Tag: coronavirus

The covid mRNA “vaccines” are a bioweapon and a tool for depopulation

A full-fledged effort to depopulate the planet is underway. It would appear that the human population is being truncated. Shortening lifespans on one end and reducing birth rates on the other.

The mRNA nanoparticle injections [also known as covid vaccines] are associated with neurological disorders, autoimmune diseases, heart problems, strokes, cancers, metabolic disorders and a host of other diseases and disorders, including death. One need not be a scientist or medical doctor to figure out that by giving people chronic diseases and illnesses, you are shortening their life spans.

A recent study was published showing a shocking 37% decrease in life span after covid injections. If this data is extrapolated over the course of a life span, that would mean an approximate 29-year reduction in life span. This means that children receiving the mRNA bioweapon injections will be lucky to live into their 50s.

Conversely, studies also show a dramatic drop in successful conception rates among vaccinated women compared to unvaccinated women. The study looked at 1.3 million Czech women aged 18–39. Those who received the covid bioweapon injection had a 33% decrease in pregnancies compared to those not injected with the covid bioweapon.

I guess Pfizer, Moderna and company fixed the Social Security problem.

There is plenty of data out there regarding the biodistribution of the spike protein damaging organs, including getting into the testis and ovaries. This and the reverse transcription pose a significant risk to the human genome itself, according to the Florida Department of Health. There is no way to predict the potential mutations that could occur over multiple generations.

Will future generations struggle with multiple health issues, and will our species be plagued with chronic diseases? Will future generations experience massive issues with sterility? Will test tube birth be the only form of birth in the future?

Essentially, the Transhumanists are depopulating us while experimenting on us so they can figure out a way to merge with technology and live forever.

Keep reading

Hugely Influential Covid Vaccine Study Claiming the Jabs Saved Millions of Lives Torn to Shreds in Medical Journal

The hugely influential study on COVID-19 vaccines, Watson et al., which was used by experts throughout the pandemic to show that the jabs saved tens of millions of lives in one year, has been thoroughly debunked, by yours truly (a misinformation researcher now primarily focused on COVID-19, not least because of being fired for refusing the jab and winning subsequent legal cases), with the critique finally published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. This is the first of a three-part metacritique of six influential studies on the COVID-19 vaccines, with similar problems identified throughout. The same criticisms would apply to many more studies.

  • I start by noting that this study (and these studies in general) have received very little scrutiny. One wonders why the Universe left this vitally important task to me, a sole former pharmacist and misinformation researcher/philosopher who was more interested in issues like the meaning of existence, with no funding, and struggling at life since being (and continuing to be) persecuted for refusing the jab. Perhaps understandable if you consider who is paying most of the medical researchers out there (and we will get to that), but still baffling when considering the amount of talent on ‘our contrarian side’, the side filled with experts who bucked the trend on the pandemic and pretty much got everything right. A little serendipity involved, too, as I partly did this because US Senator Ron Johnson pretty much asked me to.
  • On to the study. Firstly, Watson et al. “revolves around a model which, by definition, is not truly representative of reality”. Remember, people, the map is not the territory. And models are beholden to the GIGO principle: garbage in, garbage out. And when it comes to these studies like Watson et al., there’s a lot of garbage to sift through.
  • Then I note that their vaccine efficacy/effectiveness estimates are dodgy, bringing in ‘JECP4’, the published research I did alongside BMJ senior editor (and one of my intellectual heroes) Peter Doshi. They have been exaggerating efficacy/effectiveness (and safety) in a really big way by doing things like ignoring incidents in the ‘partially vaccinated’, or even counting them as happening in the ‘unvaccinated’. Collectively, Doshi’s team and I mathematically demonstrated: “Such methodology can make a completely ineffective vaccine appear 48% effective, or even around 65% effective, if cases in the ‘partially vaccinated’ are ascribed to the ‘unvaccinated’. In fact, even a negatively effective vaccine can, in this way, be made to appear moderately effective.”
  • It is unclear how the authors “determined the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing death”. If they “utilised the original clinical trials of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, along with recently published reanalyses, they would have noted no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths among the vaccinated groups, a statistically significant increase in serious adverse events of special interest, and a non-statistically significant increase in total deaths”.
  • Another big problem is static vaccine effectiveness estimates, with the researchers assuming that the vaccine happily continues being as effective as ever, for ‘simplicity’, which we now know is complete nonsense. They’re literally spruiking boosters every few months! Remember the GIGO principle. Opt for nice things like ‘simplicity’ in your models, and this is the trash you will get in return.
  • I note that not only do the jabs become ineffective really quickly they even seem to become negatively effective – yeah you heard me, apparently increasing your chance of COVID-19 infection, and even death.
  • They also made big assumptions on infection fatality rates (IFRs). They didn’t even bother to justify (or even perhaps disclose) their preferred figures. If you’re exaggerating COVID-19 deaths, and they do, as they all do, you’re eventually going to be exaggerating the benefits of the jabs. A super important study came out just as this critique was in publishing. Looks like they’ve been (at least) doubling Covid-deaths since Omicron, the old with/from Covid debate.
  • Did the benefits outweigh the risks? Surprisingly, from this hugely influential study, you’d never know. They don’t seem to care about “the deaths and injuries caused by the vaccines”. What’s the point of saving 14 million lives if you’ve killed, say, 28 million? Bit of a missed opportunity, don’t you think? It does appear the jabs do injure and kill people, which was obvious even from the beginning, from their own clinical trials. Perhaps there were more in the Pfizer trial, with (published) questions over potentially fraudulent activity. Later studies show way more side effects, and I’ve argued in a BMJ journal that the myocarditis risk alone outweighs the ‘benefits’ of the jab in young healthy people.
  • They also did things like using ‘estimates’ of all-cause excess mortality because they didn’t actually have the data. And note the assumption that excess mortality is all due to COVID-19, rather than, oh I don’t know… the jabs. They don’t even acknowledge the possibility, even though we know for a fact that the vaccines have killed people – what we can dispute is the number.
  • With unjustified figures, made-up data, omitted data (e.g. China, which has a huge chunk of the world’s population), and even data collected from non-academic sources (like an economics magazine!), the authors actually admit to “wide uncertainty”. Somehow that wasn’t expressed when all the experts, politicians and newsreaders were proclaiming the study’s earth-shattering conclusions.

Keep reading

REPORT: USAID Officer Charged With Pandemic Bailout Fraud

When USAID came under the microscope of DOGE, people on the left absolutely flipped out. They all acted like USAID was above reproach and that the world would come to an end if it wasn’t fully funded.

Not only did the world not end, but now we’re learning that a senior officer for the organization has been charged with bailout fraud from the pandemic.

We are probably going to see fraud like this uncovered for years to come.

The Daily Wire reports:

USAID Contracting Officer Charged With Pandemic Bailout Fraud

A USAID employee in charge of managing contracts for the agency created a fake company to fraudulently secure coronavirus benefits for himself, federal prosecutors said Friday.

“Yusuf Akoll worked as a Senior Procurement Contract Specialist at the U.S. Agency for International Development,” according to a previously unreported court document. “From at least in or around March 2021, and continuing through at least in or around August 2021, Akoll [made] materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements…that resulted in Akoll receiving two [Paycheck Protection Program] loans totaling approximately $16,666 that he was not entitled to receive.”

Prosecutors said that in November 2020, Akoll registered a company in Virginia called Naagode Consulting LLC, then applied for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan under the coronavirus bailout package, claiming he worked at Naagode and the money was necessary to prevent job losses.

Only companies in operation in February 2020 were eligible, so he falsely said it was established in January 2020. To establish a loss of income, he said the company had $40,000 in income in 2019 when it actually had no income, prosecutors said.

Is anyone really shocked by this?

Keep reading

COVID-19 mRNA Shots Destroy Over 60% of Women’s Non-Renewable Egg Supply

The study titled, Impact of mRNA and Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccines on Ovarian Reserve, was recently published in the journal Vaccines:

Objectives: This study aimed to elucidate the effects of messenger RNA (mRNA) and inactivated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines on ovarian histology and reserve in rats.

Methods: Thirty female Wistar albino rats, aged 16–24 weeks, were randomly divided into three groups (n = 10): control, mRNA vaccine, and inactivated vaccine groups. Each vaccine group received two doses (on day 0 and day 28) at human-equivalent doses. Four weeks post-second vaccination, ovarian tissues were harvested for analysis.

Results: Immunohistochemical analysis was performed to evaluate the expression of transforming growth factor beta-1 (TGF-β1), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), caspase-3, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in ovarian follicles. Both vaccines induced significant increases in TGF-β1, VEGF, and caspase-3 expression, with more pronounced effects in the mRNA vaccine group. Conversely, AMH expression in the granulosa cells of primary, secondary, and antral follicles showed marked reductions (p < 0.001). The counts of primordial, primary, and secondary follicles decreased significantly in the inactivated vaccine group relative to controls and further in the mRNA vaccine group compared to the inactivated group (p < 0.001). Additionally, the mRNA vaccine group exhibited a decrease in antral and preovulatory follicles and an increase in atretic follicles compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). The serum AMH level was diminished with the mRNA vaccination in comparison with the control and inactivated groups.

Keep reading

Secretary Hegseth Paves the Way for Department of Defense Accountability

Service members applaud the Department of Defense’s latest move, hoping it brings them one step closer to holding accountable those who implemented and enforced former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s tyrannical COVID-19 shot mandate.

While Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently stated that the COVID-19 shot mandate was “unlawful,” The Gateway Pundit previously reported that his comments were not in writing. From a legal perspective, it is important to note that video and verbal statements are admissible in the same manner for court cases.

The Department of Defense (DoD) wasted little time putting his choice of words to paper. On May 7, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OSD) Personnel & Readiness sent a “MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS,” noting that the now-rescinded 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate was “unlawful as implemented.”

TGP spoke to whistleblower and “forced into retirement” Navy Medical Service Corps officer Lt. Ted Macie. According to Macie, “Those responsible for forcing the shot on service members can no longer deny their acts were unlawful, which will be a great benefit to ongoing cases or any litigation that’s on the way.” Since the mandate was “unlawful as implemented,” he said, “the persons responsible now have no top cover for implementing the mandate that violated the law. Period.”

In a recent X post, he also pointed out the alleged conspiring between Department of Defense, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Pfizer to “push” the COVID-19 shot mandate.

Keep reading

Trump’s New Surgeon General Pick Triggers Massive Backlash — Even RFK Jr.’s VP Nicole Shanahan Weighs In: ‘She Was Bred and Raised as a Manchurian Asset’

President Trump has withdrawn his controversial Surgeon General nominee Dr. Janette Nesheiwat — after widespread outrage from conservative grassroots — and instead selected Dr. Casey Means, a physician-turned-wellness influencer whose résumé and associations are now under intense fire.

Dr. Nesheiwat, whose record includes cheerleading COVID-19 lockdowns, mask mandates, child vaccinations, and boosters, was seen by many in the MAGA base as a disastrous pick.

Dr. Nesheiwat has since adjusted her stance as more data became available. She criticized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for its handling of the vaccine’s rollout and mandates, particularly its impact on children.

Despite her recent reversals on these positions, critics argue that these initial missteps reflect poor judgment.

Facing mounting outrage from his base, Trump yanked the nomination, and she is now being reassigned to serve under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Trump then tapped Dr. Casey Means instead, touting her “impeccable MAHA credentials” and anti-establishment medical reform platform.

Unfortunately for Trump, the backlash didn’t stop—it only intensified. Critics say Means is unqualified, unlicensed, and “engineered.”

Investigative journalist Laura Loomer led the charge, blasting Means as a social media influencer with no surgical training, no active medical license in Oregon, where she practiced, and a history of cozying up to anti-Trump narratives.

Keep reading

Judge Blocks Department Of Education From Canceling COVID-Related School Aid

A federal judge on May 6 blocked the U.S. Department of Education from canceling more than $1 billion in funding that was allocated to help address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary schools and students.

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a preliminary injunction that prohibits the Department of Education from enforcing its recission of extensions for the funding that had been granted in January by the prior administration.

Education officials also cannot modify the previously-approved extensions without giving the states at least 14 days notice, the judge said.

Congress allocated funds to states to distribute to schools to address problems stemming from the pandemic. The more than $276 billion was distributed to states through an education stabilization fund. Under laws passed by Congress, states had until Sept. 30, 2024, to designate the money, and until Jan. 28, 2025, to access funds to achieve the designations.

States could ask for extensions for the latter deadline, and a number did so. The Department of Education granted extensions to at least 16 states, and Washington, enabling them to access the money through March 2026. 

Education Secretary Linda McMahon informed the states in March that the extensions were being rescinded because additional review had determined they were “not justified” in part because the pandemic is over, although the states could reapply for extensions.

Keep reading

We’ve been ostracised for telling the truth about how the liberal elite got Covid so wrong

It is more than five years since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, and yet the measures used to respond to it still, it seems, have the capacity to shock.

Stephen Macedo, a liberal academic at Princeton University, has just spent months examining how the Western political class got its response to the crisis so wrong – an endeavour that has made him an outlier among many of his peers.

Macedo, 68, a professor of politics, says he was “shocked on a daily basis” by information that he and Frances Lee, a professor of politics and public affairs at the university, unearthed throughout the writing of their book, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.

“I have often not been able to believe what I’ve been reading,” says Macedo. Among the most perturbing facts was a “pandemic preparedness” plan published by the World Health Organisation in 2019, months before the coronavirus outbreak, followed by a report by Johns Hopkins University later that year, in which both sets of authors were “sceptical about a whole range of non-pharmaceutical interventions [NPIs, i.e. face coverings and social distancing],” Lee explains. A 2011 UK government pre-pandemic plan had reached similar conclusions. And yet these “interventions” formed a central part of the response to the pandemic in Britain and the United States.

Along with Lee, Macedo has become a loud voice in the effort to challenge how the “laptop classes” defined our pandemic response, and got it badly wrong.

In their book, which is published on Tuesday and has been described by The New York Times as “an invitation to have a reckoning”, Macedo and Lee argue that, in the face of a global emergency, democracy and free speech failed.

We meet at Princeton, in New Jersey, on a grey spring day, earnest undergrads clutching coffee cups passing along the cherry blossom-lined streets.

The authors explain that their goal is “not just to look back for looking back’s sake” but to reflect on where the liberal political class veered off course, and set out the change of approach they believe is required ahead of the next global emergency.

Keep reading

Top Doctor Behind Defense Department’s Vaccine Mandate Who Tossed Thousands of Men and Women from US Military For Not Taking Jab – Sues to Get Her Job Back

Former senior defense official Dr. Terry Adirim, who was behind the unconstitutional military vaccine mandate, was reportedly fired from her position in February 2025 shortly after President Trump took office.

Dr. Terry Adirim, a senior CIA official and former Defense Department official under Joe Biden, was fired by the Trump Administration after she caused so much harm and damage to the US military and thousands of military men and women who refused to take the COVID jab.

Dr. Terry Adirim left her position on February 25 to “pursue other opportunities” outside the department, according to an internal memo sent by VA Deputy Secretary Donald Remy to employees.

Her position was filled by Dr. Neil Evans, currently a senior consultant for the Office of Information and Technology, until a candidate was identified.

Adirim has served as the VA electronic health record modernization program director since December 2021.

Investigative reporter Jordan Schachtel of The Dossier reported that Adirim signed the order requiring all service members to receive the emergency use authorization (EUA) COVID vaccine while serving as acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs after being appointed by Joe Biden.

“While she was in the Pentagon as the acting assistant secretary of defense for health affairs (serving as a Biden Admin political appointee), Dr Adirim, signed her name to an order forcing service members to take the emergency use authorization (EUA) vaccine. Adirim’s memo attempted to justify mandating EUA shots as if they were FDA approved, which was not the case at the time, and remains the same today. The mandate led to countless vaccine injuries, the worst recruiting crisis since the formation of the all-volunteer military, and thousands of service members discharged for refusing to take the mRNA experimental gene serum,” The Dossier reported.

Keep reading

The Pandemic that Never Left

We often speak of COVID-19 in the past tense.  The masks have come off, the Plexiglas dividers are gone, and the nightly case trackers have vanished from our screens.  But the virus, less in its biological form than its cultural and economic residue, never really left.  Its fingerprints are all over how we live, eat, and work.  And the strangest part?  Many of us hardly notice anymore.

Take a walk downtown in any mid-sized American city around 8:30 P.M. on a Tuesday.  You’ll see it.  The restaurants are dark.  The neon signs are dim.  Kitchens that once bustled until midnight now flick off their stoves by nine, if they’re open at all.

Increasingly, diners find locked doors on Tuesdays or Wednesdays, with small placards explaining “New Hours Due to Staffing” or the more typical “Closed Tuesdays.”

It’s tempting to blame labor shortages or inflation.  Both are real.  But behind them lies a broader, quieter shift, a cultural transformation catalyzed by the pandemic and cemented by inertia.  Much of that has eroded the hustle, the grind, the after-hours dining, and lingering conversations over a second glass of wine.

And it’s not just restaurants.  America’s downtowns, once the heartbeat of business and commerce, are hollowing out.

This is not a red-state or blue-state problem.  The virus didn’t ask about party affiliation when it changed how we live.  Both political parties spent, scrambled, and stumbled through the early stages of COVID-19, each spinning its response as leadership while quietly punting the deeper consequences down the road.  In many cities, that road now runs past a series of vacant office towers.

A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study found that office attendance in major urban centers remains down over 40% from pre-pandemic levels.  Remote work, initially a stopgap, became a lifestyle.  Hybrid work is now the norm for many white-collar jobs, and although it offers flexibility, it also delivers a slow bleed to the urban economy.  The companies that once filled 20 floors of a high-rise are now leasing half of one or none.

And cities are paying the price.

Fewer office workers mean fewer lunches bought, fewer dry cleaning runs, fewer happy hours, fewer subway fares, and fewer tax dollars.  Cities like San Francisco and Chicago are staring down budget shortfalls and contemplating service cuts.  Smaller cities with less diversified economies are faring worse.  Once designed around density and foot traffic, downtowns now resemble ghost towns by 6 P.M.

The commercial real estate market is groaning under the weight of it.  Office vacancy rates in the U.S. hit a record 19.6% in late 2023, and the consequences are rippling.  Property taxes from office buildings make up a significant revenue stream for many municipalities.  When those buildings sit empty or depreciate, cities lose income.  That means potholes go unfilled, bus routes are cut, police and fire departments see reduced budgets, and residents feel the decline.

We’re living through a slow-motion crisis that doesn’t make headlines because it doesn’t explode; it seeps.

Keep reading