Tag: pandemic

NIH Top Brass Caught Conspiring to Evade Questions About Coronavirus Research at Wuhan Lab

Newly disclosed emails reveal that top officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) planned to provide Congress with a response that “doesn’t actually answer the questions” about a grant the agency awarded to a nonprofit for controversial research conducted in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

Independent journalist Paul D. Thacker, author of “The Disinformation Chronicle” on Substack, analyzed the emails, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by investigative reporter Jimmy Tobias.

Thacker’s report shows NIH officials discussing how to respond to congressional inquiries about the grant awarded to EcoHealth Alliance.

In a July 2020 email exchange, Adrienne Hallett, then-NIH associate director for legislative policy, outlined a strategy to evade direct answers to congressional inquiries.

“We are going to draft a response to the letter that doesn’t actually answer the questions in the letter but rather presents a narrative of what happened at a high level,” Hallett wrote. “The Committee may come back for other documents but I’m hoping to run out the clock.”

The email chain reveals that top NIH leadership, including then-Director Francis Collins and then-Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak, were aware of and supportive of this approach.

Collins responded, “Sounds like a good plan.” Dr. Michael Lauer, the NIH’s deputy director for extramural research, replied, “Thanks so much Adrienne! I’ll draft something today.”

Keep reading

Study of 125 Countries Finds ‘No Apparent Benefit’ From COVID Vaccines

A new study by a team of Canadian researchers into excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic found that patterns of excess death globally could not be explained by the virus, including long COVID.

The study, by researchers with Correlation Research in the Public Interest, examined excess mortality in 125 countries during the pandemic. It found that mortality patterns correlate closely with the imposition of restrictions such as lockdowns and with the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

The investigation determined that pandemic-related restrictions resulted in 30 million deaths globally and that 17 million deaths can be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers concluded that “nothing special would have occurred in terms of mortality had a pandemic not been declared and had the declaration not been acted upon.”

Joseph Hickey, Ph.D., one of the paper’s co-authors and president of Correlation, joined “The Defender In-Depth” this week to discuss the study’s findings and analyze the likely causes contributing to increases in excess deaths and overall mortality.

Excess death data ‘not compatible’ with ‘particularly virulent special pathogen’

Hickey explained that “all-cause mortality” refers to “the number of deaths without filtering by the cause of death” during a given period, while “excess deaths” refers to “how many deaths occurred that are above and beyond what would have been predicted” for a certain period.

Hickey and the study’s co-authors analyzed pre-pandemic raw data from 2015 to 2019, and data collected between 2020 and 2023. Hickey said the data, collected from 125 countries, found “a large amount of excess deaths.”

“We calculate that over the COVID period … about 0.39% of the global population died in excess. That compares to about 0.97%” during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918.

Hickey said this was “the largest non-war mortality event in 100 years” globally.

Keep reading

No Means No: The Child in Vermont Said No, So What Good is the Vermont Supreme Court Ruling?

During the height of the COVID19 pandemic debacle, suggestive reasoning in advocating for Federal vaccine mandates was used to nudge the unthinkable. This observation is directed at a 2022 article by Fraser and Neuss in the journal Chest. At a time when it was already known that the vaccines failed to prevent transmission, the authors nevertheless attempted to nudge subtly toward a nationalized approach to vaccine mandates without explicitly stating this position. Their approach is easily criticized for its passive-aggressive tone, lack of clarity, and failure to fully engage with counterarguments.

I will argue that via a detailed analysis of the principle of informed consent. I will argue that solicited, explicit, and voluntary agreement before administering medical procedures, particularly vaccinations, without pretext, coercion or presumption, is a basic human right. The Vermont Supreme Court’s recent ruling, interpreted by some as allowing schools to vaccinate children without explicit parental consent, is highlighted as an anomalous but significant threat to informed consent and parental rights. In particular, in addition to rights to choose (accept or decline) proferred medical options, this ruling potentially enables the state to enroll children in long-term vaccine safety studies without parental knowledge or consent, contravening ethical standards outlined in 45 CFR 46, the Common Rule, and other federal regulations designed to protect vulnerable populations.

Case examples, such as Murthy v. Missouri (2024) and Medical Professionals for Informed Consent v. Bassett (2023), are used to illustrate the importance of maintaining individual rights and informed consent in public health policies. These cases underscore the necessity for clear legislative frameworks and robust protections to prevent overreach and maintain public trust.

I call for more direct and transparent discussions on vaccine mandates, urging a balanced approach that respects individual autonomy and informed consent while addressing public health needs. The current trend of suggestive reasoning and ambiguous policy advocacy undermines ethical principles and fails to provide a solid foundation for public health strategies.

Keep reading

There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic

This article focussing on the alleged novel coronavirus is among the most important articles I have written. 

There is an element of simplicity and common sense in the text. My objective is that the article will be extensively read and debated at the grassroots of society, not only by scientists and medical doctors. The complexity of this crisis is overwhelming. This is not solely a “Public Health Crisis”.

The implications are far-reaching because the article refutes and invalidates ‘everything” pertaining to the Covid pandemic. These include the policies  related to The Lockdown and the  Covid-19 “Vaccine”, not to mention the infamous Pandemic Treaty and The World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”. 

The official “corona narrative” is predicated on a “Big Lie” endorsed by corrupt politicians.

That “official consensus” is exceedingly fragile. Our intent is to precipitate its collapse “like a house of cards”. 

What is ultimately at stake is the value of human life and the future of humanity.

“‘You Were Right, Vaccines Are Killing Millions of Our Loved Ones”, Kazuhiro Haraguchi, Japan’s former Minister of Internal Affairs’s

Our objective is to save lives including those of newly born babies who are the victims of the Covid-19 “Vaccine”.

At this juncture in our history, the priority is to “Disable the Fear Campaign” and “Cancel the Vaccine” (including the repeal of the so-called “Pandemic Treaty”).

Hopefully this will set the stage for the development of a Worldwide movement of solidarity, which questions the legitimacy of the powerful “Big Money” financial elites which are behind this infamous project. 

Keep reading

‘Stunning’ 620% Higher Risk of Myocarditis After mRNA COVID Vaccines. Korean Study

Researchers found a striking 620% increased risk of myocarditis and 175% increased risk of pericarditis in people who received the vaccine compared to historical controls.

The study also revealed a 62% increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a rare neurological disorder.

The researchers did not highlight the the cardiac and GBS risks, but only used the data to confirm the validity of their study design, which focused on determining the risks of autoimmune diseases associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers found a 16% increased chance of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE — the most common lupus type) and a 58% higher risk of bullous pemphigoid (BP — large, fluid-filled blisters).

The study also revealed that booster shots were associated with slightly increased risks of several autoimmune connective tissue diseases (AI-CTDs), including alopecia areata (patchy hair loss), psoriasis (scaly, inflamed skin) and rheumatoid arthritis.

“Given that the risk of SLE and BP was increased in certain demographic conditions such as age and sex, long-term monitoring is necessary after mRNA vaccination for the development of AI-CTDs,” the study authors noted.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at Children’s Health Defense (CHD), noted how the authors minimized the most alarming data but told The Defender the study was otherwise “very robust.”

Hooker said several other studies also show relationships between autoimmune disorders — including systemic lupus — and mRNA vaccination.

The Nature Communications article follows another South Korean study published in May that found significant increases in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

Keep reading

Leaked German COVID Data Unveils Disturbing Revelation About Shots, Use of Children During Pandemic: Report

Journalist Aya Velazquez obtained non-redacted Covid protocols from the Robert Koch Institute, basically the German version of America’s CDC, through a whistleblower. 

These shocking documents, initially reported in German, were deciphered and explained in English by biotechnologist Dr. Simon Goddek. 

The contents have sparked widespread concern and disbelief, particularly in their implications about the Covid-19 response in Germany.

The documents reveal a startling fact: individuals vaccinated against Covid-19 suffered more severely from the virus compared to those who remained unvaccinated. 

This information, known to the German CDC as early as 2020, has raised questions about the effectiveness and safety of the Covid vaccines. 

Keep reading

Philly DA’s comments about ‘flat-out unscientific’ people come back to haunt in lawsuit over COVID-19 vaccine mandate, possible ‘anti-religious hostility’

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the progressive Philadelphia District Attorney must face a lawsuit by an Orthodox Jewish former Assistant District Attorney for denying her religious exemption to the office’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Because it was unclear whether the office’s policy was rooted in hostility toward religion, the matter was sent for a jury to decide.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed Rachel Spivack’s case against Larry Krasner (D), the elected District Attorney of Philadelphia whose 2022 impeachment was overturned as constitutionally unsound. As a result, the case will move toward trial.

The panel included Barack Obama appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, and Joe Biden appointees U.S. Circuit Judges Arianna J. Freeman and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves. Freeman penned the 42-page ruling for the panel.

Keep reading

A closer look at the Czech Republic data confirms the mRNA vaccines are too deadly to be used

In an earlier article (which has links to all the Czech Republic articles I’ve written), I showed that gold-standard record-level data (showed the mortality rate ratio (MRR) between Moderna mortality rate and Pfizer’s was often over 30% and disproportionately impacted younger people. What this means is Moderna is too unsafe to be used. And other data shows Pfizer must be unsafe as well.

Since then, others have replicated my work showing both mRNA vaccines are too deadly to be used.

Using Czech data alone, we don’t have 100% proof that all the COVID vaccines were deadly. The findings could possibly be attributed to unknown confounders from an uneven distribution e.g. due to differences in socioeconomic status (SES). One product could be accidentally given to the sick and those more likely to die.

However, a thorough analysis of the Czech data shows why these explanations are very highly unlikely and why they are insufficient to explain the data that was observed. But critically there are many other data sources we can also use to build a full picture and greatly increase the confidence in our hypothesis.

Taking everything into account, there is simply no other remotely plausible explanation to explain what this gold-standard official government data shows. It’s devastating to the narrative for this reason.

Keep reading

OK, Here’s the Plan. We’ve Killed Millions with an untested jab. So let’s blame those deaths on the infection it was meant to prevent.

According to the Daily Fail and the Australian Associated Press:

Australia could continue to feel the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for years as more people die because of the virus and its impacts.

Some 8,400 more people died in 2023 than would have been expected under pre-pandemic conditions, an Actuaries Institute report released on Monday found.

The figure was down from the 20,000 ‘excess’ deaths recorded in 2022.

Well, no sh*t, Sherlock!

We are seeing higher excess deaths in every country where people have agreed to be injected – whether willingly or under coercion – because of the jab – not because of COVID. COVID is a virus whose existence, pathogenicity or ability to cause any symptoms have never been proved.

But the jab that is meant to prevent it is most certainly deadly.

And the reason why we have fewer deaths in 2023 than we did in 2022 is simply because more people have woken up to the fact that these jabs are dangerous and ineffective and have stopped taking them.

The government continues to pump billions of our tax dollars into both this jab and the mRNA flu ‘vaccine’ despite the fact that few people actually want them. It is the greatest money-laundering scandal the world has ever seen.

Keep reading

School That Gave Child COVID-19 Vaccine Against Parents’ Wishes Immune From Lawsuits: Court

A school that injected a minor with a COVID-19 vaccine despite the boy’s parents telling school officials they did not want him to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is immune under federal law, the Vermont Supreme Court has ruled.

The Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) protects state and school officials who were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by the minor’s parents, justices said in a July 26 decision.

“We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law,” Justice Karen Carroll said.

The PREP Act, signed in 2005, grants immunity to administrators of covered vaccines except in cases involving willful misconduct. COVID-19 vaccines are covered because of a 2020 declaration, extended multiple times thereafter, by the U.S. health secretary.

Dario and Shujen Politella sued officials after their son was injected with a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot in 2021 at the Academy School in the Windham Southeast School District. Before the school hosted a vaccine clinic, district and state officials confirmed that students needed parental consent to receive a vaccine, and the boy’s parents said they did not consent. Just days before holding the clinic, Mr. Politella emphasized to the school’s assistant principal that the parents did not want the boy to receive a shot.

The boy was removed from class on the day of the clinic and labeled as another child, who had already been vaccinated. The boy told workers his father said not to give him a vaccine, but they distracted him with a stuffed animal and gave him a shot, according to court documents.

The Vermont Superior Court dismissed the suit from the parents, finding that they needed to bring litigation in federal court under the PREP Act’s immunity exemption.

Lawyers for the parents, though, argued that officials did not show that the PREP Act covered their actions and that the case should play out in state court according to state laws. In a brief to Vermont justices, they pointed to other cases in which that has happened.

Keep reading