The War with Medical Fascism

[G M]

Was Trump listening to his advisors, like Anthony "Chinese Biowarfare Lab" Fauci?

well Trump pushed it out faster then most wanted to do so

so it fits

more "data " for you :

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext

https://www.statnews.com/2022/12/13/covid-vaccines-prevented-3-million-deaths/

[ccp]

"Was Trump listening to his advisors, like Anthony "Chinese Biowarfare Lab" Fauci?"

no
in mho

he was very late
and did lousy job early epidemic

indeed I recall you were one of the early ones to rightly call the disaster the epidemic would become .

There was almost certainly no way to stop it anyway
no matter what anyone did.  When the CCP let the infected leave Bejing and with world wide travel the way it is
trying to stop the spread was a fools game.

Fauci, who I do not like, and from what I remember, thought trying to get a vaccine out by the end of the yr was not possible or safe

[G M]

He didn't shut down international flights early enough?

"Was Trump listening to his advisors, like Anthony "Chinese Biowarfare Lab" Fauci?"

no
in mho

he was very late
and did lousy job early epidemic

indeed I recall you were one of the early ones to rightly call the disaster the epidemic would become .

There was almost certainly no way to stop it anyway
no matter what anyone did.  When the CCP let the infected leave Bejing and with world wide travel the way it is
trying to stop the spread was a fools game.

Fauci, who I do not like, and from what I remember, thought trying to get a vaccine out by the end of the yr was not possible or safe

[Crafty_Dog]

Why Vaccine Skepticism Is Growing on the Right
Public-health officials imposed mandates and kept news of potential side effects under wraps.
Allysia Finley hedcutBy Allysia FinleyFollow
Feb. 5, 2023 5:03 pm ET

Republicans cheered when Covid-19 vaccines rolled out two year ago. “I think the messaging should be, ‘Get a vaccine because it’s good for you to do it. It works. You’re not going to have to have to be doing anything abnormal. You can live your life,’ ” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in April 2021.

The message from the Biden administration and public-health officials has been different: Vaccines are safe and effective. Period. Those who don’t trust us should shut up.

This contempt for the laity helps explain why vaccine skepticism is growing on the political right. Some of this skepticism is misguided. In the early months of the pandemic, thousands were dying daily from Covid. There was a political imperative to roll out vaccines as soon as it became clear they could prevent severe illness. But public-health authorities have since fueled distrust by overselling the benefits of vaccines, pushing them on children who are at low risk for serious illness, mandating shots while playing down potential side effects, and smearing those who raise concerns as spreading misinformation.

Anthony Fauci was among those who misled the public in May 2021. “When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family,” he said. “But also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community.” But the vaccine trials didn’t show that they prevent transmission.

When Covid vaccines were first introduced, the extent to which the virus would mutate wasn’t known. But it was known that most respiratory infections, including RSV, flu and other endemic human coronaviruses, don’t confer long-lasting immunity. Reinfections are common.

In an article last month in the journal Cell, Dr. Fauci and two coauthors describe in dense scientific detail why it’s so hard to develop vaccines that provide lifetime protection from infection by respiratory viruses. Among the reasons: Covid has a short incubation period and replicates rapidly in the mucosal passages.

“If natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines [such as the Covid vaccines] to do so?” the article asked. Good question.

But public-health officials nonetheless suggested that Covid vaccines would help achieve herd immunity and reduce transmission. That was the premise for the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates, which look even worse in hindsight.

Recently released emails reveal that some Food and Drug Administration officials were concerned the agency’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine during the summer of 2021 was being rushed. The vaccine had been authorized for emergency use in December 2020, but full approval requires a significantly more comprehensive examination of safety, efficacy and manufacturing data.

Marion Gruber, then director of the FDA’s vaccine research office, warned Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock in a July 21, 2021, email that the “hyper-accelerated” review would “undermine confidence in the vaccine (and, indeed, in FDA’s credibility).”

There was good reason for the FDA to conduct a rigorous and meticulous review. The FDA earlier that month had quietly published a statement on its website that it had detected four potential adverse events related to Pfizer’s vaccine in seniors: Pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia, and disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Increased risks from the FDA’s preliminary review of Medicare data for these potential adverse events ranged 42% to 91%. According to Dr. Gruber’s email, her colleague Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, had expressed concern that cases were rising in the U.S. It was his opinion that “states cannot require mandatory vaccination” without full approval.

The FDA reviewed and approved Pfizer’s application in less than a third of the time it takes for a typical drug approval. The Biden administration and many Democratic governors soon imposed vaccine mandates without exceptions for prior infection. They dismissed Americans who cited studies showing the protection offered by natural immunity.

As vaccine protection against infection waned, public-health officials pushed boosters despite little evidence that their benefits outweighed the potential safety concerns for healthy young people such as myocarditis. Officials also rushed last summer to roll out vaccines for children, who are at extremely low risk for severe illness. Yet vaccinated toddlers in Pfizer’s trial were more likely to get severely ill with Covid than those who received a placebo. Most kids who developed multiple infections during the trial were vaccinated. These findings warranted closer examination.

Pfizer says “all information is reviewed meticulously by experienced medical and clinical experts,” and “non-experts reviewing such scientific data is likely to lead to information being misinterpreted or taken out of context.” Got it.

Only in December 2022 did the FDA publish a detailed analysis on the four “safety signals” it had earlier disclosed related to the Pfizer vaccine. After myriad statistical adjustments, the study showed a “safety signal” only for pulmonary embolism. The study’s most noteworthy revelation, however, was that some signals were first detected in February 2021.

If the FDA could review Pfizer’s vaccine application in only a few months, it shouldn’t have taken nearly two years to investigate and publish a study on potential side effects.

Authorities no doubt worry that alerting the public to potential safety risks could discourage vaccination, but their lack of transparency and dismissal of critics fuels the distrust in vaccines. Information about potential side effects is inevitably emerging in viral videos and Twitter threads. It would be better for Americans to hear it from their government.

[G M]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/126/663/415/original/7940e927ea65a328.jpg



Just perfectly normal blood clots!

[ccp]

https://www.westernjournal.com/autopsy-reveals-cause-death-air-force-cadet-collapsed-died-way-class/

saw this around 1988 in 37 yo male who played soccer

[G M]

https://www.westernjournal.com/autopsy-reveals-cause-death-air-force-cadet-collapsed-died-way-class/

saw this around 1988 in 37 yo male who played soccer

Just how common was it back pre-ClotShot vs now?

[ccp]

"Just how common was it back pre-ClotShot vs now?"

you just never give it break do you

[Crafty_Dog]

The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State
Joseph Mercola
Feb 6 2023


In his book "The New Abnormal," Dr. Aaron Kheriaty details how the pandemic paved the way for a totalitarian one-world government.(Manoej Paateel/Shutterstock)

It all started in early 2020 when our world turned upside down. Never before had we witnessed such unimaginable social controls threaten our human rights and freedoms. Now, three years later, the truth is finally coming out about the pandemic and what it means for our future.




Story at a Glance

In his book “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State,” Dr. Aaron Kheriaty details how the COVID pandemic paved the way for the implementation of a totalitarian one-world government, where human rights and freedoms will no longer exist.

On Sept. 30, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 2098, which was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023. It prohibits doctors from providing COVID-19 treatment or advice that includes false information, and/or contradicts “contemporary scientific consensus,” and/or is “contrary to the standard of care.” A doctor found to violate this law is guilty of “unprofessional conduct” and can face disciplinary action, including having his or her medical license revoked.

Together with four other California-based doctors—Tracy Hoeg, Ram Duriseti, Pete Mazolewski, and Azadeh Khatibi—Kheriaty filed a lawsuit against Newsom and other officials, including the president and members of the Medical Board of California, to block this law.

Another lawsuit, filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, and Physicians for Informed Consent, is also seeking to get AB 2098 tossed out. On Dec. 7, 2022, attorneys for the CHD filed a motion for a preliminary injunction while its legal challenge makes its way through the courts. On Jan. 26, 2023, Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb granted the CHD’s preliminary injunction.

Kheriaty is also a plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case, filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, in which they argue that the Biden administration is colluding with Big Tech to illegally censor Americans. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, who holds a doctorate in operations research and industrial engineering—two authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an early critique of lockdowns and school closures—have also joined the case.

In the video above, I interview Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, author of “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State.” Kheriaty is a medical doctor and psychiatrist and worked as a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of California Irvine for 15 years before getting fired for his objections to mandatory COVID shots.

He also directs the Bioethics and American Democracy Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and is a senior scholar and fellow of the Brownstone Institute.

“As ethics program director and ethics community chair, I was involved in basically all of the pandemic policy drafting, right up until the vaccine mandate,” Kheriaty says.

“Our committee at the office of the president had done the ventilator triage policy, the vaccine allocation policy. But when it came to the vaccine mandate, it came down from on high and there was no discussion debate. Our committee was not involved in drafting the policy.

“I was very concerned about the lack of open discussion and debate. Because of all the sensitive policies that we had developed during the pandemic, this one I thought was going to be the most ethically controversial, problematic, and the most publicly fraught.

“So I was puzzled by the fact that we didn’t really have a conversation about it. I published a piece in The Wall Street Journal last year, arguing that vaccine mandates are unethical based on the principle of informed consent, which I teach to all the medical students every year.”

This is the principle that an adult of sound mind has the right to decide what medications or interventions to accept or decline, and that they have the right to make this decision on behalf of their children who are not yet old enough to give consent.

“I was very concerned that vaccine mandates were just tossing this principle overboard under the guise of, ‘We’re in emergency and so the regular rules don’t apply.’ I think it’s precisely in wartime and crises that it’s all the more important to stand fast and hold onto our ethical principles, because those are the times where we’re most tempted to abandon them. And when you do that, you can often invite disaster.”

Doctors Were Bullied Into Not Writing Medical Exemptions

Despite several efforts, the university refused to engage in a debate, and instead put the mandatory COVID jab policy in place. As students started to be steamrolled, many reached out to Kheriaty for help. They’d say things like, “I’m not a religious person, and so, in good conscience, I don’t want to submit a dishonest religious exemption, but I have other moral or ethical concerns about this vaccine.”

Others were unable to get an appropriate medical exemption. The reason they couldn’t get one was that the California Medical Board sent a letter threatening to revoke the medical license of any physician who wrote “inappropriate exemptions.” The board, of course, never defined what was appropriate or inappropriate, but it had the intended effect. Doctors were incredibly hesitant to write medical exemptions at all, for fear of the repercussions. Kheriaty said:

“I remember one patient of mine, a young man who went to his rheumatologist and this doctor told him, ‘Given your autoimmune condition, given what I’ve seen of the vaccine data so far, I recommend that you don’t get the vaccine because I think you’re young and otherwise healthy. You’re not at high risk of COVID, but the vaccine could exacerbate your autoimmune condition.’

“The patient then turned to him and said, ‘OK, can you write me a medical exemption because there’s a mandate at my place of employment?’ The same doctor that just recommended against the vaccine said, ‘No, I’m sorry, I can’t do that because I might lose my medical license.’ So this was the, in my view, intolerable situation that we found ourselves in 2021.

“I just couldn’t imagine trying to teach the principle of informed consent, which I do in the second lecture, or talking with them about integrity and moral courage, standing up and doing the right thing even though you’re at the bottom of the hospital hierarchy as a medical student.

“I couldn’t imagine having those conversations if I had seen something being rolled out that I knew was wrong, that I knew was harming people. I could see my colleagues, nurses, and other very good professionals in the hospital getting fired, having their jobs threatened by this [mandate]. If I hadn’t stood up and done something, I just don’t think I would have woken up with a clear conscience.”

Kheriaty Fired After Legal Challenge

Kheriaty ended up filing a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the vaccine mandate. He argued on behalf of people with natural immunity because, strategically, he thought that was an argument that stood on solid ground legally. The university responded by first placing him on investigatory leave, followed by unpaid suspension. Two months after the lawsuit was filed, they fired him. Kheriaty ended up opening a private practice, and so far has fared well.

“I have been able to provide for my family and get, almost, back to the point where I was before in terms of earnings,” he said. “But it’s much more hand to mouth now. I don’t know how things are going to look year to year. I’m not a salaried employee anymore, but I’ve been able to cobble together various sources of support, including the book I    wrote …

“I’ve been able to replicate my clinical work. I’m able to see my patients in my private practice. I’m able to do my research, writing, and speaking. The Ethics and Public Policy Center in D.C., the Brownstone Institute, and the Zephyr Institute have offered me a bit of support to keep that work going.

“The one thing I haven’t really been able to replicate, at least not in the same way, is the teaching and supervision of medical students and residents, which I really enjoyed … That was hard to walk away from, but when I mention that, other people have told me, ‘Yes, but you’re teaching now, you’re just teaching on a different and maybe even on a bigger scale,’ because my case got quite a bit of attention.

“My social media profile expanded and I’ve been given lots of opportunities this year to speak on podcasts to larger audiences, to speak at conferences, and I’ve met some extraordinary people in the medical freedom movement. So I have new colleagues and new friends that are really remarkable and amazing people that I feel a strong connection and solidarity with, because we’re all trying to pull the cart in the same direction.

“We’re all concerned about what’s happened to science and medicine during the pandemic—or I should say what’s happened over the last several decades that really fully manifested during the pandemic.

“So it’s been exciting to be a part of that, to be able to testify at the U.S. Senate, at the California Senate, to get involved in some other legal cases that have to do with physicians’ free speech rights and preserving the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, so that outside governmental intrusions don’t undermine it.

“The work I’ve done this year has been really tremendously rewarding, and I’m grateful for that, so I have no regrets. And even without all those things, there’s nothing better than waking up with a clear conscience, knowing that I tried to do the right thing and that I didn’t compromise my convictions out of convenience.”

Preserving the Freedom of Speech for Physicians

One of the legal cases Kheriaty has gotten involved with is trying to block a new California law from taking effect. On Sept. 30, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 2098, which was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023.

AB 2098 prohibits doctors from providing COVID-19 treatment or advice to a patient when that treatment or advice includes false information, and/or contradicts “contemporary scientific consensus,” and/or is “contrary to the standard of care.”

A doctor found to violate this law is guilty of “unprofessional conduct” and can face disciplinary action, including having his or her medical license revoked. As noted by Kheriaty:

“This, to my mind, obviously undermines the core element that has to be the centerpiece of medicine, which the trust that the patient has in their physician …

“I don’t know of anyone who would want to ask their physician a question … and not have their physician give them an honest answer based on his or her actual medical judgment and reading of the scientific literature. A physician with a gag order is not a physician that you can trust.”

So together with four other California-based doctors—Tracy Hoeg, Ram Duriseti, Pete Mazolewski, and Azadeh Khatibi—Kheriaty filed a lawsuit against Newsom and other officials, including the president and members of the Medical Board of California, to block this law.1

“I think everyone wants their physician to be able to say what they think … and not just be reading from a script that the government gave them,” Kheriaty says.

“So this lawsuit challenges this unjust law in federal court, again on the basis of a constitutional claim that this, No. 1, infringes on the rights of free speech of the physician and, No. 2, is also a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Rights of Physicians …

“We have a constitutional right that’s been established by the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment to have laws that are sufficiently clear that a person can know whether or not they’re in violation of the law, so that you don’t have this looming thing in the background that you’re always wondering, ‘Am I OK or am I not OK?’ So I’m cautiously optimistic that we will prevail in court.”

Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction

Another lawsuit, filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, and Physicians for Informed Consent, is also seeking to get the law tossed out. On Dec. 7, 2022, attorneys for the CHD filed a motion for a preliminary injunction while its legal challenge makes its way through the courts.2

On Jan. 26, 2023, Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb granted the CHD’s preliminary injunction.3,4 According to Shubb, the defendants failed to provide evidence that “scientific consensus” has any “established technical meaning,” and that the law provides “no clarity” on the meaning of the word “misinformation.” As noted by Shubb:5

“Who determines whether a consensus exists to begin with? If a consensus does exist, among whom must the consensus exist (for example practicing physicians, or professional organizations, or medical researchers, or public health officials, or perhaps a combination)?

“In which geographic area must the consensus exist (California, or the United States, or the world)? What level of agreement constitutes a consensus (perhaps a plurality, or a majority, or a supermajority)? How recently in time must the consensus have been established to be considered ‘contemporary’?

“And what source or sources should physicians consult to determine what the consensus is at any given time (perhaps peer-reviewed scientific articles, or clinical guidelines from professional organizations, or public health recommendations)?

“The statute provides no means of understanding to what ‘scientific consensus’ refers … Because the term ‘scientific consensus’ is so ill-defined, physician plaintiffs are unable to determine if their intended conduct contradicts the scientific consensus, and accordingly ‘what is prohibited by the law’ …

“Vague statutes are particularly objectionable when they ‘involve sensitive areas of First Amendment freedoms’ because ‘they operate to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms.'”

As reported by the CHD:6

“Judge Shubb’s ruling prevents enforcement of AB 2098 pending resolution of the lawsuit. According to lead counsel Rick Jaffe, ‘Judge Shubb looked at the law and correctly determined that the COVID misinformation was unconstitutionally vague, in large part because the plaintiffs in both cases showed there is no ‘current scientific consensus,’ given the fast-changing pace of the pandemic.’

“‘The case will now proceed on two tracks,’ Jaffe said, adding: ‘The parties will continue to litigate the case before Judge Shubb and we will be filing a motion for summary judgment in the not-too-distant future.

“But because we won, and because a judge in the Central District of California denied a similar challenge to AB 2098, the attorney general will certainly appeal and argue that the central district judge was right. So there is much more to come.'”

Kheriaty Is Also Suing the White House

Kheriaty is also a plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case, filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, in which they argue that the Biden administration is colluding with Big Tech to illegally censor Americans. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, who holds a doctorate in operations research and industrial engineering—two authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an early critique of lockdowns and school closures—have also joined the case.

“There’s been a lot of attention in recent weeks on the Twitter files, where we’re looking under the hood at that social media company and seeing, for example, a relationship with the FBI, where the FBI is basically telling Twitter what to do and what to censor and which accounts to shut down,” Kheriaty says.

“Arguably, the social media companies can do this as private entities … but inarguably, no one doubts that the federal government cannot censor Americans. That’s a clear free speech First Amendment violation. And the federal government cannot … pressure other entities into doing its bidding as a long arm of its censorship regime.

“We’re hoping, first of all, to uncover exactly what’s going on with this collusion, and the materials that we have so far in discovery in this case have clearly shown that not only is this happening, but it’s happening on a vaster scale than we suspected when we first filed the lawsuit. At least 17 different federal agencies have been involved in this censorship regime.

“So I think that case is going to receive increasing attention in the new year as it proceeds and as more and more information comes out from other investigative reporters on what’s been going on …”

During his deposition for this case, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had what Kheriaty calls “wildly implausible memory lapses.” He said “I don’t know” 174 times. “If he were to be honest … he’s probably worried that it would implicate him in ways that are problematic,” Kheriaty says.

Propaganda in the COVID Era

I’ve previously interviewed psychologist Mattias Desmet about the role of mass formation in the government’s ability to infringe on our human rights and freedoms. Kheriaty agrees that the mass formation mechanism has been part of the problem, but it’s not the only one.

“I don’t think mass formation is the only mechanism at work in terms of accounting for our COVID response. In addition to that theory, which I mentioned in my book, I take a look at the more deliberate employment and deployment of fear through propaganda.

“And, through other subtle and not so subtle mechanisms of coercion that were operating during the pandemic—[I look at] financial incentives and power dynamics that also help to account for what happened to us and why so many people went along with it.

“The control of the flow of information has been extremely important during the pandemic. I think without the government’s partnering with private entities in these vast censorship enterprises, we would not have adopted policies like lockdowns and school closures. We would’ve had much more pushback against policies like vaccine mandates than we saw.

“When you lock people down at home and so they’re isolated behind screens, forced to interact with one another only through this medium, they can’t have quiet face-to-face conversations at the watercooler, then you control the flow of information that they’re getting through the control of social media, the control of mainstream media.

“And then [when] you deploy very sophisticated high-level propaganda techniques—wartime propaganda techniques—and you deliberately deploy fear as a mechanism of control, then you create conditions where people go along with manifestly unjust policies, and not only are not troubled by that, but actually believe that they’re doing good.

“These things are framed as duties of a good citizen. And people who challenge these policies are immediately branded with, ‘You only care about money. You don’t care about not killing grandma,’ this sort of thing.

“This desire to be a good person, this desire to be seen as among the virtuous because I’ve done what I’m told to do and I’ve done what it looks like everyone else is wanting to do or being told to do, this is a very powerful tonic that has proven to be very effective over the last three years.”

Why We Must Understand the Big Picture

On Oct. 23, 2022, Bill Gates, Johns Hopkins, and the World Health Organization cohosted yet another tabletop exercise dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,” involving a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25), which primarily affects children and teens.

When asked if he believes COVID-19 was a kind of fine-tuning of a process the globalist cabal intends to deploy in the future during another pandemic, Kheriaty replied:

“Monkeypox never took hold as the next crisis but, yes, I think we’ve adopted a new model of governance and this is what I argue in “The New Abnormal”—that even though a lot of these individual policies have been rolled back, some of the problematic policies that we’ve mentioned, the whole infrastructure for lockdowns, for digital surveillance through vaccine passport-type technology and through digital track and trace technology, this infrastructure has been put in place.

“It’s still in place and it’s just waiting for the next declared public health crisis. This new model of governance involves unprecedented level of control over people’s lives, their movements, their speech, their freedom of association, and it requires that we jump from one declared crisis to the next to keep this state of emergency going, so that certain people can maintain power … and continue to advance their aims.

“In Chapter 3 of the book, I talk about what some of the next steps are in the rollout of what I call a biosecurity or biomedical security paradigm—things like digital IDs tied to biometric data like your iris scan, your face ID, your fingerprint; eventually, data from wearables or implantable devices on your vital signs and your moment-to-moment health status or emotional status.

“Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will be the financial arm of that monitoring, surveilling, and controlling apparatus, so there’s going to be another declared public health crisis. You see an attempt to reframe other issues from racism to climate change as public health issues.

“People in positions of power have floated serious proposals to do rolling lockdowns to deal with the climate crisis, for example, or the energy crisis in Europe, so we’re going to see something.

“Whether it’s a computer virus or an enterovirus, a gastrointestinal bug that disproportionately impacts children—because children were largely spared from COVID and not enough parents vaccinated their children in the eyes of the biosecurity paradigm elites—I don’t know.

“I don’t know exactly what issue is going to be the one that takes hold, but there will be another declared public health crisis, sometime in the next two to three years, with attempts not only to revive COVID-era policies and mechanisms of control, but to advance additional pieces in that regime. Of that, I have absolutely no doubt.

“One of the reasons I wrote the book … [was] to look toward the future and to ask, ‘OK, how is this apparatus, this biomedical security apparatus going to be deployed down the road, and what are the next steps in that process?’

“[I ask this ] so that we can realize that if we don’t start standing up for certain freedoms, if we don’t draw lines and say, ‘These are rights that should never be relinquished, even during an emergency or a declared crisis,’ if we don’t start doing that, and if we’re not aware of what the next steps in this process are going to be and how they’re going to be sold to us, then we’re going to find ourselves caught off guard once again.

“In a crisis where there’s fear and uncertainty, we’re not going to be able to think clearly. We’re going to lose our heads again and we’re going to wake up in a year or two or three and wonder, ‘How did we get here? What happened to us?’ and I don’t want to see that happen again. We’ve already relinquished enough of our freedoms, we’ve already endured the enormous collateral harms of our disastrous pandemic policies, and to my view, we can’t go down that road again in another few years.”

Looking Ahead
In the epilogue of the book, titled “Seattle 2030,” Kheriaty imagines what life might be like seven years from now, if we don’t change course.

“What I do in the first half of the epilogue is try to give the reader a sense of how some of these new technologies and measures are going to be sold to the public, so the first couple of pages of the epilogue don’t seem dystopian …

“It’s only once you get about halfway through that you start seeing, ‘OK, there are some flies in the ointment, and there’s people in this society under this regime who are not benefiting, who are excluded by the social credit system and other mechanisms of social and financial control.’

“There are certainly health problems that are not being solved by twice-a-year mRNA injections, and probably being exacerbated by this model of treating human beings as though we’re hardware that needs software updates in the form of gene therapies.

“Hopefully, by the end of the epilogue, the reader wakes up and recognizes, ‘Oh, my goodness, this is not the kind of society that I want to live in. This is certainly not the kind of society that I want my children or my grandchildren to grow up in.’

“I didn’t invent any new technologies to describe in the epilogue … [I say] ‘A few years from now, if certain things that are readily available are adopted on a mass scale and deployed in particular ways, this is what your life is going to look like. Is this the kind of life that you want to lead?’

“So it’s an attempt to bring together the future-oriented gaze of the book and help people really get a firm and concrete grasp of what’s coming down the pike if we don’t stand up and resist.”

Is There a Way to Resist CBDC Implementation?
I believe the implementation of CBDCs will be instrumental in the coming control scheme, because once the globalist cabal has direct access to your money, you become far easier to control. And, the way it’s looking right now, CBDCs are inevitable. The question is, how do we opt out of the system?

“This is a really hard problem and it’s a really important question,” Kheriaty says. “I think we have to learn how to opt out of the system and develop, whether it’s a parallel economy or parallel medical institutions, that truly are independent.

“We have to do that right now, and we have to develop those things soon, because if we collectively get into an opt-in situation with digital IDs and CBDCs, then resistance to that system will be almost impossible …

“I think we need to start thinking small and local, and to develop strong face-to-face communities of communication, interaction, mutual support, and exchange. The currency works because of a communal agreement that when I give you this piece of paper, it’s going to be worth something.

“It’s a mutual agreement that we’re going to use this mechanism of exchange, and this mechanism of measuring market value is how currency becomes currency.

“So [as a] collective, [we need to say] ‘No, we’re not going to go cashless.’ If as a collective, we say, ‘No, we’re not going to transition all of our assets into a centrally controlled digital currency,’ we’ll halt the process of that becoming the default or the only game in town.

“Beyond that, I wish I could tell you what the answer looks like and what these parallel economies are going to look like. I don’t know the answer to that, and part of the reason I don’t know the answer is because that’s not how novel solutions develop. Novel solutions don’t develop from a couple of perceptive or intelligent people figuring it all out.

“They require the collective wisdom of a lot of people trying things, some of which don’t work and some of which work. They require people at the local level asking, ‘What are the needs of the population here close to home?’ which may look very different from the needs of a population in a different setting or in a different context.”

Past the Point of No Return, All Freedom Will Be Lost
Kheriaty goes on to explain why getting out of the control system—once CBDCs are fully implemented and society has gone cashless—will be near-impossible:

“CBDCs need to be distinguished from decentralized digital currencies like Bitcoin. The feds are issuing a digital dollar, and if that digital currency is adopted to the point where we’ve gone entirely cashless, then we’re in a situation in which you can be locked out of your ability to engage in financial transactions if you don’t comply or if you don’t behave.

“And, as I explain in the book, if you have a digital dollar in your digital wallet, it’s not actually the same as a dollar bill in your real wallet. The reason for that is, let’s say the government gives you $1,000 tax rebate in the form of a digital dollar. They may even sweeten the deal saying, ‘We’ll give you a $1,000 check in your bank account or we will give you $1,200 in the form of a digital dollar,’ right?

“‘Oh, OK, I’ll take the digital dollar. That’s a no-brainer. It’s more money.’ Well, two to three years from now, once we’ve gone cashless, that digital dollar can be programmed to have conditions attached to it.

“In other words, the government can say, ‘Here’s your tax rebate, but you got to spend this $1,200 sometime in the next nine months, and if you don’t, then it’s going to turn into $600. And if you don’t spend it in the next six months after that, it’s going to disappear.’

“So what you have in your digital wallet is not actually like cash. Cash doesn’t just disappear. It doesn’t have an expiration date on it. The government can also say, ‘You have to spend it on these favored industries.’

“Or, ‘You can’t spend it on these disfavored industries. You can’t give a donation or contribution to support Dr. McCullough’s podcast because he’s a disinformation spreader,’ or, ‘You have to spend it on green energy,’ or whatever.

“Once this is tied to a digital ID, the government will be able to track all of your financial transactions using this digital currency. It will be able to nudge you and punish you in the ways that I have described.

“If you try to opt out of that system, basically you’re not going to be able to engage in financial transactions, or you’re going to find yourself in some parallel economy that involves bartering chickens or something like that—very primitive kind of economic transactions—because all of the banks and all of society’s mainstream institutions are going to rely on this digital system of productivity and exchange and currency to engage in all transactions.

“So once the system is in place, it’s going to be very hard to resist because an algorithm in the sky or a person can push a button and, look, you can no longer buy gasoline. You can no longer purchase things online unless you get your booster shot or unless you do what the public health authorities are telling you to do.

“So it’s a system of near total surveillance and control that would’ve made the totalitarian dictators of the past salivate. Hitler or Stalin could only have dreamed of this level of intrusive surveillance and minute control over the movements and the behavior of the populations that they were governing.”

More Information
I completely agree with Kheriaty’s notion that it is imperative that people understand where we’re headed—that the COVID measures weren’t just responses to a given pandemic, but rather laid the foundation for a totalitarian one-world government, where human rights and freedoms will no longer exist.

This is likely the biggest challenge mankind has ever faced as a collective, and it requires strong collective resistance. For that resistance to occur, however, people must understand what’s going on. So to learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of Kheriaty’s book “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State” and share it with friends and family.

◇ Sources and References
1 ZeroHedge January 26, 2023
2 The Defender December 7, 2022
3, 5 US District Court Eastern District of California Case 2:22-cv-02147-WBS-AC (pdf)
4, 6 The Defender January 26, 2023
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.

[G M]

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/02/09/fauci-now-he-tells-us-n529526

Sorry about the damaged hearts and new and exciting cancers. We cool?

[G M]

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/nuremburg-code-warning.jpg

[G M]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/cases-medical-incidents-reported-military-pilots-increase-1700-pandemic-pentagon-blames-covid/

[G M]

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/02/13/unfortunate-coincidences/

[ccp]

yes
seems like some are being injured by the vaccine
but you must recognize this:

Findings. From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections.

one can argue all day and night about the numbers but millions of lives have been saved

[G M]

The children, young adults would have died?

yes
seems like some are being injured by the vaccine
but you must recognize this:

Findings. From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections.

one can argue all day and night about the numbers but millions of lives have been saved

[ccp]

you just revealed your in objectivity

you only see your side .

I will not concede if you don't .

[Crafty_Dog]

Things that catch my attention:

a) as best as I can tell, the data asserting the efficacy of the various vaxxes is corrupted by the unmeasured presence of those with natural anti-bodies;

b) as best as I can tell, lots of inconvenient data was suppressed, and those pointing it out were cancelled;

c) As best as I can tell, the data asserting efficacy is most persuasive with those in high-risk groups:  old, fat, diabetic, with high blood pressure.

d) as best as I can tell, the data against the vaxxes is strongest with the youngest and healthiest.

e) as best as I can tell, non-vaxx options (e.g. Vitamin D, others) were suppressed.

[ccp]

a) as best as I can tell, the data asserting the efficacy of the various vaxxes is corrupted by the unmeasured presence of those with natural anti-bodies;

[not sure what to make of this assertion]

b) as best as I can tell, lots of inconvenient data was suppressed, and those pointing it out were cancelled;

 [probably true]

c) As best as I can tell, the data asserting efficacy is most persuasive with those in high-risk groups:  old, fat, diabetic, with high blood pressure.

 [and those over 65]
  note obesity is now ~ 43 % of the population but I only prescribe paxlovid if they 
  are morbid or super obese FWIW]

d) as best as I can tell, the data against the vaxxes is strongest with the youngest and healthiest.
 [I agree ]

e) as best as I can tell, non-vaxx options (e.g. Vitamin D, others) were suppressed.
   
 [as far as I can tell the evidence does not support these do anything]

thank you
CD

I know the sun will burn it self out prior to ever getting even a half concession out of our message board friend GM.

[Crafty_Dog]

"a) as best as I can tell, the data asserting the efficacy of the various vaxxes is corrupted by the unmeasured presence of those with natural anti-bodies;  . . . [not sure what to make of this assertion]"

What I am trying to say is that the measurements of the outcomes of vaxxed vs unvaxxed does not distinguish vaxxed with natural antibodies from vaxxed with no natural antibodies.  This, I assert, is bad science. 

[G M]

"a) as best as I can tell, the data asserting the efficacy of the various vaxxes is corrupted by the unmeasured presence of those with natural anti-bodies;  . . . [not sure what to make of this assertion]"

What I am trying to say is that the measurements of the outcomes of vaxxed vs unvaxxed does not distinguish vaxxed with natural antibodies from vaxxed with no natural antibodies.  This, I assert, is bad science.

You might want to look at Africa.

https://www.science.org/content/article/pandemic-appears-have-spared-africa-so-far-scientists-are-struggling-explain-why

[Crafty_Dog]

This is an interesting point.

CCP, what is your sense of what the data shows here and what it means?

[ccp]

This article was from 2020

of course GM suggesting the corona shot is killing more people then corona

sorry
I don't anything about Africa but that is not the case here

[Crafty_Dog]

If I understood correctly the assertion is that Africa had both low vax and low death rates from Wuhan Virus.

[G M]

If I understood correctly the assertion is that Africa had both low vax and low death rates from Wuhan Virus.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/health/covid-africa-deaths.html

 From 2022

[Crafty_Dog]

I've reached limit of free articles.

[G M]

I've reached limit of free articles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/health/covid-africa-deaths.html

Trying to Solve a Covid Mystery: Africa’s Low Death Rates
Stephanie Nolen
Global Health

The coronavirus was expected to devastate the continent, but higher-income and better-prepared countries appear to have fared far worse.

A wedding in the village of Kamakuyor in northern Sierra Leone last month. During the pandemic, the village’s district has recorded just 11 Covid cases and no deaths.
Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
KAMAKWIE, Sierra Leone — There are no Covid fears here.

The district’s Covid-19 response center has registered just 11 cases since the start of the pandemic, and no deaths. At the regional hospital, the wards are packed — with malaria patients. The door to the Covid isolation ward is bolted shut and overgrown with weeds. People cram together for weddings, soccer matches, concerts, with no masks in sight.

Sierra Leone, a nation of eight million on the coast of Western Africa, feels like a land inexplicably spared as a plague passed overhead. What has happened — or hasn’t happened — here and in much of sub-Saharan Africa is a great mystery of the pandemic.

The low rate of coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths in West and Central Africa is the focus of a debate that has divided scientists on the continent and beyond. Have the sick or dead simply not been counted? If Covid has in fact done less damage here, why is that? If it has been just as vicious, how have we missed it?

The answers “are relevant not just to us, but have implications for the greater public good,” said Austin Demby, Sierra Leone’s health minister, in an interview in Freetown, the capital.

The assertion that Covid isn’t as big a threat in Africa has sparked debate about whether the African Union’s push to vaccinate 70 percent of Africans against the virus this year is the best use of health care resources, given that the devastation from other pathogens, such as malaria, appears to be much higher.

In the first months of the pandemic, there was fear that Covid might eviscerate Africa, tearing through countries with health systems as weak as Sierra Leone’s, where there are just three doctors for every 100,000 people, according to the World Health Organization. The high prevalence of malaria, H.I.V., tuberculosis and malnutrition was seen as kindling for disaster.

That has not happened. The first iteration of the virus that raced around the world had comparatively minimal impact here. The Beta variant ravaged South Africa, as did Delta and Omicron, yet much of the rest of the continent did not record similar death tolls.

Into Year Three of the pandemic, new research shows there is no longer any question of whether Covid has spread widely in Africa. It has.

Studies that tested blood samples for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the official name for the virus that causes Covid, show that about two-thirds of the population in most sub-Saharan countries do indeed have those antibodies. Since only 14 percent of the population has received any kind of Covid vaccination, the antibodies are overwhelmingly from infection.

Image

Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
Image

Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
A new W.H.O.-led analysis, not yet peer-reviewed, synthesized surveys from across the continent and found that 65 percent of Africans had been infected by the third quarter of 2021, higher than the rate in many parts of the world. Just 4 percent of Africans had been vaccinated when these data were gathered.

So the virus is in Africa. Is it killing fewer people?

Some speculation has focused on the relative youth of Africans. Their median age is 19 years, compared with 43 in Europe and 38 in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of the population in sub-Saharan Africa is under 25, and only 3 percent is 65 or older. That means far fewer people, comparatively, have lived long enough to develop the health issues (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and cancer) that can sharply increase the risk of severe disease and death from Covid. Young people infected by the coronavirus are often asymptomatic, which could account for the low number of reported cases.

Plenty of other hypotheses have been floated. High temperatures and the fact that much of life is spent outdoors could be preventing spread. Or the low population density in many areas, or limited public transportation infrastructure. Perhaps exposure to other pathogens, including coronaviruses and deadly infections such as Lassa fever and Ebola, has somehow offered protection.

Since Covid tore through South and Southeast Asia last year, it has become harder to accept these theories. After all, the population of India is young, too (with a median age of 28), and temperatures in the country are also relatively high. But researchers have found that the Delta variant caused millions of deaths in India, far more than the 400,000 officially reported. And rates of infection with malaria and other coronaviruses are high in places, including India, that have also seen high Covid fatality rates.

So are Covid deaths in Africa simply not counted?

Most global Covid trackers register no cases in Sierra Leone because testing for the virus here is effectively nonexistent. With no testing, there are no cases to report. A research project at Njala University in Sierra Leone has found that 78 percent of people have antibodies for this coronavirus. Yet Sierra Leone has reported only 125 Covid deaths since the start of the pandemic.

Most people die in their homes, not in hospitals, either because they can’t reach a medical facility or because their families take them home to die. Many deaths are never registered with civil authorities.

This pattern is common across sub-Saharan Africa. A recent survey by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa found that official registration systems captured only one in three deaths.

Image

Credit...Samantha Reinders for The New York Times
Image

Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
The one sub-Saharan country where almost every death is counted is South Africa. And it’s clear from the data that Covid has killed a great many people in that country, far more than the reported virus deaths. Excess mortality data show that between May 2020 and September 2021, some 250,000 more people died from natural causes than was predicted for that time period, based on the pattern in previous years. Surges in death rates match those in Covid cases, suggesting the virus was the culprit.

Dr. Lawrence Mwananyanda, a Boston University epidemiologist and special adviser to the president of Zambia, said he had no doubt that the impact in Zambia had been just as severe as in South Africa, but that Zambian deaths simply had not been captured by a much weaker registration system. Zambia, a country of more than 18 million people, has reported 4,000 Covid-19 deaths.

“If that is happening in South Africa, why should it be different here?” he said. In fact, he added, South Africa has a much stronger health system, which ought to mean a lower death rate, rather than a higher one.

A research team he led found that during Zambia’s Delta wave, 87 percent of bodies in hospital morgues were infected with Covid. “The morgue was full. Nothing else is different — what is different is that we just have very poor data.”

The Economist, which has been tracking excess deaths throughout the pandemic, shows similar rates of death across Africa. Sondre Solstad, who runs the Africa model, said that there had been between one million and 2.9 million excess deaths on the continent during the pandemic.

“It would be beautiful if Africans were spared, but they aren’t,” he said.

But many scientists tracking the pandemic on the ground disagree. It’s not possible that hundreds of thousands or even millions of Covid deaths could have gone unnoticed, they say.

“We have not seen massive burials in Africa. If that had happened, we’d have seen it,” said Dr. Thierno Baldé, who runs the W.H.O.’s Covid emergency response in Africa.

“A death in Africa never goes unrecorded, as much as we are poor at record-keeping,” said Dr. Abdhalah Ziraba, an epidemiologist at the African Population and Health Research Center in Nairobi, Kenya. “There is a funeral, an announcement: A burial is never done within a week because it is a big event. For someone sitting in New York hypothesizing that they were unrecorded — well, we may not have the accurate numbers, but the perception is palpable. In the media, in your social circle, you know if there are deaths.”

Dr. Demby, the Sierra Leone health minister, who is an epidemiologist by training, agreed. “We haven’t had overflowing hospitals. We haven’t,” he said. “There is no evidence that excess deaths are occurring.”

Which could be keeping the death rate lower?

Image

Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
Image

Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
While health surveillance is weak, he acknowledged, Sierra Leoneans have the recent, terrible experience of Ebola, which killed 4,000 people here in 2014-16. Since then, he said, citizens have been on alert for an infectious agent that could be killing people in their communities. They would not continue to pack into events if that were the case, he said.

Dr. Salim Abdool Karim, who is on the African Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Covid task force and who was part of the research team tracking excess deaths in South Africa, believes the death toll continentwide is probably consistent with that of his country. There is simply no reason that Gambians or Ethiopians would be less vulnerable to Covid than South Africans, he said.

But he also said it was clear that large numbers of people were not turning up in the hospital with respiratory distress. The young population is clearly a key factor, he said, while some older people who die of strokes and other Covid-induced causes are not being identified as coronavirus deaths. Many are not making it to the hospital at all, and their deaths are not registered. But others are not falling ill at rates seen elsewhere, and that’s a mystery that needs unraveling.

“It’s hugely relevant to things as basic as vaccine development and treatment,” said Dr. Prabhat Jha, who heads the Centre for Global Health Research in Toronto and is leading work to analyze causes of death in Sierra Leone.

Researchers working with Dr. Jha are using novel methods — such as looking for any increase in revenue from obituaries at radio stations in Sierra Leonean towns over the past two years — to try to see if deaths could have risen unnoticed, but he said it was clear there had been no tide of desperately sick people.

Some organizations working on the Covid vaccination effort say the lower rates of illness and death should be driving a rethinking of policy. John Johnson, vaccination adviser for Doctors Without Borders, said that vaccinating 70 percent of Africans made sense a year ago when it seemed like vaccines might provide long-term immunity and make it possible to end Covid-19 transmission. But now that it’s clear that protection wanes, collective immunity no longer looks achievable. And so an immunization strategy that focuses on protecting just the most vulnerable would arguably be a better use of resources in a place such as Sierra Leone.

“Is this the most important thing to try to carry out in countries where there are much bigger problems with malaria, with polio, with measles, with cholera, with meningitis, with malnutrition? Is this what we want to spend our resources on in those countries?” he asked. “Because at this point, it’s not for those people: It’s to try to prevent new variants.”

And new variants of Covid pose the greatest risk in places with older populations and high levels of comorbidities such as obesity, he said.

Other experts cautioned that the virus remained an unpredictable foe and that scaling back efforts to vaccinate sub-Saharan Africans could yet lead to tragedy.

“We can’t get complacent and assume Africa can’t go the way of India,” Dr. Jha said.

A new variant as infectious as Omicron but more lethal than Delta could yet emerge, he warned, leaving Africans vulnerable unless vaccination rates increased significantly.

“We should really avoid the hubris that all Africa is safe,” he said.

[Crafty_Dog]

Just How Hard Were We Trolled?
Jeffrey A. Tucker
February 6, 2023

Commentary

What if Dr. Anthony Fauci co-authored an article on vaccines that would have gotten you and me blocked and banned at any point in the past three years? That just happened.

His article in Cell—“Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses”—states it as plainly as possible: the COVID-19 vaccine didn’t work because it couldn’t work.

First some review from what we knew before this whole fiasco began.

Vaccines aren’t suitable for coronaviruses. Such respiratory viruses spread and mutate too quickly. This is why there has never been a vaccine for the common cold and why the flu shot is predictably suboptimal. Vaccines can only be sterilizing and contribute to public health when the virus is a stable pathogen, such as smallpox and measles. For coronaviruses, there’s really only one way forward: better antivirals, therapeutics, and acquired immunity.

The above paragraph has been repeated to me countless times in my life, especially after COVID-19 hit. Every expert was on the same page. There was simply no question about it. Anything that would be called a vaccine would lack the features of vaccines past. It wouldn’t stop infection or transmission, much less end a bad season for respiratory viruses. This is why the Food and Drug Administration has never approved one. It wouldn’t and couldn’t make it through trials, especially given the safety risks associated with every vaccine.

Maybe, maybe, there exists the possibility that you can come up with one variant, but it isn’t likely to be approved in time to be effective. It might provide temporary protection against severe outcomes from one variant, but it will be useless against further mutations. In addition, vaccine-induced protection isn’t as broad as natural immunity, so it’s likely that the person would get infected later. Boosting is likely only to pertain to last month’s mutation and raises dangers of itself: imprinting the immune system in ways that make it less effective.

Sadly, posting those three paragraphs on social media at any point in the past three years would likely get you censored or even banned. Normal science was suppressed. Common knowledge among experts was verboten. Everything we’ve learned for a century or even two millennia was thrown out. The job of censorship was tasked to a gaggle of ill-educated tech workers obeying the FBI overlords, so they went along.

And here we are two years after the vaccine rollout and the truth is rather well known. The vaccines were an enormous flop. At best. At worst, they caused tremendous amounts of injury and death as compared to any vaccine ever approved for the market. That they were forced on people in many professions—and backed by a Stalinesque media frenzy—is simply incredible. Several cities even locked themselves down for the vaccinated only. Even now, unvaccinated non-Americans can’t travel to the United States, unless they come across the southern border.

And yet only now does Fauci choose to lay out the science that we knew long ago. There’s nothing particularly interesting in his article. Only the timing is interesting: following trillions in pharma profits and millions displaced by mandates and suffering from injury all over the world. Now he says that there was really no chance that the vaccine would be either effective or necessarily safe.

This is a level of trolling that’s truly unthinkable and indescribable.

Here’s the summary of the article:

“Viruses that replicate in the human respiratory mucosa without infecting systemically, including influenza A, SARS-CoV-2, endemic coronaviruses, RSV, and many other ‘common cold’ viruses, cause significant mortality and morbidity and are important public health concerns. Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves, they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.

“In this review, we examine challenges that have impeded development of effective mucosal respiratory vaccines, emphasizing that all of these viruses replicate extremely rapidly in the surface epithelium and are quickly transmitted to other hosts, within a narrow window of time before adaptive immune responses are fully marshaled.”

There are profound safety issues to consider, too. It takes a very long time to assure that. Fauci wrote:

“Considering that vaccine development and licensure is a long and complex process requiring years of preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data, the limitations of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines remind us that candidate vaccines for most other respiratory viruses have to date been insufficiently protective for consideration of licensure …”

Further, vaccines certainly can’t improve on what even natural immunity can’t do:

“Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines. This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?”

This is why the flu vaccines “have never been able to elicit durable protective immunity against seasonal influenza virus strains, even against non-drifted strains. … Their effectiveness against clinically apparent infection is decidedly suboptimal, ranging from 14 percent to 60 percent over the past 15 influenza seasons.”

Now, it’s not as if Fauci admits that the vaccine was a complete flop. Of course, he has to engage in the usual incantations of the glories of the COVID-19 vaccination.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control,” he wrote.

Note the word “innumerable.” It means there’s no number and no possibility of a number. Exactly. Also note “early partial”—weasel words to cover the reality of egregious failure.

If you click through the citation to this dubious claim, it’s from April 2021, early in the mutation process, when we hardly had any data at all to justify such celebration. Why is Fauci citing a two-year-old piece in defense of the vaccine? Because that’s all there is to cite: two-year-old hagiographies without meaningful data.

How precisely can we account for this fiasco? If they knew, and they did know, how is it that they put us through this horrible upheaval? The most dreadful theory is that they knew for sure that the virus would become endemic through exposure. But the point of “slowing the spread” and “flattening the curve” (lockdowns and masking) while trashing and nearly banning other therapeutics was to preserve the customer base for the new experimental product.

That product was mRNA, which is supposed to be a platform for future vaccines. This is why the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was taken off the market.

Under this theory, they wanted to prolong the pandemic for as long as possible so they could collect data on how well the vaccine worked. And they wanted to try it universally, which is why we didn’t hear much at all about the risk gradient of the vaccine itself. This also accounts for the deliberate drumming up of disease panic and forced distancing.

So let that sink in. They utterly smashed the world as we knew it—violating all human rights—in order to test out a new technology at great profit to themselves. In other words, they treated us all as lab rats.

An entire generation of politicians needs to be toppled from power all over the world. The same goes for media professionals, tech CEOs, and public-health officials. They all have to go. And we need a thorough accounting, not to mention guarantees, that nothing like this will ever happen again. As for Moderna and Pfizer, one could easily make a case for forcing their immediate end as corporate entities.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

[G M]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/huge-101-page-whistleblower-document-reveals-biden-pentagon-suppressed-concerns-covid-shot-side-effects-many-soldiers-suffered-horrifying-injuries-result/

[G M]

https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-death-injury-no-liability-and-now-a-part-of-the-child-vaccination-schedule-2659415690.html

[ccp]

you can post all you want

for me I am not longer reading this thread

the vaccine saved many lives like it or not

despite your obsession with it.

BTW Daniel Horowitz is a light weight
in my opinion.

[G M]

you can post all you want

for me I am not longer reading this thread

the vaccine saved many lives like it or not

despite your obsession with it.

BTW Daniel Horowitz is a light weight
in my opinion.

You can avoid this thread, but none of us can avoid the deaths and damage done by the ClotShot.

[Crafty_Dog]

GM, you can be kind of relentless sometimes , , ,

[G M]

https://discernreport.com/world-series-poker-players-caught-on-hot-mic-talking-chest-pain-from-the-covid-vaccine/

If it wasn’t for the ClotShot, your chances of survival would have only been 99.9!

[G M]

https://ace.mu.nu/archives/403184.php

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/what-was-the-point-of-denying-natural-immunity_5053980.html?utm_source=Opinion&src_src=Opinion&utm_campaign=opinion-2023-02-15&src_cmp=opinion-2023-02-15&utm_medium=email&est=KdL93uGSlXW7CefNqU3uR6I4wwdmWPqvDvl1YXV4XOhe9e5HukMUfpWiUVWSfUqkuybT

What Was the Point of Denying Natural Immunity?
People are being strongly encouraged to get vaccinated, even if they have natural immunity. (ronstik/Shutterstock)
By Jeffrey A. Tucker
February 13, 2023Updated: February 15, 2023


Commentary

On Nov. 13, 2020, just as the vaccine was being rolled out (surely a sheer coincidence that it was just after the election), the World Health Organization (WHO) made a hugely significant change to its website.

It pertained to the section on herd immunity—the concept theorizing how a new pathogen goes from pandemic to endemic, from socially disruptive to manageable. It’s about how a society gets back to normal. Previously, the website said it happens with immunity upgrades through exposure plus vaccines.

On that day, the WHO changed its website. The science hadn’t changed. But the body presuming to guard and govern world health changed anyway. The website suddenly struck out natural immunity and even put it down. The new text said, “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not exposing them to it.”


Wow, amazing news! You mean that for all viruses, we will now rely only on vaccines, even though natural immunity has been the way that humanity evolved with viruses from the beginning of time? And even though natural immunity and exposure are how infectious disease went from being possibly the No. 1 problem humanity faced over most of history to becoming a relatively minor problem in the modern age?

That’s right. The WHO announced that scientists and their potions would protect the whole of humanity from everything! Astounding. And unbearably false. It just so happened that this grand reveal happened just as COVID vaccines were about to hit the market.

There was a minor uproar online, but it was enough even to reach the inner chambers of the organization. And so by Jan. 4, 2021, the website of the WHO dialed back its absurdity a bit. Herd immunity “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection,” the site then said. It added, however, in case there was any doubt, that the WHO “supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination.”


This is surely one of the most bizarre chapters in the history of public health. We’ve known about natural immunity for at least 2,500 years. It’s a basic concept without which there is no understanding of disease at all. To think that the WHO tried to wipe it out with a website change is beyond belief.

The month before the WHO came out with its preposterous claim, the British medical journal The Lancet had more-or-less trumpeted the same blather. As the Norfolk Group has written:

“In October 2020, a widely circulated Memorandum published in The Lancet, a top British medical journal, questioned infection-acquired immunity. It stated that ‘there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection,’ claiming ‘scientific consensus’ for this view. The Memorandum was co-authored by several senior US scientists, including Drs. Marc Lipsitch (Harvard), Ali Nouri (president, American Federation of Scientists) and Rochelle Walensky (Harvard).

“With extremely few reinfections at the time, clear evidence for the existence of infection-acquired immunity, and despite what we know about other coronaviruses, on what basis did these scientists question that infection with SARS-CoV-2 provided lasting protection from severe disease for recovered individuals and, early on, from reinfection? What was the rationale for The Lancet Editor-in-Chief Dr. Richard Horton’s decision to publish the Lancet Memorandum that questioned infection-acquired immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection without citing supporting data and which ran in opposition to well established immunologic principles?”

The memorandum in question was supposed to be a response to the Great Barrington Declaration. They called it the John Snow Memo. Today, it’s nothing if not embarrassing.

Of course, the evidence rolled in from all over the world over the coming months that natural immunity to this pathogen works exactly as one would expect. It’s robust and broad and lasting.

Simply incredible.

Then what happened? Something absolutely remarkable. It turned out that the vaccine failed to prevent infection or transmission. That is to say, vaccination turned out to make no contribution to herd immunity or public health. Not just some but none. Forget the idea that we would vaccinate our way out of this mess. Nope. Far from it. The pandemic would end the old-fashioned way, the same as every pandemic of the past—through natural exposure and recovery.

This fiasco has to rank among the most egregious failures of public health in history. The world’s most respected institutions actually opened themselves up to be major sources of massive disinformation for the entire planet Earth. And then, everything they promised turned out to be a complete lie.

Why did the WHO change basic immunological realities? I have my own theories. They’re so captured by industry and Big Pharma in particular that they WANTED the population to stay immunologically naïve and unprotected in order that they could market and test a new technology.

Again, that has to rank among the most egregious experiments in modern life, and it’s one that utterly and completely failed.

If you think about it, and if this is true, this accounts for nearly all the insanity of government for the better part of three years. It explains the deprecation of early treatments. It explains the relentless and bizarre demand to “flatten the curve” even though there was no threat to the healthcare system. The point was to preserve the non-immune state of the population as long as possible so that they could get shots in the arms of everyone, even those who didn’t want them or need them.

It explains the lockdowns. It explains the closures and capacity restrictions. It explains the travel restrictions. It explains the demand that we put ourselves under house arrest and avoid contact with anyone. If we had to go out, we were told to “socially distance” and mask up. It was all a plot to keep us vulnerable to the pathogen that the vaccines were supposed to magically whisk away, even though we’ve never in history had a vaccine for a widespread coronavirus respiratory infection that mutates quickly.

In fact, we’ve also long known that getting repeatedly vaccinated for a fast-mutating virus is itself a great danger due to “immunity imprinting” and “original antigenic sin”—making us sicker than ever. And not only that More and more mutations are also given strength by the vaccination itself, in which case the vaccination not only prolonged the pandemic but even added a new layer of unusual sickness on top of that.

They actually put profit and industrial capture ahead of matters of health. And they did it for the entire planet. They experimented with the world’s population to create a new platform technology for perpetual boosters not only for this virus but all diseases. This is the only possible explanation. It’s a scandal of epic proportions.

Once you understand this, if you were already angry about what has happened to us, you would add another layer of fury. Crucially, none of these errors in judgment have any justification in ignorance. They knew. They just decided to ignore science and experience and replace it with industrial propaganda, at great expense to the health of the population all over the world.

Will you ever regain your trust in public health? You shouldn’t, not until there’s full accountability and open admissions of wrongdoing.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

[G M]

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-first-mandatory-vaccination-campaign

[Crafty_Dog]

Fauci Changes His Public Tune on Covid Vaccines

Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., July 20, 2021. (Stefani Reynolds/Pool via Reuters)
Share
591 Comments
Listen to article
By JOEL ZINBERG
February 16, 2023 6:30 AM

But the mandates he continued to promote when he knew the shots gave limited protection had disastrous effects.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has finally acknowledged that there had always been good scientific reasons to believe that vaccines against the respiratory virus that causes Covid-19 — SARS-CoV-2 — would provide limited protection against infection that would not be long-lasting. That is precisely what happened: It quickly became apparent that protection against transmission lasted just a few months, and initial effectiveness declined as each new viral variant proved more contagious than its predecessor. Yet Fauci insisted that repeated vaccines were needed for everyone and until recently pushed for vaccine mandates. This has resulted in shortages of essential workers, poorer educational outcomes, and diminished trust in public-health authorities.

Last month in an article in the journal Cell Host & Microbe, Fauci wrote that vaccines against respiratory viruses generally provide “decidedly suboptimal” protection against infection and rarely produce durable, protective immunity. The reason is that most of these viruses, such as influenza, which causes the flu, and SARS-CoV-2, have short incubation periods during which they infect the respiratory mucosa and rapidly replicate there without spreading systemically. Moreover, according to Fauci, the human immune system has evolved to tolerate respiratory viruses during short intervals of mucosal viral replication. This leads to illness and onward transmission without eliciting a systemic immune response.

These factors negate the effectiveness of vaccines, which typically rely on systemic responses to viral exposures. Respiratory viruses that replicate rapidly in the mucosa cause short-duration illnesses and transmission to others all before the immunologic defenses put in place by vaccines can be brought to bear. Vaccines against the influenza virus that causes the flu, for example, have averaged only 40 percent effectiveness against infection over the last 17 influenza seasons, ranging from 10 to 60 percent. And, as Fauci acknowledged, “the duration of vaccine-elicited immunity is measured only in months.”

There are a few successful vaccines against respiratory viruses with long incubation periods such as the ones that cause measles, mumps, and rubella. Unlike the short-incubation viruses, these viruses rapidly move from the mucosa to spread systemically so that they elicit strong immunologic responses and long-term immunity.

In addition, many respiratory viruses, including both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza, are more likely to mutate than the measles, mumps and rubella viruses, leading to more-rapid emergence of new variants. This makes production of vaccines with long-lasting protection difficult.

Fauci concluded that vaccines for most respiratory viruses such as influenza and SARS-CoV-2 “have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.” Their primary utility is to reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death. As Dr. Paul Offit wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, “for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, a mucosal infection with a short incubation period, protection from severe disease is the only reasonable and attainable goal.”

Given this background, the poor effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines should have been reasonably foreseeable. In addition, Fauci noted that all of the vaccines that are successful against systemic respiratory viruses — generating broader and longer-lasting immunity — are systemically replicating live-virus vaccines that fully encounter the host mucosal and systemic immune system. None of the Covid-19 vaccines fall into this category.

Early reports claimed 90 percent effectiveness in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2. Predictably, this effectiveness lasted for only a few months. And when variant SARS-CoV-2 strains emerged, “deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines” became apparent, according to Fauci. During the Delta-variant surge in the summer of 2021, short-term vaccine effectiveness declined to 66 percent. The figures have steadily declined since with each successive variant.

When vaccines first became available in December 2020–January 2021, Covid cases were surging, and there were still large numbers of people who had not been infected and gained natural immunity after recovery. Vaccination requirements for health-care workers in hospitals and nursing homes could be justified to protect those essential workers and to protect the vulnerable people they cared for. But within a short time, it became clear that, while Covid vaccines continue to protect against severe illness and death, they had largely lost their ability to stop viral transmission.

Nevertheless, Fauci advocated vaccine mandates for schoolchildren under twelve in August 2021, more than a year after it was clear that this age group had virtually no risk of severe Covid disease or mortality. Months later he defended generalized mandates because “society needs to be protected. And you do that by not only protecting yourself, but by protecting the people around you by getting vaccinated.”

Fauci had to have known this statement was inaccurate based on the scientific factors he recounts in his recent article and on the evolving data showing declining vaccine effectiveness that he had access to. Whatever his motivations for making this erroneous assertion, the policies it inspired were disastrous.

Workers who were, perhaps ill-advisedly, willing to defy vaccine mandates and assume the risk of their own severe illness were fired, even though vaccines would protect neither them nor their co-workers from infection. Thousands of essential workers including firefighters, police officers, and military and medical personnel lost jobs and have yet to be replaced. Staffing shortages are common.

Schoolchildren whose parents understandably doubted the need to vaccinate them were excluded from school, compounding the loss in in-person classes from earlier school closures. The educational losses have been staggering and disproportionately affect already disadvantaged communities.

Booster shots, particularly the recently introduced bivalent boosters, have been promoted by Fauci and others with little or no experimental evidence that they reduce transmission for more than brief periods of time. Offit concluded that “booster dosing is probably best reserved for the people most likely to need protection against severe disease — specifically, older adults, people with multiple coexisting conditions that put them at high risk for serious illness, and those who are immunocompromised. . . . We should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

Perhaps the most serious side effect of Fauci’s prolonged reluctance to acknowledge the predictable and eventually widely known shortcomings of Covid vaccines has been to undermine trust in public-health authorities. Throughout the pandemic, health pronouncements from federal authorities have often been confusing and sometimes outright misleading. The most important factor in combating future pandemics will be people’s voluntary risk-avoidance behaviors, including their willingness to comply with reasonable public-health advice. If people have little faith in the advice they receive, the consequences could be calamitous.


JOEL ZINBERG is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the director of PARAGON HEALTH INSTITUTE’s Public Health and American Well-being Initiative, and an associate clinical professor of surgery at the Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine. He was general counsel and a senior economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers from 2017 to 2019

[G M]

https://vaxxfacts.substack.com/p/vaxx-update-are-the-un-vaxxed-about

[G M]

https://gatesofvienna.net/2023/02/resistance-begins-with-i-will-not-comply/

[G M]

https://jessica5b3.substack.com/p/ahs-are-deleting-admission-records?utm_source=post-email-t

Good thing that can't happen here!

[Crafty_Dog]

Although plausible, the fact is that there is absolutely nothing verifiable here-- not even the name of the person alleged to have had this happen to them.

[G M]

Although plausible, the fact is that there is absolutely nothing verifiable here-- not even the name of the person alleged to have had this happen to them.

True. Canada wouldn't do that, right?

America certainly wouldn't, right?

[Crafty_Dog]

The rhetorical questions are without purpose.  I have already stated the notion is plausible-- but I would submit that a good general rule is to require something resembling actual evidence.

[G M]

The rhetorical questions are without purpose.  I have already stated the notion is plausible-- but I would submit that a good general rule is to require something resembling actual evidence.

Like the Wuhan lab leak?

Remember when that was just tinfoil hat lunacy?

[Crafty_Dog]

We had an awful lot of good circumstantial evidence there.

Here there is but an anonymous post alleging anonymous facts.  We live in a time of great lies and manipulations and need to take care that we are not manipulated.

[G M]

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/trials-should-have-been-stopped-rate-serious-adverse-events-closely-tracks-spike-post-vax

[G M]

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/gsk-scientists-knew-about-zantacs-cancer-risks-forty-years

[Crafty_Dog]

Birth Rates Plunge in Heavily Vaccinated Countries
HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
Feb 21 2023


In many countries, births dropped sharply nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake. Let’s look at how this happens. And will these populations recover?


Vital Statistics–Hidden Data
Since the beginning of COVID, vital statistics as reported by governments around the world, are hard to come by. Spotty availability hinders analysis and understanding.

For example, even today in the United States, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and Washington are four of the states that, as of this writing, have not updated births data since 2019 [1] and 2020. [2] [3] [4]

Nineteen European Countries
By August 2022, Raimond Hagemann, Ulf Lorré, and Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer had compiled data on birth rate changes in 19 European countries and produced an extremely important paper. [5] In country after country, the inflection point of reduced births is consistent at the end of the year 2021.

This was nine months after the spring zeitgeist to take the COVID vaccines. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia, as well as Iceland, Northern Ireland, Montenegro, Serbia—all show this pattern. Nine months after peak vaccine uptake—the births decline.

From R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. Danish data (p 31):


The corresponding graph for each of the 19 countries has a similar pattern: peak uptake of COVID vaccines in spring of 2021, followed by precipitous birthrate declines beginning nine months later.

All of the nineteen countries studied saw accelerating declines in births in 2022, beginning at nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake. Note the small p values in the following table, favoring temporal association of the two events. This, in turn, supports the Bradford Hill temporality criterion regarding causation of infertility, rather than a highly coincidental correlation between peak vaccination in spring of 2021 and sharply declining birth rates nine months later.

Sweden
Data analyst Gato Malo has noted, as have others, that too many countries are locking their vital statistics data away from public view, which pre-empts any valid analysis. Occasional glimpses are available.


Looking at Sweden, he found that if he overlaid month-to-month change in births, that the strong dip in births beginning in November—December 2021, lines up very tightly with the percentage of people who were unvaccinated 9 months earlier. [6] This was consistent with the R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. findings. And births in Sweden have not yet shown signs of recovery from this decline.

Epoch Times Photo
(data scb.se, owid) boriquagato.substack.com
UK
At a similar time as in the above countries, we see births decline in the UK. After December 2021, the number of women giving birth is no longer in the forty thousands, but now crosses down into the thirty thousands, and stays there. [7] See the column “Women giving birth.”

From the UK Health Security Agency (p 18):

Epoch Times Photo
Comparing year-over-year decline, we might write this mean decline from the first two quarters of 2021 to the first two quarters of 2022, where b is births, as (Σ b1, 2021…b6, 2021) – (Σ b1, 2022…b6, 2022) = 256,785 – 227,302 = 29,483. This is a deficit of 4,913 births per month in the UK. Similarly to Sweden, the inflection point of decline is at a 9–11 month point following the months of peak vaccine uptake in the UK. [8]

From Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data, peak vaccine uptake in the UK was in the first quarter of 2021:

Epoch Times Photo
 

Switzerland
Switzerland saw its largest drop in birth rates in 150 years, more than in each of the two World Wars, the Great Depression, and even the introduction of widely used oral contraceptives. [9]

Why Is This Happening?
Naomi Wolf explored menstrual irregularities reported following COVID vaccination, and even following contact with COVID-vaccinated people. As the first to discuss these problems publicly, and to gather data online from women who were experiencing these menstrual changes, she was criticized and censored on social media.

Her Daily Clout organization led a team of over 3,000 researchers, including Pierre Kory M.D., to dissect the documents released by Pfizer/FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] under court order regarding clinical outcomes of the 44,000-person clinical trial of the Pfizer COVID vaccines. The Daily Clout team summarized their findings in their book on Kindle: “Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports.” [10]

They report Pfizer’s findings of overwhelming injuries in their experimental group. Of the 22,000 individuals who had received the Pfizer vaccine, “Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data.” [11]

The Daily Clout team explores in their book topics related to the COVID vaccines’ impacts on male and female fertility. As their team traced the data reported by Pfizer, it was found that 270 of the pregnant women in the Pfizer trial reported a vaccine injury. “ … but Pfizer only followed 32 of them and 28 of their babies died. This is a shocking 87.5% fetal death rate.” [12]

Pfizer logged over 158,000 separate adverse events during that clinical trial, under 1290 different types of adverse events, an enormous compendium of human suffering, as partially imaged below from the first part of the letter A. [13]

From Pfizer Worldwide Safety (p 30):

Epoch Times Photo
Wolf’s team notes that “If Pfizer had a TV commercial for its COVID vaccine listing the 158,893 adverse events reported in the first 12 weeks, the announcer would be reading them for more than 80 consecutive hours.” [14]

Even this exhaustive list could not be complete, because Pfizer could not account for the outcomes of 22 percent of participants. Pfizer does list 11,361 of the patients as “not recovered” at the time of their report. [15] This is 51.6 percent of their experimental group “not recovered” from adverse events.

No Liquid Will ‘Just Stay in the Shoulder/Arm.’
We have known, and Pfizer has confessed to, the transmission of spike proteins from one person to another by skin contact and exhalation. I cite and discuss that in the context of one adult to another in a community setting. [16]

Adverse effects on vaccinated breastfeeding mothers and their babies included a range of vomiting, fever, rash, partial paralysis, blue-green discolored breast milk, and other side effects.

Not surprisingly, the injected vaccine liquid passes from mother to nursing infant as well, in accordance with long-established physics principles of dispersal and diffusion of liquid introduced into a semi-solid (55–60 percent water) body, as well as centuries of basic, undisputed physiology and circulation of blood and lymph: Liquids introduced into the body diffuse throughout the body, as always.

It has also been known of lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery of medication—since its first development—that it, of course, enters the circulation. Those who alleged—and those who believed—that a liquid injection would “stay in the arm” had not even a junior high school student’s grasp of basic biology or physics.

But Pfizer knew. It advised male participants in the trial to avoid sexual contact with women of childbearing age or to use condoms.

Here is an overview of the impact of LNP-delivered substances on human male and female reproductive organs. [17]

Epoch Times Photo
From Wang R, Song B, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system

Male Infertility and the COVID Vaccines
mRNA vaccine ingredients are observed to disperse throughout the body, collecting in the testes, among other organs. [18] An adverse event of note in Pfizer’s list of 1290 such events post-vaccination is “anti-sperm antibodies.”

From Pfizer Worldwide Safety:

Epoch Times Photo
An Israeli study later confirmed damage to sperm, both in total numbers and motility, from the Pfizer vaccine. [19]

Epoch Times Photo
The word “temporarily” in the title is misleading because the researchers assumed sperm would recover after their three-month study period, although they ended their observation at that time. And they did not show any evidence that sperm did actually recover. So their word “temporarily” is so far unverified.

Pfizer did not test for male reproductive toxicity, [20] nor for the adverse effects that may be transmitted by vaccinated men’s semen on their children’s development.

One might think that male reproductive effects would have been tested for in Pfizer’s trial on rats. However, only the female rats were vaccinated; the male ones were not. [21] When Pfizer pronounced the male rats’ reproductive organs free of toxicity, they neglected to emphasize the earlier fine print: male rats had not been vaccinated at all.

But Pfizer did instruct human male study participants to avoid intercourse or to use a condom.

Harm caused by LNPs to male reproductive organs and ability had already been established years earlier. As seen in this 2018 study, such organs were known to be vulnerable to toxic influences from LNPs. [22] Besides lowered sperm counts and motility, researchers have found “folded amorphous spermatozoa, cells lacking or showing a small hook, and cells with undulating or elongated heads were the most frequent abnormalities found.” [23]

Moreover, toxic chemicals, such as phthalates and other endocrine disruptors, [24] were already abundant in the environment prior to the COVID vaccines. These have likely contributed to declining sperm number and quality for a half-century, [25] in which sperm counts have been dropping by about 1 percent per year since 1972. [26]

However, the COVID vaccines are making spermatogenesis even more rare. The problem is that most of the male reproductive cells, including spermatogonia and spermatozoa, express ACE-2, which is what spike proteins use for entry into human cells. Just as happens in blood vessels throughout the body, the spike protein arrival at the ACE-2 receptors was found to damage not only sperm, but also the blood-testis barrier, and to contribute to orchitis. At day 150, sperm concentration was 15.9 percent below baseline, below even the 75 to 120-day period, and had not begun to recover by the end of the study.[27]

Female Infertility and the COVID Vaccines
The World Health Organization had long taken an interest in “anti-fertility vaccines” and “fertility regulating vaccines,” as they wrote in 1992. “Chorionic gonadotropin is the one antigen that fulfils criteria for an ideal contraceptive vaccine.” [Emphasis mine.] [28]

Fetal death was so rampant among COVID-vaccinated pregnant women observed by the CDC in the V-Safe Surveillance System [29] that I compared the miscarriage rate to the “morning-after pill” in the abortive effect of those pregnancies for which outcomes were reported. [30] That is, between 80 to 90 percent abortive effect. This is comparable to what the Naomi Wolf/Daily Clout team found, 87.5 percent, as referenced above. However, that V-Safe data had been released too early for accurate tally of all pregnancy outcomes, simply because it included women still in their first two trimesters.

This paper examines the cohort of pregnant women in the second half (second 20 weeks) of their pregnancies. [31] However, it seems to be flawed by missing data. [32]

Miscarriages also show a dose-dependent response. The Pfizer vaccine is a 30 mcg dose and the Moderna vaccine is a 100 mcg dose. At an October 2022 CDC expert committee meeting (ACIP), the following data were presented:

12,751 women took the Pfizer vaccine, and 8,365 women took the Moderna vaccine. 422 Pfizer-vaccinated women, that is 3 percent of the Pfizer total, miscarried (lost their pregnancy by 20 weeks gestation), and 395 of the Moderna-vaccinated women, that is 4.7 percent of the Moderna total, miscarried. [33]

Epoch Times Photo
CDC. COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0–5 months. (pdf)

So this means that 42 percent more of the Moderna group miscarried than the Pfizer group. This large percentage difference in such large cohorts (in the thousands of participants) supports a dose-response relationship of the COVID mRNA vaccine with miscarriage, worsened with the more potent dosing. This dose response is another of the Bradford Hill criteria to establish cause and effect.

The documents that Pfizer sought to have concealed for 75 years, but instead was forced to release by court order, reveal the 1290 types of adverse events, and 158,000 total adverse events, noted above.

Also revealed in the same documents was that Pfizer excluded 21 groups of people from their trials, including “women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.” [34]

The vaccines had been tested on 44 pregnant rats over 6 weeks, as required by protocols of Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity studies, but they had not been tested on pregnant women. Ill effects were not reported from the rat study. [35]

However, nine of the ten study authors were employed by and held stock in Pfizer or BioNTech companies, as acknowledged in small print at the end of the article. Therefore, a highly-conflicted study of only 44 rats, studied over six weeks, was the sole research basis for the obstetric profession to urge pregnant women to be vaccinated.

Pfizer’s reporting of women in the trials who became pregnant following vaccination found 413 pregnant women, of whom 270 cases were considered to be serious and 146 to be non-serious. The serious cases included “spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.” [36] A problem with the short 12-week trial is that nearly all of these new pregnancies were apparently in early gestation, first trimester, at trial end.

The Daily Clout research team determined after examining and comparing miscarriages following various vaccines over time:

“If you are pregnant, you are more likely to lose your baby in a miscarriage if you receive a COVID-19 vaccine than if you receive measles, mumps, flu, tetanus, or any other vaccine.” [37]

They found from the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that in VAERS’ 30-year history, through March 2022, a total of 4,693 had experienced miscarriage in all those years. 4,505 of those had received a single vaccine. 3,430 of those miscarriages were in women whose vaccinations included a COVID vaccine. Sixteen of those 3,430 had also received another vaccine near that time. So 3,430 – 16 = 3,414 miscarriages were after the COVID vaccine alone.

Compare this number with 4,505 for all single vaccines over the 30-year history of VAERS. Therefore, 3,414 / 4,505 = 76 percent of all miscarriages ever reported to VAERS occurred after the COVID vaccines, during the short time that they have been in use, December 2020 through March 2022.

Since at least 2010, it has been known that nano-particles were hazardous to the ovaries and to fertility generally, and bioaccumulation has been known. [38] [39]

In the case of spike proteins, it comes as no surprise that the ACE-2 receptor is the port of entry for spike proteins to gain access to ovarian cells, both granulosa and cumulus cells. [40] These are the ovarian cells that support the development of oocytes.

Congenital Malformations
The U.S. Defense Medical Epidemiology Database System (DMED) [41] is the largest database of health statistics of the generally young, healthy, and fit military population. That is until military service members were forced to take the COVID vaccines or to be dishonorably discharged, with loss of benefits. Few if any religious exemptions were permitted.

The DMED database reported when comparing 2021 to 2020, a 419 percent increase in female infertility reports, a 320 percent increase in male infertility reports, and an 87 percent increase in congenital malformations. The report shows a mean baseline rate of 10,906 cases per year, 2016 to 2020. Then part of 2021, not even the full year, showed 18,951 such cases. [42] This is a 74 percent increase over the 2016 to 2020 mean.

Prevention is massively easier than cure. Avoiding toxins such as LNPs, especially those that generate spike protein, such as the mRNA vaccines, is a necessary first step. Let’s hope that the coming years show the fertility crisis for both males and females to be reversible, as we learn how that may be accomplished.

Reposted from Colleen Huber’s Substack.

◇ References:

[1] Annual Massachusetts Birth Reports. Screenshot taken Jan. 27, 2023.  Mass.gov. https://www.mass.gov/lists/annual-massachusetts-birth-reports

[2] New York State Dept of Health. Vital statistics of New York State.  Screenshot taken Jan 27, 2023.  NY.gov. https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/vs_reports_tables_list.htm

[3] Birth Statistics. Screenshot taken Jan. 27, 2023.  Illinois.gov. https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/birth-statistics.html

[4] Washington State Dept of Health.  All births dashboard – ACH.  Screenshot taken Jan 27, 2023.  WA.gov.  https://doh.wa.gov/data-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/birth-outcomes/ach-all-births-dashboard-0

[5]  R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. [Decline in birth rates in Europe; in German]. Aug 25, 2022. Aletheia Scimed. https://www.aletheia-scimed.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Geburtenrueckgang-Europe-DE_25082022_2.pdf

[6] El gato malo.  Swedish birthrate data: November update.  Jan 25, 2023.  Substack. bad cattitude

[7] UK Health Security Agency.  COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report. Week 5. Feb 2, 2023.  P. 18. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1134076/vaccine-surveillance-report-week-5-2023.pdf

[8] Johns Hopkins University.  Our World in Data.  Daily number of people receiving a first COVID-19 vaccine, UK. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

[9] K Beck. Analysis of a possible connection between the COVID =19 vaccination and the fall in the birth rate in Switzerland in 2022.  Sep 22, 2022.  Univ of Lucerne.  Quoted in R Chandler, Report 52: Nine months post-COVID mRNA “vaccine” rollout, substantial birth rate drops in 13 European countries, England/Wales, Australia, and Taiwan.  Jan 16, 2023.  Daily Clout. https://dailyclout.io/report-52-nine-months-post-covid-mrna-vaccine-rollout-substantial-birth-rate-drops/

[10] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout.  Pfizer Documents Analysis Volunteers’ Reports eBook. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[11] Ibid, p 10.

[12] Ibid, p 10.

[13] Pfizer Worldwide Safety.  5.3.6 Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28 Feb 2021.  Appendix 1: List of adverse events of special interest.   Pp 30-38. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

[14] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 14. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[15] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 1, p 7. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

[16] C Huber.  Secondary vaccine effects. Feb 9, 2022.   The Defeat Of COVID Substack.

[17] R Wang, B Song, et al.  Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system.  Dec 11, 2018.  Int J Nanomedicine.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/

[18] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc.  A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9, 2021. p. 24.  https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf

[19] I Gat, A Kedem, et al.  COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors.  Jun 17, 2022. Andrology.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

[20] Gov.UK.  Summary of the public assessment report for COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech.  Jan 6 2023 update.  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine

[21] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc.  A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9, 2021. p. 29.  https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf

[22] R Wang, B Song, et al.  Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system.  Dec 11, 2018.  Int J Nanomedicine.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/

[23] Ibid. Wang.

[24] R Sumner, M Tomlinson, et al. Independent and combined effects of diethylhexyl phthalate and polychlorinated biphenyl 153 on sperm quality in the human and dog.  Mar 4, 2019.  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9

[25] E Carlsen, A Givercman, et al.  Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years.  Sep 12, 1992.  BMJ.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1393072/

[26] H Levine, N Jorgensen, et al.  Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of samples collected globally in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Nov 15, 2022.  Oxford: Human Reproduction Update.  https://academic.oup.com/humupd/advance-article/doi/10.1093/humupd/dmac035/6824414?login=false

[27] I Gat, A Kedem, et al.  COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors.  Jun 17, 2022. Andrology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

[28] World Health Organization.  Fertility regulating vaccines.  Aug 17-18 1992.  Geneva.  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FKMhagpd6bRZJ8la96bgH7UwQ8CmFNnI/view

[29] T Shimabukuro, S Kim, et al.  Preliminary findings of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines safety in pregnant persons.  Jun 17, 2021.  NEJM.  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983

[30] C Huber.  COVID vaccines may rival or exceed ‘the morning-after pill’ in abortion efficacy.  Aug 2021.  The Defeat of COVID Substack.

[31] L Zauche, B Wallace, et al.  Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and risk of spontaneous abortion.  Se 8 2021.  NEJM.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451181/

[32] Arkmedic.  The curious case of the miscalculated miscarriages. Sep 14, 2021.  Substack.

[33] CDC.  COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0-5 months. Slide 32. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-10-19-20/02-03-04-COVID-Ellington-Kharbanda-Olson-Fleming-Dutra-508.pdf

[34] Pfizer Worldwide Safety.  Annotated book for study design. Exclusion number 2.h, 11. p 33.  https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-sample-crf.pdf

[35] C Bowman, M Bouressam, et al.  Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine.  Aug 2021.  Reprod Toxicol. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/

[36] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 6, p 12. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

[37] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[38] A Schadlich, S Hoffman, et al.  Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary: A neglected toxicity risk?  May 30, 2012.  J Contr Release.  160 (1), PP 105-112.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365912000892?

[39] M Ajdary, F Keyhanfar, et al.  P{otential toxicity of nanoparticles on the reproductive system animal models: A review.  Nov 2021.  J Reprod Immun.  148. 103384. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165037821001145

[40] F Luongo, F Dragoni, et al.  SARS-CoV-2 infection of human ovarian cells:  A potential negative impact on female fertility.  Apr 23, 2022.  Cell.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9105548/pdf/cells-11-01431.pdf

[41] Health.mil.  Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED).  https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Health-Readiness/AFHSD/Data-Management-and-Technical-Support/Defense-Medical-Epidemiology-Database

[42] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 91.. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[G M]

I am so old, I remember when a global soft genocide was just a conspiracy theory.

https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1619719430161993730

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is a veterinarian. Albert Bourla’s PhD thesis is about the control of fertility in sheep and goats.

I'm serious. You can't make this stuff up. You really can't.

Birth Rates Plunge in Heavily Vaccinated Countries
HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
Feb 21 2023


In many countries, births dropped sharply nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake. Let’s look at how this happens. And will these populations recover?


Vital Statistics–Hidden Data
Since the beginning of COVID, vital statistics as reported by governments around the world, are hard to come by. Spotty availability hinders analysis and understanding.

For example, even today in the United States, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and Washington are four of the states that, as of this writing, have not updated births data since 2019 [1] and 2020. [2] [3] [4]

Nineteen European Countries
By August 2022, Raimond Hagemann, Ulf Lorré, and Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer had compiled data on birth rate changes in 19 European countries and produced an extremely important paper. [5] In country after country, the inflection point of reduced births is consistent at the end of the year 2021.

This was nine months after the spring zeitgeist to take the COVID vaccines. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia, as well as Iceland, Northern Ireland, Montenegro, Serbia—all show this pattern. Nine months after peak vaccine uptake—the births decline.

From R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. Danish data (p 31):


The corresponding graph for each of the 19 countries has a similar pattern: peak uptake of COVID vaccines in spring of 2021, followed by precipitous birthrate declines beginning nine months later.

All of the nineteen countries studied saw accelerating declines in births in 2022, beginning at nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake. Note the small p values in the following table, favoring temporal association of the two events. This, in turn, supports the Bradford Hill temporality criterion regarding causation of infertility, rather than a highly coincidental correlation between peak vaccination in spring of 2021 and sharply declining birth rates nine months later.

Sweden
Data analyst Gato Malo has noted, as have others, that too many countries are locking their vital statistics data away from public view, which pre-empts any valid analysis. Occasional glimpses are available.


Looking at Sweden, he found that if he overlaid month-to-month change in births, that the strong dip in births beginning in November—December 2021, lines up very tightly with the percentage of people who were unvaccinated 9 months earlier. [6] This was consistent with the R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. findings. And births in Sweden have not yet shown signs of recovery from this decline.

Epoch Times Photo
(data scb.se, owid) boriquagato.substack.com
UK
At a similar time as in the above countries, we see births decline in the UK. After December 2021, the number of women giving birth is no longer in the forty thousands, but now crosses down into the thirty thousands, and stays there. [7] See the column “Women giving birth.”

From the UK Health Security Agency (p 18):

Epoch Times Photo
Comparing year-over-year decline, we might write this mean decline from the first two quarters of 2021 to the first two quarters of 2022, where b is births, as (Σ b1, 2021…b6, 2021) – (Σ b1, 2022…b6, 2022) = 256,785 – 227,302 = 29,483. This is a deficit of 4,913 births per month in the UK. Similarly to Sweden, the inflection point of decline is at a 9–11 month point following the months of peak vaccine uptake in the UK. [8]

From Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data, peak vaccine uptake in the UK was in the first quarter of 2021:

Epoch Times Photo
 

Switzerland
Switzerland saw its largest drop in birth rates in 150 years, more than in each of the two World Wars, the Great Depression, and even the introduction of widely used oral contraceptives. [9]

Why Is This Happening?
Naomi Wolf explored menstrual irregularities reported following COVID vaccination, and even following contact with COVID-vaccinated people. As the first to discuss these problems publicly, and to gather data online from women who were experiencing these menstrual changes, she was criticized and censored on social media.

Her Daily Clout organization led a team of over 3,000 researchers, including Pierre Kory M.D., to dissect the documents released by Pfizer/FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] under court order regarding clinical outcomes of the 44,000-person clinical trial of the Pfizer COVID vaccines. The Daily Clout team summarized their findings in their book on Kindle: “Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports.” [10]

They report Pfizer’s findings of overwhelming injuries in their experimental group. Of the 22,000 individuals who had received the Pfizer vaccine, “Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data.” [11]

The Daily Clout team explores in their book topics related to the COVID vaccines’ impacts on male and female fertility. As their team traced the data reported by Pfizer, it was found that 270 of the pregnant women in the Pfizer trial reported a vaccine injury. “ … but Pfizer only followed 32 of them and 28 of their babies died. This is a shocking 87.5% fetal death rate.” [12]

Pfizer logged over 158,000 separate adverse events during that clinical trial, under 1290 different types of adverse events, an enormous compendium of human suffering, as partially imaged below from the first part of the letter A. [13]

From Pfizer Worldwide Safety (p 30):

Epoch Times Photo
Wolf’s team notes that “If Pfizer had a TV commercial for its COVID vaccine listing the 158,893 adverse events reported in the first 12 weeks, the announcer would be reading them for more than 80 consecutive hours.” [14]

Even this exhaustive list could not be complete, because Pfizer could not account for the outcomes of 22 percent of participants. Pfizer does list 11,361 of the patients as “not recovered” at the time of their report. [15] This is 51.6 percent of their experimental group “not recovered” from adverse events.

No Liquid Will ‘Just Stay in the Shoulder/Arm.’
We have known, and Pfizer has confessed to, the transmission of spike proteins from one person to another by skin contact and exhalation. I cite and discuss that in the context of one adult to another in a community setting. [16]

Adverse effects on vaccinated breastfeeding mothers and their babies included a range of vomiting, fever, rash, partial paralysis, blue-green discolored breast milk, and other side effects.

Not surprisingly, the injected vaccine liquid passes from mother to nursing infant as well, in accordance with long-established physics principles of dispersal and diffusion of liquid introduced into a semi-solid (55–60 percent water) body, as well as centuries of basic, undisputed physiology and circulation of blood and lymph: Liquids introduced into the body diffuse throughout the body, as always.

It has also been known of lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery of medication—since its first development—that it, of course, enters the circulation. Those who alleged—and those who believed—that a liquid injection would “stay in the arm” had not even a junior high school student’s grasp of basic biology or physics.

But Pfizer knew. It advised male participants in the trial to avoid sexual contact with women of childbearing age or to use condoms.

Here is an overview of the impact of LNP-delivered substances on human male and female reproductive organs. [17]

Epoch Times Photo
From Wang R, Song B, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system

Male Infertility and the COVID Vaccines
mRNA vaccine ingredients are observed to disperse throughout the body, collecting in the testes, among other organs. [18] An adverse event of note in Pfizer’s list of 1290 such events post-vaccination is “anti-sperm antibodies.”

From Pfizer Worldwide Safety:

Epoch Times Photo
An Israeli study later confirmed damage to sperm, both in total numbers and motility, from the Pfizer vaccine. [19]

Epoch Times Photo
The word “temporarily” in the title is misleading because the researchers assumed sperm would recover after their three-month study period, although they ended their observation at that time. And they did not show any evidence that sperm did actually recover. So their word “temporarily” is so far unverified.

Pfizer did not test for male reproductive toxicity, [20] nor for the adverse effects that may be transmitted by vaccinated men’s semen on their children’s development.

One might think that male reproductive effects would have been tested for in Pfizer’s trial on rats. However, only the female rats were vaccinated; the male ones were not. [21] When Pfizer pronounced the male rats’ reproductive organs free of toxicity, they neglected to emphasize the earlier fine print: male rats had not been vaccinated at all.

But Pfizer did instruct human male study participants to avoid intercourse or to use a condom.

Harm caused by LNPs to male reproductive organs and ability had already been established years earlier. As seen in this 2018 study, such organs were known to be vulnerable to toxic influences from LNPs. [22] Besides lowered sperm counts and motility, researchers have found “folded amorphous spermatozoa, cells lacking or showing a small hook, and cells with undulating or elongated heads were the most frequent abnormalities found.” [23]

Moreover, toxic chemicals, such as phthalates and other endocrine disruptors, [24] were already abundant in the environment prior to the COVID vaccines. These have likely contributed to declining sperm number and quality for a half-century, [25] in which sperm counts have been dropping by about 1 percent per year since 1972. [26]

However, the COVID vaccines are making spermatogenesis even more rare. The problem is that most of the male reproductive cells, including spermatogonia and spermatozoa, express ACE-2, which is what spike proteins use for entry into human cells. Just as happens in blood vessels throughout the body, the spike protein arrival at the ACE-2 receptors was found to damage not only sperm, but also the blood-testis barrier, and to contribute to orchitis. At day 150, sperm concentration was 15.9 percent below baseline, below even the 75 to 120-day period, and had not begun to recover by the end of the study.[27]

Female Infertility and the COVID Vaccines
The World Health Organization had long taken an interest in “anti-fertility vaccines” and “fertility regulating vaccines,” as they wrote in 1992. “Chorionic gonadotropin is the one antigen that fulfils criteria for an ideal contraceptive vaccine.” [Emphasis mine.] [28]

Fetal death was so rampant among COVID-vaccinated pregnant women observed by the CDC in the V-Safe Surveillance System [29] that I compared the miscarriage rate to the “morning-after pill” in the abortive effect of those pregnancies for which outcomes were reported. [30] That is, between 80 to 90 percent abortive effect. This is comparable to what the Naomi Wolf/Daily Clout team found, 87.5 percent, as referenced above. However, that V-Safe data had been released too early for accurate tally of all pregnancy outcomes, simply because it included women still in their first two trimesters.

This paper examines the cohort of pregnant women in the second half (second 20 weeks) of their pregnancies. [31] However, it seems to be flawed by missing data. [32]

Miscarriages also show a dose-dependent response. The Pfizer vaccine is a 30 mcg dose and the Moderna vaccine is a 100 mcg dose. At an October 2022 CDC expert committee meeting (ACIP), the following data were presented:

12,751 women took the Pfizer vaccine, and 8,365 women took the Moderna vaccine. 422 Pfizer-vaccinated women, that is 3 percent of the Pfizer total, miscarried (lost their pregnancy by 20 weeks gestation), and 395 of the Moderna-vaccinated women, that is 4.7 percent of the Moderna total, miscarried. [33]

Epoch Times Photo
CDC. COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0–5 months. (pdf)

So this means that 42 percent more of the Moderna group miscarried than the Pfizer group. This large percentage difference in such large cohorts (in the thousands of participants) supports a dose-response relationship of the COVID mRNA vaccine with miscarriage, worsened with the more potent dosing. This dose response is another of the Bradford Hill criteria to establish cause and effect.

The documents that Pfizer sought to have concealed for 75 years, but instead was forced to release by court order, reveal the 1290 types of adverse events, and 158,000 total adverse events, noted above.

Also revealed in the same documents was that Pfizer excluded 21 groups of people from their trials, including “women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.” [34]

The vaccines had been tested on 44 pregnant rats over 6 weeks, as required by protocols of Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity studies, but they had not been tested on pregnant women. Ill effects were not reported from the rat study. [35]

However, nine of the ten study authors were employed by and held stock in Pfizer or BioNTech companies, as acknowledged in small print at the end of the article. Therefore, a highly-conflicted study of only 44 rats, studied over six weeks, was the sole research basis for the obstetric profession to urge pregnant women to be vaccinated.

Pfizer’s reporting of women in the trials who became pregnant following vaccination found 413 pregnant women, of whom 270 cases were considered to be serious and 146 to be non-serious. The serious cases included “spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.” [36] A problem with the short 12-week trial is that nearly all of these new pregnancies were apparently in early gestation, first trimester, at trial end.

The Daily Clout research team determined after examining and comparing miscarriages following various vaccines over time:

“If you are pregnant, you are more likely to lose your baby in a miscarriage if you receive a COVID-19 vaccine than if you receive measles, mumps, flu, tetanus, or any other vaccine.” [37]

They found from the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that in VAERS’ 30-year history, through March 2022, a total of 4,693 had experienced miscarriage in all those years. 4,505 of those had received a single vaccine. 3,430 of those miscarriages were in women whose vaccinations included a COVID vaccine. Sixteen of those 3,430 had also received another vaccine near that time. So 3,430 – 16 = 3,414 miscarriages were after the COVID vaccine alone.

Compare this number with 4,505 for all single vaccines over the 30-year history of VAERS. Therefore, 3,414 / 4,505 = 76 percent of all miscarriages ever reported to VAERS occurred after the COVID vaccines, during the short time that they have been in use, December 2020 through March 2022.

Since at least 2010, it has been known that nano-particles were hazardous to the ovaries and to fertility generally, and bioaccumulation has been known. [38] [39]

In the case of spike proteins, it comes as no surprise that the ACE-2 receptor is the port of entry for spike proteins to gain access to ovarian cells, both granulosa and cumulus cells. [40] These are the ovarian cells that support the development of oocytes.

Congenital Malformations
The U.S. Defense Medical Epidemiology Database System (DMED) [41] is the largest database of health statistics of the generally young, healthy, and fit military population. That is until military service members were forced to take the COVID vaccines or to be dishonorably discharged, with loss of benefits. Few if any religious exemptions were permitted.

The DMED database reported when comparing 2021 to 2020, a 419 percent increase in female infertility reports, a 320 percent increase in male infertility reports, and an 87 percent increase in congenital malformations. The report shows a mean baseline rate of 10,906 cases per year, 2016 to 2020. Then part of 2021, not even the full year, showed 18,951 such cases. [42] This is a 74 percent increase over the 2016 to 2020 mean.

Prevention is massively easier than cure. Avoiding toxins such as LNPs, especially those that generate spike protein, such as the mRNA vaccines, is a necessary first step. Let’s hope that the coming years show the fertility crisis for both males and females to be reversible, as we learn how that may be accomplished.

Reposted from Colleen Huber’s Substack.

◇ References:

[1] Annual Massachusetts Birth Reports. Screenshot taken Jan. 27, 2023.  Mass.gov. https://www.mass.gov/lists/annual-massachusetts-birth-reports

[2] New York State Dept of Health. Vital statistics of New York State.  Screenshot taken Jan 27, 2023.  NY.gov. https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/vs_reports_tables_list.htm

[3] Birth Statistics. Screenshot taken Jan. 27, 2023.  Illinois.gov. https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/birth-statistics.html

[4] Washington State Dept of Health.  All births dashboard – ACH.  Screenshot taken Jan 27, 2023.  WA.gov.  https://doh.wa.gov/data-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/birth-outcomes/ach-all-births-dashboard-0

[5]  R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. [Decline in birth rates in Europe; in German]. Aug 25, 2022. Aletheia Scimed. https://www.aletheia-scimed.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Geburtenrueckgang-Europe-DE_25082022_2.pdf

[6] El gato malo.  Swedish birthrate data: November update.  Jan 25, 2023.  Substack. bad cattitude

[7] UK Health Security Agency.  COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report. Week 5. Feb 2, 2023.  P. 18. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1134076/vaccine-surveillance-report-week-5-2023.pdf

[8] Johns Hopkins University.  Our World in Data.  Daily number of people receiving a first COVID-19 vaccine, UK. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

[9] K Beck. Analysis of a possible connection between the COVID =19 vaccination and the fall in the birth rate in Switzerland in 2022.  Sep 22, 2022.  Univ of Lucerne.  Quoted in R Chandler, Report 52: Nine months post-COVID mRNA “vaccine” rollout, substantial birth rate drops in 13 European countries, England/Wales, Australia, and Taiwan.  Jan 16, 2023.  Daily Clout. https://dailyclout.io/report-52-nine-months-post-covid-mrna-vaccine-rollout-substantial-birth-rate-drops/

[10] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout.  Pfizer Documents Analysis Volunteers’ Reports eBook. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[11] Ibid, p 10.

[12] Ibid, p 10.

[13] Pfizer Worldwide Safety.  5.3.6 Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28 Feb 2021.  Appendix 1: List of adverse events of special interest.   Pp 30-38. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

[14] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 14. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[15] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 1, p 7. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

[16] C Huber.  Secondary vaccine effects. Feb 9, 2022.   The Defeat Of COVID Substack.

[17] R Wang, B Song, et al.  Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system.  Dec 11, 2018.  Int J Nanomedicine.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/

[18] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc.  A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9, 2021. p. 24.  https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf

[19] I Gat, A Kedem, et al.  COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors.  Jun 17, 2022. Andrology.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

[20] Gov.UK.  Summary of the public assessment report for COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech.  Jan 6 2023 update.  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine

[21] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc.  A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9, 2021. p. 29.  https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf

[22] R Wang, B Song, et al.  Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system.  Dec 11, 2018.  Int J Nanomedicine.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/

[23] Ibid. Wang.

[24] R Sumner, M Tomlinson, et al. Independent and combined effects of diethylhexyl phthalate and polychlorinated biphenyl 153 on sperm quality in the human and dog.  Mar 4, 2019.  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9

[25] E Carlsen, A Givercman, et al.  Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years.  Sep 12, 1992.  BMJ.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1393072/

[26] H Levine, N Jorgensen, et al.  Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of samples collected globally in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Nov 15, 2022.  Oxford: Human Reproduction Update.  https://academic.oup.com/humupd/advance-article/doi/10.1093/humupd/dmac035/6824414?login=false

[27] I Gat, A Kedem, et al.  COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors.  Jun 17, 2022. Andrology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

[28] World Health Organization.  Fertility regulating vaccines.  Aug 17-18 1992.  Geneva.  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FKMhagpd6bRZJ8la96bgH7UwQ8CmFNnI/view

[29] T Shimabukuro, S Kim, et al.  Preliminary findings of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines safety in pregnant persons.  Jun 17, 2021.  NEJM.  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983

[30] C Huber.  COVID vaccines may rival or exceed ‘the morning-after pill’ in abortion efficacy.  Aug 2021.  The Defeat of COVID Substack.

[31] L Zauche, B Wallace, et al.  Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and risk of spontaneous abortion.  Se 8 2021.  NEJM.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451181/

[32] Arkmedic.  The curious case of the miscalculated miscarriages. Sep 14, 2021.  Substack.

[33] CDC.  COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0-5 months. Slide 32. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-10-19-20/02-03-04-COVID-Ellington-Kharbanda-Olson-Fleming-Dutra-508.pdf

[34] Pfizer Worldwide Safety.  Annotated book for study design. Exclusion number 2.h, 11. p 33.  https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-sample-crf.pdf

[35] C Bowman, M Bouressam, et al.  Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine.  Aug 2021.  Reprod Toxicol. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/

[36] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 6, p 12. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

[37] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[38] A Schadlich, S Hoffman, et al.  Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary: A neglected toxicity risk?  May 30, 2012.  J Contr Release.  160 (1), PP 105-112.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365912000892?

[39] M Ajdary, F Keyhanfar, et al.  P{otential toxicity of nanoparticles on the reproductive system animal models: A review.  Nov 2021.  J Reprod Immun.  148. 103384. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165037821001145

[40] F Luongo, F Dragoni, et al.  SARS-CoV-2 infection of human ovarian cells:  A potential negative impact on female fertility.  Apr 23, 2022.  Cell.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9105548/pdf/cells-11-01431.pdf

[41] Health.mil.  Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED).  https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Health-Readiness/AFHSD/Data-Management-and-Technical-Support/Defense-Medical-Epidemiology-Database

[42] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 91.. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/

[G M]

https://jrnyquist.blog/2023/02/03/the-politics-of-biological-warfare-and-the-inversion-of-blame-part-i/