_pi ( 8. In 1965, 4% of the US population had a chronic disease. For American kids born in 1986,only 12.8% had chronic disease. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation according to a 2011 survey funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Dynamics of obesity and chronic health conditions among children and youth –


A National and State Profile of Leading Health Problems and Health Care Quality for US Children: Key Insurance Disparities and Across-State Variations –


9. Vaccines CAN and DO cause injuries. The message that vaccine injuries are rare is not supported by facts and anecdotal evidence. An HHS-sponsored study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that vaccine injuries, when tracked using electronic medical records, occur in one in thirty-nine vaccines given.

Electronic Support for Public Health – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) (Massachusetts) | AHRQ Digital Healthcare Research: Informing Improvement in Care Quality, Safety, and Efficiency Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Administered • Children’s Health Defense

10. Post-licensure vaccine safety surveillance is failing the American people and children around the world. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS), where doctors and patients voluntarily report adverse vaccine events, received 58,381 reports in 2018. including 412 deaths,1,237 permanent disabilities, and 4, 217 hospitalizations. An HHS-funded review of VAERS concluded that “fewer than one per cent of vaccine adverse events are reported ” to VAERS. The CDC has refused to mandate or automate VAERS reporting.