Tag: coronavirus

Doctor Speaks Out After DOJ Drops Charges for Helping Patients Avoid COVID Mandates

Dr. Michael Kirk Moore, a Utah plastic surgeon who was indicted in 2023 for allegedly destroying government-provided COVID vaccines, issuing fake vaccination cards, and administering saline shots to patients who wished to get around mandates, spoke out in front of the Supreme Court after his charges were dropped.

Joining other speakers Sunday on the fifth anniversary of the 2020 “White Coat Summit,” where experts Dr. Simone Gold and Dr. Stella Immanuel led America’s Frontline Doctors in a public outcry against COVID-related tyranny, Moore thanked those who supported him and slammed Big Pharma. 

“I stand here before you, not because I was seeking attention, but because I refused to abandon my oath,” the Utah doctor told the crowd. “My story just isn’t my own. It’s a warning shot, a rally cry, and a living testament to what happens when medicine and morality collide with government overreach.”

Moore went on to thank U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) for standing up for him “when it mattered the most.”

Bondi announced that her Justice Department dismissed the charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to dispose of government property, in a July 12 social media post.

Keep reading

Judge rules against Seattle employees fired for religious refusal of COVID vax

King County Superior Court Judge Tanya L. Thorp has ruled in favor of the City of Seattle in a high-profile lawsuit brought by dozens of former city employees who were terminated after refusing to comply with the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Thorp ruled that none of them had sincerely held religious beliefs when they objected to the vaccine mandate. She said their beliefs are “secular cloaked in religious vernacular,” and that prayer is not a reasonable manner for decision making.

In her ruling, Thorp agreed with arguments presented by the city’s outside counsel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, granting a motion for summary judgment on most of the plaintiffs’ claims. The employees from City Light (SCL), the Seattle Police Department (SPD), Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), and the city’s Finance/Admin department (FAS) had alleged violations of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, failure to accommodate religious beliefs and wrongful termination.

In court documents obtained by The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI, the City argued that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with the vaccine mandate. Thorp said that their objections were “secular concerns cloaked in religious vernacular.”

The city further argued that prayer alone does not convert a personal decision into a protected religious belief, citing federal case law that distinguishes personal or medical objections from religious practices.

Keep reading

Organ-Specific Harms from the COVID Vaccines and Ingredients

I wrote the most thoroughly researched book to date on the mechanisms of harms to multiple bodily organs and systems following the COVID vaccines, especially the mRNA vaccines. That is in its 3rd edition, Neither Safe Nor Effective: The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines, in which I cite over 1,000 studies from the peer-reviewed published medical literature. https://www.amazon.com/Neither-Safe-Nor-Effective-Evidence/dp/B0F1ZJGYKG

I have to admit that it is hard to follow these studies on either e-book or print format. So I summarized some of the largest studies involving the major organ systems affected, in the following tables. The 4th column in each of the tables below directs the reader to either the PMC number or a link to the study on PubMed in the footnotes following the tables. “PMC 1234567” for example should go directly to that study from a Google search. The last two columns in the tables below list the page and endnote in my print book, for another way of arriving at the same studies.

Keep reading

Lawyer Suing Gates & Bourla for Covid VAX Injuries Arrested and Imprisoned in Netherlands

In a stunning expression of the Globalist-Fascist takeover of the Netherlands, the Netherlands police have arrested Arno van Kessel, the lead attorney suing Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, Mark Rutte et al. for COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

The civil process was scheduled to begin on July 9; Mr. van Kessel was arrested in a Gestapo-reminiscent early morning raid by paramilitary police on June 11, where he was reportedly blindfolded, bound, and taken into detention, where he remains almost two months later.

Readers will note my tardiness in reporting this stunning story. The reason is because both the European and the American press have completely ignored both the civil trial against Gates, Bourla, Rutte et al. and van Kessel’s arrest.

I knew nothing about van Kessel’s arrest until last night, when my co-author, Dr. Peter McCullough, forwarded to me a report by INFOWARS journalist, Adan Salazar. Once again, the so-called “conspiracy theorist” Alex Jones has proven to be one of the first guys to report the shocking reality of what is going on.

Salazar’s report prompted me to do a Google Netherlands search with the key words Arno van Kessel gearresteerd — that is, “Arno van Kessel arrested”—and I got one search result for a June 27 report in an independent online journal called Der Andere Krant (The Other Newspaper). The following is an English translation.

Arno van Kessel will be held in custody for an additional ninety days because the Public Prosecution Service continues to designate him as a “suspect in an investigation into a criminal network,” yet without presenting any evidence. This means the Leeuwarden lawyer will definitely not be present at the public hearing on July 9th in the Leeuwarden District Court, where the first substantive hearing in the internationally high-profile case against, among others, the State of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, and Bill Gates is scheduled. His partner, Peter Stassen, is on his own, but says he will “appear fully equipped.”

In early June, this newspaper reported that there was finally some progress in the internationally high-profile lawsuit by Leeuwarden lawyer Arno van Kessel https://deanderekrant.nl/nieuw-hoofdstuk-in-rechtszaak-tegen-bill-gates-en-mark-rutte/and his Eindhoven colleague Peter Stassen. In 2023, the legal duo announced they would file legal proceedings against Bill Gates, Mark Rutte, and the Dutch State, among others. On behalf of their clients, they want to force the judge to issue a clear ruling on the question: was the COVID-19 mRNA injection a vaccine for the benefit of the population’s health, or a bioweapon? Van Kessel said: “It’s one or the other, and there’s no in between.”

The Northern Netherlands District Court, Leeuwarden location, announced in early June 2025 – finally – that the first substantive hearing of the case is scheduled for July 9th. On Wednesday morning, June 11th, there was a completely unexpected turn of events. Arno van Kessel was dragged from his bed early in the morning by a special intervention team with a considerable display of force. The lawyer, his daughter, and his wife were even briefly held at gunpoint.

A day later, the police published a report on the website politie.nl linking Van Kessel to “a criminal network.” According to a press release issued by the Public Prosecution Service, eight people were arrested that morning for “adhering to anti-institutional ideology and possibly intending to use violence.” One of them was quickly released, while the other seven were held in restricted custody for two weeks, meaning the suspects were not allowed any contact with the outside world. Van Kessel – as was announced last week – was being held in a cell in Vught.

In recent weeks, several stories have appeared in the mainstream media about a network of so-called sovereigns. These “anti-institutionalists” may have been planning something related to the NATO summit. Weapons and explosives may have been found, but any hard evidence or substantiation remains lacking to this day. The suggestion that Van Kessel is also part of a dangerous criminal group has been raised. The charges have since been partially withdrawn. The AD newspaper reported last week that the Public Prosecution Service has been unable to substantiate a plan to disrupt the NATO summit. “We have investigated whether there is an imminent threat. This has not been proven.”

On Thursday, June 26, the Public Prosecution Service released more news after a long silence. One suspect has been released, but “six suspects in the investigation into a criminal network, in which a large proportion of the arrested suspects espouse anti-institutional ideology and may have the intention to use violence, will remain in custody for an additional 90 days,” the Public Prosecution Service announced. Van Kessel is one of those suspects who will remain in custody for another 90 days. The Public Prosecution Service states that it needs more time for the investigation and that “given the state of the investigation, it is not possible to respond substantively to questions about the progress, suspicions, and findings,” according to the Public Prosecution Service.

Keep reading

House probes whether EU, Biden administration pushed Spotify to censor podcasters including Joe Rogan, Steve Bannon

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday launched an investigation into whether the EU and Biden administration pressured Spotify to censor free speech, The Post has learned.

Censorship has been a point of tension for Spotify, which has faced heated backlash for flagging COVID-19 information from podcaster Joe Rogan and banning Steve Bannon from the platform.

“More relevantly, it’s the pressure we are seeing the EU put on companies to censor more,” a source familiar with the probe told The Post.

In a letter sent to Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, US Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) slammed recent laws from the EU and UK that require social media platforms – even those based in the US – to censor “disinformation” and “harmful content” or face massive fines.

“These foreign laws, regulations, and judicial orders may limit or restrict Americans’ access to constitutionally protected speech in the United States. Indeed, that appears to be their very purpose,” Jordan wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.

Keep reading

Covid Lockdowns Devastated an Entire Generation of Children

In what we now understand were completely theatrical attempts to control the Covid-19 pandemic, experts demanded and politicians mandated all sorts of intrusive policies. Mask mandates were one of the most obvious. School closures. Lockdowns. Curfews. Capacity limits. Fear campaigns. The list is and was endless. And unfortunately the public willingly complied with all of them.

On and on they went, for years in some cases. But in their discussions of those useless policies, one thing they always, without fail, ignored was the ancillary cost.

Sure, you can mandate masks, but what does are the effects for those who are forced to wear them? What does it cost in terms of lost social cohesion, normalizing anti-social behavior? What are the trade-offs that result from closing schools, from forcing businesses to shut down, or locking down society?

Are there harms to physical, emotional, or verbal development?

These are important questions that were completely ignored by those in power during the pandemic, because they were inconvenient to the architects of the covidiocy.

But new research is out confirming yet again that the collective absurdity of Covid policies caused immense damage and permanent harm to a generation of children. For nothing.

Keep reading

Landmark Stanford Study Finds COVID Jabs ‘Saved Far Fewer Lives Than First Thought’

A major study by Stanford University and Italian researchers has found that the COVID-19 vaccine saved far fewer lives than originally thought.

The World Health Organization previously asserted that the jabs prevented as many as 14.4 million deaths in their first year, with some estimates going as high as 20 million.

Yet according to this latest study, the actual number of lives saved globally throughout the entire pandemic is likely closer to 2.5 million.

The data suggests that the vast majority of those spared were elderly, with roughly 90% of prevented deaths occurring among individuals over 60.

Among younger groups, the numbers were strikingly low: just 299 lives saved worldwide among people under 20, and 1,808 in the 20 to 30 age bracket.

The study also quantified the number of vaccinations needed to save a single life.

Across all ages, an average of 5,400 doses were required per life saved. For those under 30, that figure soared to 100,000 jabs.

Researchers also questioned the rationale behind blanket vaccine mandates, particularly for low-risk populations, and criticised the excessive drive to vaccinate all individuals regardless of age or vulnerability.

Keep reading

Extremists weaponize COVID, climate issues with conspiracy theories about state & elite control: RAND Europe

The RAND Europe authors are so stuck in their own echo chamber they don’t realize they’re acting like the extremists they claim to warn about: perspective

People who are concerned that the draconian measures implemented by public and private entities during COVID lockdowns might be deployed again in the name of combatting climate change are actually victims of conspiracy theories originating from online extremist groups, according to RAND Europe’s submission to the UK Home Affairs Committee’s Call for Evidence on Combatting New Forms of Extremism.

“Akin to COVID-19 conspiracy theories, climate issues are weaponized and entangled with conspiracy theories and narratives about state and elite control”RAND, Combatting New Forms of Extremism, July 2025

Despite initiatives like the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) great reset, which actively called on governments to take advantage of the shocks inflicted by their lockdowns, mass vaccination mandates, and social distancing measures in order to implement radical changes to society and the global economy with climate change-related policies, the RAND Europe testimonial says that “Akin to COVID-19 conspiracy theories, climate issues are weaponized and entangled with conspiracy theories and narratives about state and elite control.”

“Some leaders and decision-makers who were already at the forefront of the fight against climate change may want to take advantage of the shock inflicted by the pandemic to implement long-lasting and wider environmental changes. They will, in effect, make ‘good use’ of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste”Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” 2020

The RAND Europe testimonial, “Combatting new forms of extremism,” never gives a single example of a conspiracy theory related to climate change and control, but the authors are certain that extremists on both sides of the political spectrum are exploiting the so-called climate crisis for their own gain due to a lack of government action.

According to the testimonial, “Both ends of the political spectrum are emboldened by the lack of governmental action on climate change.

“Eco left-wing extremists are angered by government inaction as they consider it as climate denial.

“For the right-wing extremists, government inaction reinforces their belief that climate change is a hoax.”

Keep reading

New York Teachers Fired for Refusing COVID Vaccines Take Case to U.S. Supreme Court

A group of 19 teachers who sued the city of New York after they were denied religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court rulings, which they allege unconstitutionally favored some religious beliefs over others.

In a petition filed Monday, the teachers allege that New York City granted religious exemptions only to people who belonged to religions whose leaders had not publicly endorsed COVID-19 vaccination.

The city denied requests by teachers who applied for exemptions based on personal religious beliefs that contradicted their religious leaders’ official support of the vaccines, the appeal said.

Michael Kane, a plaintiff in the case and founder of Teachers for Choice, said:

“What New York City did was so egregious. To allow this to stand sets a horrendous precedent for my children and grandchildren. The discrimination was so intense and constitutionally shoddy it must not be permitted.”

According to Kane, most of the teachers are “still out of work or doing odd jobs, making half their previous income.”

Although New York City Mayor Eric Adams rescinded the mandate in February 2023, the city didn’t rehire the teachers.

The case stems from two lawsuits filed in 2021 challenging New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and its denials of the religious exemption requests: Kane v. de Blasio and Keil v. City of New York. Children’s Health Defense is supporting the combined lawsuit.

Several lower courts, including the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2024, ruled against the teachers.

The New York City Department of Education, its Chancellor, Melissa Aviles-Ramos, and New York City Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan are among the defendants named in the combined lawsuit.

Keep reading

What Is the PREP Act?

In conjunction with EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), the PREP Act is the legislation that enabled – and continues to perpetuate – the rollout and administration of mRNA “countermeasures” against Covid-19.

In this article I will discuss what the PREP Act says, how it was passed, what prominent politicians and legal experts said about it at the time, how it is related to Covid, and why I support efforts (1) calling for the HHS Secretary to immediately repeal the PREP Act emergency declaration for Covid, and (2) calling on legislators to repeal the law entirely.

What the PREP Act Says

The PREP Act is a long and convoluted piece of legislation. You can read the entire thing here:

42 U.S. Code § 247d-6d – Targeted liability protections for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures

This is a summary of the main sections of the law:

(a) Liability Protections

  • Anyone defined as a “covered person” is immune from legal liability related to the use or administration of anything defined as a “covered countermeasure.”

A “covered person” includes (A) “the United States” or (B) any person or “entity” that manufactures, distributes, plans a program for, prescribes, administers, or dispenses a covered countermeasure, or an official, agent, or employee of any of the above.

A “covered countermeasure” includes any drug, biological product, or device that is authorized under Emergency Use Authorization or approved through any other legal pathway.

  • Scope of claims for loss:
    • The immunity applies to any claim related to death, actual or fear of physical, mental, or emotional injury, illness, disability, or condition; and loss of or damage to property, including business interruption loss.
    • The immunity applies to any causal relation to any of the above types of loss related to the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, or use of a covered countermeasure.
  • The immunity applies only if a countermeasure was applied or used during the effective period of the emergency declaration for that countermeasure, and was used for the disease, population, and geographic area specified in the declaration.
  • For manufacturers or distributors, the immunity applies to any population in any geographic area, without regard to the population or area specified in the emergency declaration for the countermeasure.

(b) Declaration by Secretary

  • The HHS Secretary has the sole discretion to determine that a disease or other health condition or other threat to health constitutes a public health emergency, or that there is a credible risk for a future such emergency and, based on that determination, to make a declaration recommending the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more covered countermeasures, thereby activating the legal immunity described in section (a).
  • In the emergency declaration, which is made by publishing it in the Federal Register, the secretary shall identify – with respect to the use of countermeasures – the category of threat, the period during which the threat is in effect, the population for which it is in effect, and the geographic area for which it is in effect.
  • The period during which the emergency declaration is effective is flexible, depending on various determinations by the Secretary.
  • The Secretary can change any aspect of the declaration of emergency without retroactively affecting the immunity granted under the declaration.
  • The Secretary’s decision to issue an emergency declaration for immunity can be based on anything, including the “desirability of encouraging” the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, or licensing of a covered countermeasures
  • No court – whether Federal or State – has subject matter jurisdiction to review any action by the Secretary related to the emergency declaration
  • No State may pass or enforce any law that is different from or in conflict with anything related to the declaration of emergency or to anything related to the qualified persons or covered countermeasures.

(c) Definition of Willful Misconduct

(d) Exception to Immunity of Covered Persons

These two sections define the circumstances under which the PREP Act immunity does not apply. In general, the sole exception is defined as “an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct.”

The definition of “willful misconduct” is: “an act or omission taken intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; knowingly without legal or factual justification; and in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.” This is specifically defined as “a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.”

A plaintiff who tries to sue under this section has “the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence willful misconduct.”

Keep reading