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

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 Reservewas 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

RFK Jr. just made his best hire yet (and that’s saying something)

Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration named Dr. Vinay Prasad, a San Francisco oncologist, as its top regulator for vaccines and other complex drugs called biologics.

This is a YUGE move.

I know Prasad. He is deeply thoughtful about the value and cost of new medicines. He understands the games Big Pharma plays to win approvals for expensive new drugs that all-too-often have little benefit — and hidden risks.

Those games often rely around the design of clinical trials: keeping them short for a drug that may be used for years; including only the healthiest possible patients (for example, the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine trials included few people over 80, who should have been the focus of the trials); comparing them to other drugs that have serious side effects and are not the true “standard-of-care.”

They also include pressure campaigns to push regulators to quickly approve drugs for serious conditions like cancer on the basis of “surrogate endpoints.” Drug companies, and the desperate patients they work with and fund, argue any treatment is better than no treatment.

They’re wrong.

Even for people who are dying, they’re wrong — at least on the institutional level.

The human body is incredibly complex. Efforts to modify disease and healing processes are even more complex. Medicine is rife with stories of treatments, from bloodletting to lobotomies, that did more than harm than good but that became accepted cures for decades or centuries.

Keep reading

Secret recordings with ousted FDA vaccines chief suggest disinterest in documenting vax injury

The Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine official until late-March met online several times with a COVID-19 vaccine injury group’s leader, who, opposing the vaccines in part, begged him to no avail to take severe adverse events such as paresthesia as a precursor to neuropathy seriously and to urge doctors to treat them as such rather than write them off as “anxiety,” secret recordings suggest.

The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) released the videos, compiled on The Real Peter Marks website, with other documentary evidence from Marks’ leadership of the COVID response starting with Operation Warp Speed, at the National Press Club in Washington on Tuesday.

They also include a virtual meeting between San Francisco intensive care unit doctor Patricia Lee, Marks and other FDA officials, who asked no questions after Lee said a patient’s severe complications from vaccination at 22 weeks’ pregnancy and related death prompted a “nervous breakdown” among nurses on her shift, requiring a psychiatrist’s overnight visit.

ICAN CEO Del Bigtree shared pieces of Lee’s Oct. 22, 2021, conversation with FDA officials, who allegedly ignored her pleas for vaccine-injured patients until she brought “legal pressure,” on his show two weeks earlier with ICAN lawyer Aaron Siri and REACT19 founder Brianne Dressen, whose neurological injuries from the AstraZeneca vaccine trial were confirmed by the NIH

Organized as an animated vertical timeline that loads as it scrolls, the Marks website loaded slowly during Just the News’ review Wednesday. “They are receiving a ton of traffic and working on it,” a spokesperson said in the early afternoon.

Keep reading

Neurodiversity Is A Strawman

A dear friend had a beautiful, healthy, engaged baby boy. After his first round of childhood vaccinations he went blind, non-verbal, started head banging, having seizures, lost all engagement, and fell into the abyss of autism. Today that child is 40. He is incontinent, cannot speak or feed himself, and is totally dependent upon his father to survive. 

Another friend had a son and a daughter. The daughter, following her first round of childhood shots, experienced almost exactly the same scenario described above, minus the blindness. At the time my friend did not connect the dots and when it came time for his son to be vaccinated, the child began to seize. In the room, my friend put it together and stopped the rest of the shots. Today, his son is only mildly autistic while his daughter, at 26, is non-verbal, incontinent, and often uncontrollable. Since the son is only mildly autistic, I suppose we shouldn’t look into the cause of his issues? It’s a gift, right? 

A mother (a client in one of the many tragic cases) had a teenage daughter who, after a round of the Gardasil vaccine, suffered a seizure and went into a coma. The young girl had been captain of her volleyball team, top of her class, poised for a full and happy life. Today, at nearly 20, she lives in total darkness because she has seizures every 30 seconds – cannot have any light. The neurodegeneration is unquantifiable. She cannot read or watch TV, let alone go on her first date, go to prom…experience the life she should have and would have. 

Another friend had a perfect, beautiful young daughter who was exceeding all of her milestones. After her second round of jabs, she locked in, stopped talking or making eye contact, developed a severe learning disability, and is still struggling today, at 6. 

She, too, will never experience the “normal” milestones we all would like to see for our children. 

Those stories, anecdotal though they may be, are the tip of the iceberg. 

I could share thousands, each one worse than the next, that would make most people sit in a room and cry forever.

The media machinery has conflated mild spectrum disorder with what I just described above specifically so that people will have the reaction they are having right now. This is normalization of extremes by conflating them with non-extremes so that it’s a step-by-step incremental (and coordinated) attack on those who would expose the root cause of the terrible suffering experienced by so many.

It’s executed so that people like RFK, Jr. are hobbled from doing their job. 

How does questioning the environmental harms and risk factors for autism and/or neurodegenerative disorders threaten or even conflict with the idea of autism as neurodiversity? Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. 

No other disease has people normalizing a spectrum (no pun intended) of symptoms ranging from terrible to non-debilitating in order to argue that it’s actually great. We don’t say there’s a spectrum of neurodegenerative disorder from paralysis to neuropathy and there are benefits to neuropathy therefore neurodegeneration is great. This is normalization at its best. 

Suddenly everyone’s kid is Rain Man. Suddenly everyone is “on the spectrum.” Ergo, it’s normal. Being a little bit weird is beautiful and normal and we are all a little bit weird so that’s not a disorder. This is a psyop and everyone is falling for it. No one is saying there is something wrong with neurodiversity or that we shouldn’t also be looking into that. But when it comes to discovering the contributing factors and co-factors, the environmental insults, and the increase itself in autism to date, we’re not talking about that. We are talking about, and have only ever been talking about, the above scenarios. 

The tactics to muzzle debate and halt real investigation are duplicated across all levels. (This should all sound eerily familiar when we recall the conflation, normalization, media machinations, and strawmen to emotionally activate opposition tactics used during Covid.)

It should be a red flag and alarm every American that pharmaceutical companies have no liability for vaccines and that they have managed to increase the pediatric schedule from 3 to 72 in one generation, and it should alarm every parent to learn that HHS itself draws a hard line in 1989 for autism – the year when vaccine formulation was changed to allow for combinations because in 1986 the vaccine space became a financial free-for-all. 

Unfortunately, the media is adept at keeping dots that should be connected in silos so that most people do not connect them, and there is no shortage of sock puppet “experts” willing to run around doubling down on the narrative. 

The Burbacher Study, if anyone were to know about it, let alone read it, SHOULD have at least sparked research into these potential harms. Instead, the spokesperson for the pharmaceutical industrial complex assigned to discredit parents and advocates, Paul Offit, dissects a strawman in public view…in this case the strawman is ethyl vs methyl mercury.

Allow me to explain how this tactic works and why it’s effective: Offit’s argument (and also the error in his argument) is that ethyl mercury (Thimerosal) clears from the brain faster than methyl mercury. First of all, that’s omitting the fact that there are organic and inorganic types, and for the organic type, Offit is right, but for the inorganic type, he’s dead wrong. Ethyl and methyl mercury are different, that’s true, but they both break down into organic and inorganic subtypes. The Burbacher study shows that the organic form of Ethyl mercury clears from the brain faster. 

The inorganic clearance rate couldn’t be determined because the slope of the rate of clearance is zero. So, according to this study, that form of mercury is in the brain forever. Compared to mercury derived from Thimerosal, both organic and inorganic forms of methyl mercury clear from the brain. Which goes against Offit’s claim that ethyl mercury is safer. At least the inorganic form clears from methyl mercury, but it never clears from ethyl mercury. 

But the real issue is…why are we comparing different kinds of lighter fluid around matches? No kind is desirable. (Strawman identified!) And no one is suggesting we are going to inject people with methyl mercury either…so he’s wrong to make the comparison in the first place. But once he’s made the comparison, he’s also wrong according to the data if you consider the inorganic form. Simply put, the Burbacher study proves that mercury does cross the Blood Brain Barrier. Did we put a hold on this? No. Instead, we did away with animal studies for mercury. 

This is just ONE example of ONE strawman designed and implemented to marginalize and sideline a set of risks and harms (even if that’s minority harm) and, yes, injury. There are too many others to list. For example, why aren’t we looking into the connection between autism and HHV-6? 

Between autism and chemicals like Glyphosate and PFAS and forever chemicals in our air, our water, our soil, and our food? Hint: it isn’t because I just thought of it now in my living room. It’s because bottom lines, and corporate and regulatory capture and corruption to maintain those bottom lines, are valued above human lives – above our children’s lives. 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only ONE vaccine has ever been properly tested, and even then, never fully. If you shine a spotlight over one small area on a dark street and don’t find what you’re looking for, do you presume the entire street is free of whatever it is? Do we abandon first principles in order to pour concrete on our confirmation biases and further our narratives? Or do we ask the difficult, complex, and nuanced questions, do the hard work, and search for the truth? It appears that question has been asked and answered in the affirmative for the former. The latter is vehemently opposed. 

The assertion that these issues have been looked into is false. In fact it’s been DISALLOWED thus far, and look what’s happening when we try to look into it now. We have everyone outraged over a strawman that was never the point in the first place. It’s all a smoke screen. Once everyone is distracted and chaos ensues, any actual progress is effectively halted, which is precisely the point. It’s not organic. It’s the model, it’s coordinated, and it works. 

Keep reading

Meet the Latest Vaccine Propagandist

On January 05, 2024, this Pharma Propaganda outlet published a video interview with Dr. Paul Offit, professional academic pediatrician and vaccine shill, in which he states a series of falsehoods in continuation of the gaslighting and falsehoods which both he and Dr. Peter Marks (FDA/CBER) are becoming known for.

Lets take a look at the transcript of this series of falsehoods.

First off, starting with the title, is Paul Offit actually a vaccine expert? What have his contributions actually been? Well, he self-identifies as the co-inventor of a licensed rotavirus vaccine (one of many, and not the first), and has received significant royalties from that. I should say currently licensed rotavirus vaccine, because there was a prior rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield – Wyeth) which was associated with an intolerable level of a clinical syndrome called “intussusception.”

If you know horses, you can think of intussusception as sort of like colic, but most often happening in children. More precisely, intussusception is a condition in which one segment of intestine “telescopes” inside of another, causing an intestinal obstruction (blockage). For some reason, rotavirus vaccines are associated with intussusception. It can be life threatening. The previously licensed rotavirus vaccine had a slightly higher rate of intussusception than the current one associated with Dr. Paul Offit (and Dr. H. Fred Clark, the senior of the two researchers).

This essay details the events surrounding the RotaShield withdrawal, including the role of Offit when participating in the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the CDC. Basically, all US children are required to take either Offit’s vaccine or a competing similar live attenuated virus product. According to the CDC:

There is also a small risk of intussusception from rotavirus vaccination, usually within a week after the first or second dose. This additional risk is estimated to range from about 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 100,000 US infants who get rotavirus vaccine.

There are about 3.66 million births per year in the US, so that means between 36 to 180 cases of life-threatening intussusception in the US per year due to mandated administration of this product.

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.

Keep reading

Recipients of Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Had Higher Mortality Than Those of Moderna: Study

Florida adults who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to die following vaccination than Moderna COVID-19 recipients, according to a new preprint study that was co-authored by Florida’s top health official.

Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s surgeon general, and other researchers identified nearly 9.2 million Florida adults not living in institutions who received at least two doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine less than six weeks apart between Dec. 18, 2020, and Aug. 31, 2021.

They narrowed the group to nearly 1.5 million, half who received Pfizer’s vaccine and half who received Moderna’s vaccine, by matching them based on criteria such as age and sex. They then analyzed the records to see which group had the higher risk for all-cause mortality, or death from any cause, in the 12 months following vaccination.

That analysis found that more Pfizer recipients died, with 847 deaths per 100,000 recipients, compared to 618 deaths per 100,000 for Moderna recipients. Pfizer recipients were also more likely to suffer heart-related deaths and COVID-19 deaths.

Pfizer and Moderna did not respond to requests for comment.

The study was published as a preprint, which means it has not been peer reviewed, on the medRxiv server on April 29.

Keep reading