The government is NOT your friend: 7 pieces of solid evidence
Please wake up, brothers and sisters. The pillars of society are crumbling, but that’s only a problem if we are blind to it. It’s a good thing if we thereby remember that G-d actually runs the world.
Note: This article (specifically Exhibit B) edited August 22 to reflect a correction made by Dr. Naomi Wolf on the dailyclout.io site.
Some of you are completely informed already, and this article will simply reinforce what you know.
Some of you are skeptical or outright think I’m a crazy conspiracy theorist. Even if you think so, know that I care about you enough to try to enable you to see what I see, because I know that we’re standing at the edge of a precipice.
So to all, please join me as we explore how a caring government would act, and contrast that with what we see before our eyes. You be the judge.
This is a bit long, but it’s very, very important, especially if you still trust the CDC and everyone who trusts them.
Exhibit A) Governments should want all their citizens to live and thrive. Indeed, that’s the reason provided for all the Covid restrictions and vaccine mandates which make life so hard for the people - it’s all for their own good, because life is so precious, it’s more important than anything.
So how does that jive with Canada encouraging people to die?
“DISTURBING”: Experts Troubled by Canada’s Insane Euthanasia Laws
This photo provided by Gary Nichols shows him, right, with his brother, Alan, on the eve of his euthanization in Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada, in July 2019. Alan submitted a request to be euthanized and he was killed, despite concerns raised by his family and a nurse practitioner. Nichols’ family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably — among the requirements for euthanasia. “Alan was basically put to death,” his brother, Gary, says. (Courtesy Gary Nichols via AP)
Alan Nichols had a history of depression and other medical issues, but none were life-threatening. When the 61-year-old Canadian was hospitalized in June 2019 over fears he might be suicidal, he asked his brother to “bust him out” as soon as possible.
Within a month, Nichols submitted a request to be euthanized and he was killed, despite concerns raised by his family and a nurse practitioner.
His application for euthanasia listed only one health condition as the reason for his request to die: hearing loss.
Nichols’ family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably — among the requirements for euthanasia. They say he was not taking needed medication, wasn’t using the cochlear implant that helped him hear, and that hospital staffers improperly helped him request euthanasia.
“Alan was basically put to death,” his brother Gary Nichols said.
Disability experts say the story is not unique in Canada, which arguably has the world’s most permissive euthanasia rules — allowing people with serious disabilities to choose to be killed in the absence of any other medical issue.
Many Canadians support euthanasia and the advocacy group Dying With Dignity says the procedure is “driven by compassion, an end to suffering and discrimination and desire for personal autonomy.” But human rights advocates say the country’s regulations lack necessary safeguards, devalue the lives of disabled people and are prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it.
Equally troubling, advocates say, are instances in which people have sought to be killed because they weren’t getting adequate government support to live.
Canada is set to expand euthanasia access next year, but these advocates say the system warrants further scrutiny now.
Euthanasia “cannot be a default for Canada’s failure to fulfill its human rights obligations,” said Marie-Claude Landry, the head of its Human Rights Commission.
Landry said she shares the “grave concern” voiced last year by three U.N. human rights experts, who wrote that Canada’s euthanasia law appeared to violate the agency’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They said the law had a “discriminatory impact” on disabled people and was inconsistent with Canada’s obligations to uphold international human rights standards.
Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, described Canada’s law as “probably the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.”
During his recent trip to Canada, Pope Francis blasted what he has labeled the culture of waste that considers elderly and disabled people disposable. “We need to learn how to listen to the pain” of the poor and most marginalized, Francis said, lamenting the “patients who, in place of affection, are administered death.”
Canada prides itself on being liberal and accepting, said David Jones, director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Britain, “but what’s happening with euthanasia suggests there may be a darker side.”
Euthanasia, where doctors use drugs to kill patients, is legal in seven countries — Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain — plus several states in Australia.
Other jurisdictions, including several U.S. states, permit assisted suicide — in which patients take the lethal drug themselves, typically in a drink prescribed by a doctor.
In Canada, the two options are referred to as medical assistance in dying, though more than 99.9% of such deaths are euthanasia. There were more than 10,000 deaths by euthanasia last year, an increase of about a third from the previous year.
Canada’s road to allowing euthanasia began in 2015, when its highest court declared that outlawing assisted suicide deprived people of their dignity and autonomy. It gave national leaders a year to draft legislation.
The resulting 2016 law legalized both euthanasia and assisted suicide for people aged 18 and over provided they met certain conditions: They had to have a serious condition, disease or disability that was in an advanced, irreversible state of decline and enduring “unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be relieved under conditions that patients consider acceptable.” Their death also had to be “reasonably foreseeable,” and the request for euthanasia had to be approved by at least two physicians.
The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left.
Today, any adult with a serious illness, disease or disability can seek help in dying.
Canadian health minister Jean-Yves Duclos said the country’s euthanasia law “recognizes the rights of all persons … as well as the inherent and equal value of every life.”
The countries that allow euthanasia and assisted suicide vary in how they administer and regulate the practices, but Canada has several policies that set it apart from others. For example:
— Unlike Belgium and the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal for two decades, Canada doesn’t have monthly commissions to review potentially troubling cases, although it does publish yearly reports of euthanasia trends.
— Canada is the only country that allows nurse practitioners, not just doctors, to end patients’ lives. Medical authorities in its two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, explicitly instruct doctors not to indicate on death certificates if people died from euthanasia.
— Belgian doctors are advised to avoid mentioning euthanasia to patients since it could be misinterpreted as medical advice. The Australian state of Victoria forbids doctors from raising euthanasia with patients. There are no such restrictions in Canada. The association of Canadian health professionals who provide euthanasia tells physicians and nurses to inform patients if they might qualify to be killed, as one of their possible “clinical care options.”
— Canadian patients are not required to have exhausted all treatment alternatives before seeking euthanasia, as is the case in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Still, Duclos said there were adequate safeguards in place, including “stringent eligibility criteria” to ensure no disabled people were being encouraged or coerced into ending their lives. Government figures show more than 65% of people are being euthanized due to cancer, followed by heart problems, respiratory issues and neurological conditions.
Theresia Degener, a professor of law and disability studies at the Protestant University for Applied Sciences in northwestern Germany, said allowing euthanasia based exclusively on disability was a clear human rights violation.
“The implication of (Canada’s) law is that a life with disability is automatically less worth living and that in some cases, death is preferable,” said Degener.
Alan Nichols lost his hearing after brain surgery at age 12 and suffered a stroke in recent years, but he lived mostly on his own. “He needed some help from us, but he was not so disabled that he qualified for euthanasia,” said Gary Nichols.
In one of the assessments filed by a nurse practitioner before Nichols was killed, she noted his history of seizures, frailty and “a failure to thrive.” She also wrote that Nichols had hearing and vision loss.
The Nichols family were horrified that his death appeared to be approved based partly on Alan’s hearing loss and had other concerns about how Alan was euthanized. They lodged complaints with the British Columbia agency that regulates doctors and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, asking for criminal charges. They also wrote to Canada’s minister of justice.
“Somebody needs to take responsibility so that it never happens to another family,” said Trish Nichols, Gary’s wife. “I am terrified of my husband or another relative being put in the hospital and somehow getting these (euthanasia) forms in their hand.”
The hospital says Alan Nichols made a valid request for euthanasia and that, in line with patient privacy, it was not obligated to inform relatives or include them in treatment discussions.
The provincial regulatory agency, British Columbia’s College of Doctors and Surgeons, told the family it could not proceed without a police investigation. In March, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Cpl. Patrick Maisonneuve emailed the relatives to say he had reviewed the documentation and concluded Alan Nichols “met the criteria” for euthanasia.
The family’s parliamentary representative, Laurie Throness, asked British Columbia’s health minister for a public investigation, calling the death “deeply disturbing.”
The health minister, Adrian Dix, said the province’s oversight unit reviewed the case and “has not referred it for any further inquiry.” He pointed out that the euthanasia law does not allow for families to review euthanasia requests or be privy to hospitals’ decisions.
Trudo Lemmens, chair of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said it was “astonishing” that authorities concluded Nichols’ death was justified.
“This case demonstrates that the rules are too loose and that even when people die who shouldn’t have died, there is almost no way to hold the doctors and hospitals responsible,” he said.
Some disabled Canadians have decided to be killed in the face of mounting bills.
Before being euthanized in August 2019 at age 41, Sean Tagert struggled to get the 24-hour-a-day care he needed. The government provided Tagert, who had Lou Gehrig’s disease, with 16 hours of daily care at his home in Powell River, British Columbia. He spent about 264 Canadian dollars ($206) a day to pay coverage during the other eight hours.
Health authorities proposed that Tagert move to an institution, but he refused, saying he would be too far from his young son. He called the suggestion “a death sentence” in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Before his death, Tagert had raised more than CA$16,000 ($12,400) to buy specialized medical equipment he needed to live at home with caretakers. But it still wasn’t enough.
“I know I’m asking for change,” Tagert wrote in a Facebook post before his death. “I just didn’t realize that was an unacceptable thing to do.”
Stainton, the University of British Columbia professor, pointed out that no province or territory provides a disability benefit income above the poverty line. In some regions, he said, it is as low as CA$850 ($662) a month — less than half the amount the government provided to people unable to work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Heidi Janz, an assistant adjunct professor in Disability Ethics at the University of Alberta, said “a person with disabilities in Canada has to jump through so many hoops to get support that it can often be enough to tip the scales” and lead them to euthanasia.
Duclos, the national health minister, told The Associated Press that he could not comment on specific cases but said all jurisdictions have a broad range of policies to support disabled people. He acknowledged “disparities in access to services and supports across the country.”
Other disabled people say the easy availability of euthanasia has led to unsettling and sometimes frightening discussions.
Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.
In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.
“Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.”
Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.
Catherine Frazee, a professor emerita at Toronto’s Ryerson University, said cases like Foley’s were likely just the tip of the iceberg.
“It’s difficult to quantify it, because there is no easy way to track these cases, but I and other advocates are hearing regularly from disabled people every week who are considering (euthanasia),” she said.
Frazee cited the case of Candice Lewis, a 25-year-old woman who has cerebral palsy and spina bifida. Lewis’ mother, Sheila Elson, took her to an emergency room in Newfoundland five years ago. During her hospital stay, a doctor said Lewis was a candidate for euthanasia and that if her mother chose not to pursue it, that would be “selfish,” Elson told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Canada has tweaked its euthanasia rules since they were first enacted six years ago, but critics say more needs to be done — especially as Canada expands access further.
Next year, the country is set to allow people to be killed exclusively for mental health reasons. It is also considering extending euthanasia to “mature” minors — children under 18 who meet the same requirements as adults.
Chantalle Aubertin, spokeswoman for Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti, said in an email that the government had taken into account concerns raised by the disabled community when it added safeguards to its euthanasia regulations last year. Those changes included that people were to be informed of all services, such as mental health support and palliative care, before asking to die.
Aubertin said those and other measures would “help to honor the difficult and personal decisions of some Canadians to end their suffering on their own terms, while enshrining important safeguards to protect the vulnerable.”
Dr. Jean Marmoreo, a family physician who regularly provides euthanasia services in Ontario, has called for specialized panels to provide a second opinion in difficult cases.
“I think this is not something you want to rush, but at the same time, if the person has made a considered request for this and they meet the eligibility criteria, then they should not be denied their right to a dignified death,” she said.
Landry, Canada’s human rights commissioner, said leaders should listen to the concerns of those facing hardships who believe euthanasia is their only option. She called for social and economic rights to be enshrined in Canadian law to ensure people can get adequate housing, health care and support.
“In an era where we recognize the right to die with dignity, we must do more to guarantee the right to live with dignity,” she said.
Source: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/2114970/disturbing-experts-troubled-by-canadas-insane-euthanasia-laws.html https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867
Exhibit B) Governments should want women in their countries to have successful pregnancies, and if anything would be putting babies in danger, caring governments would immediately be warning the expectant mothers, right?
The following compilation is from Etana Hecht’s article (link underneath.)
Pregnancy outcomes - In Pfizer’s documents, as of Feb 2021, in the section labeled “Description of Missing Information”, they describe (in an oddly worded way) 270 pregnancies that were that were reported in the first 12 weeks of the Pfizer vaccine rollout.
Dr. Pierre Kory did a great job breaking this information down into digestible information on his Substack:
2. Menstrual irregularities is the topic over which Dr. Wolf got permanently banned from Twitter over a year ago. She noted that many women were reporting irregularities to her, ranging from lengthy or heavy cycles, to bleeding in post-menopausal women. This was back in June 2021. THREE months later, the NIH finally decided to run a study on how the Covid vaccine impacts menstrual cycles- once the majority of the childbearing age women in the US had gotten a Covid vaccine.
Well, sure enough they found that Covid vaccination was associated with an average lengthening of just under one day per cycle.How does that impact fertility? What else does it impact? We don’t yet know, but the signals are not looking good.
3. Fertility rates - We’re now more than a pregnancy’s worth of time into the Covid vaccine campaign with a few extra months to accumulate data on birth rates, and there’s not really another word for it besides dystopian. There can be speculation as to what is causing a terrifying drop in birth rates in highly vaccinated countries around the globe, but the most obvious and simplest answer is an outside intervention- and the Covid vaccines fit right into that timeline.
Igor Chudov is keeping a close eye on birth rates, and has already tracked sharp declines in California, North Dakota, Germany, UK, Switzerland, Taiwan, the UK, and Sweden. The most significant drop was in Taiwan - their June 2022 birth rate dropped by over 27 percent when compared to the June 2021 birth rate. That is unheard of.
4. Stillbirths - Josh Guetzkow has been keeping tabs on stillbirth numbers, and similar to the drop in birth rate, they’re shocking. Recently, Germany reported a sharp rise in stillbirths over the Spring.
Guetzko also accessed information released via FOIA in Israel back in February regarding data at Rambam hospital in Haifa that shows evidence of vaccinated women suffering miscarriages, stillbirths and abortions at a 34% higher rate than unvaccinated women at the same hospital, albeit from a small sample size.
5. Vaccine effects on babies - Israeli journalists Yaffa Shir-Raz and Ranit Feinberg did an intense dive into VAERS submissions regarding people under age 3 who suffered a side effect from the Covid vaccine. There are many who were reported as being harmed from exposure to the vaccine via breastmilk, but they kept their investigative report only to babies who have been vaccinated themselves. There were 58 babies in that report, all of whom suffered life threatening events after having had the Covid vaccine. For more details:
6. Vaccine ingredients collect in the ovaries - According to Pfizer’s documents, (page 21) they tested to see the concentration of spike protein, mRNA and lipid nanoparticles in various parts of the body, starting from 15 minutes after injection, up until 48 hours after injection. Dr. Robert Chandler of Daily Clout Team 5 has produced a report that shows there’s no sign of the materials leaving the ovaries at all.
7. Personal Witness - John O’Looney is a funeral director who’s speaking out about the rising numbers of death he’s been seeing since 2021. He spoke to an Australian OBGYN who has seen a rate of miscarriage of 74% among vaccinated women in his practice. When he tried to bring his data to the public he was terminated and stripped of his permissions to practice medicine publicly or privately.
The above examples barely scratch the surface of the fallout from the Covid vaccine - none of which were publicly disclosed to the general population prior to vaccination. Dr. Wolf coined the term “Baby Die Off”, and while that might seem harsh, if the above examples are an indicator, that’s exactly what it is, as pregnancies are failing at a high rate, with a drop in birth rate that seems to be following vaccination campaigns and hasn’t shown any sign of slowing down.
Exhibit C) Caring governments would be transparent with their citizens. If restrictions are actually necessary and beneficial to save lives, the science behind them would be rigorously debated and proven, numbers shown for all to see, and not something that changes on a dime.
So how did the CDC suddenly, inexplicably pivot on August 11, 2022 to the bare-bones common sense guidelines of simply “stay home if you’re sick, no testing asymptomatic people, no quarantining exposed individuals” which the “fringe minority” scientists had advocated all along? Was there perhaps no justification in the first place for the unprecedented guidelines of the past 2 years, which have destroyed countless lives?
"disband the CDC" goes mainstream
THIS article covers a great deal of ground that will be familiar to bad cattitude readers.
the CDC failed on virtually every measurable metric of covid response.
they promoted the pseudoscience of lockdowns and masking trotting out study after study with cherry picked or outright fraudulent parameters.
they made up ideas like “6 foot distancing” that lacked any basis whatsoever
they failed to recognize or admit to airborne and aerosol transmission
they pushed over-sensitive and irrelevant testing and fruitless and impossible contact tracing
they claimed vaccines would stop spread
they claimed vaccines would be 100% effective vs hospitalization and death
they pushed 2 doses and done as the “path to get your life back” then 3, then 4, then booster forever all on the basis of shoddy science.
and they systematically refused to do their appointed job of monitoring the adverse events of the vaccines.
they destroyed schools and businesses and drove the US economy and society into a ditch.
they made the lives of american children into a misery and cost them years of education and development despite their never having been at material risk.
they vilified and attacked the sane and accurate folks like jay and martin and sunetra and the great barrington declaration which was, quite literally, just a simple and uncontroversial elucidation of 100 years of evidence based epidemiology.
and now they have finally come full circle and tried to slide into adopting the practices that the actual adults in the room had been advising all along.
it took the CDC years to finally be pummeled into arriving at the place the great barrington declaration started back in fall 2020.
this absolute panoply of total, tragic, and willful failure has become way too big to miss.
this agency is either so outlandishly incompetent or so desperately politicized and corrupt as to pose grave threat to the american people especially and specifically because it was allowed to dictate to them (either directly or by informing the choices of those who did) and perhaps most of all because people trusted them.
and so begins the new era.
what’s so endlessly fascinating to me here is how rapidly this has become mainstream.
in 2109… people still believed. they still inhabited in their minds a warm, snuggly technocratic state where serious people at serious agencies did serious work to keep us safe.
there is nothing like seeing what you believe to be the robust apparatus of a high-tech safety state revealed to be a careening clown car of technocratic tyranny that has, to no good end, mowed down everything in its path for years and inflicted perhaps the most grievous peacetime harm america has ever experienced.
technocracy runs on trust.
and trust is gone.
can anyone doubt that these powers and prerogatives will, if left lying around, once more be weaponized against we the people in service of kleptocracy and unwanted societal engineering “for our own good”?
these are not experts, they’re the marketing arm of big government’s big business totalitarian collaboration for plunder and profit. it’s not about safety, it’s about power.
you will lose your rights and your freedom, but you will gain nothing. as has been on such vivid display, their promises of safety and security are empty. they do not seek to provide such and would not know how to do so even if they sincerely sought to.
these agencies of regulation and safety are false protection. they are worse than nothing because their dictates impose monstrous costs without regard to efficacy and inflict nothing but damage upon those they are intended to spare from it.
the lifeguard is coming to drown you.
and enough have seen it that the net harm of their existence is now a topic of common currency.
their hubris has revealed them for what they are and nemesis is rising.
it is no risk to remove these assailants of lives and livelihoods from power because they were not providing safety anyway.
in a modern data age, the idea that we cannot do better with open systems of combined medical data provided by choice by the people themselves into secure, open source pools for competitive and transparent analysis checked and validated by real, universal peer review instead of the data suppression and shaping of the closed cloisters and cathedrals of policy is ridiculous.
such a system would be 1,000 times as powerful, impossible to capture, open, honest, and immune to suppression.
we could have it for the asking.
and the time to ask is now.
this data and the conclusions that may be drawn from it belong the the people, not to the state and it is far too important to be left in the hands of a small self-credentialed clerisy whose interests fail to align with ours.
open systems beget open societies which beget human flourishing.
or did you need another lesson before you’ll walk through this window?
Exhibit D) Caring governments are transparent about the medical treatments they authorize, and they don’t play tricks on their citizens by pretending a product is authorized, when in actuality the product that’s available in the country is a different, unauthorized product, but you’re made to believe that you’re getting the authorized product, which is in reality unavailable. Why would they do that?
One year later: How the Biden Admin, Big Tech, and Pfizer fooled Americans into taking "FDA approved" COVID vaccines that never actually existed
Comirnaty is a ghost shot.
By Jordan Schachtel
It has been almost one year since the FDA gave full approval to Pfizer’s mRNA COVID injection. Yet many will be surprised to find out that this particular vaccine, in FDA approved form, has never actually existed, and will never exist. The Biden Administration’s highly touted FDA approval was a mere sleight of hand. It was bureaucratic trickery. There remains no FDA approved COVID vaccine that is actually available in the United States, and there may never be one.
On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved Pfizer’s Comirnaty shot, the FDA cleared version of the emergency use authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
Marked as a turning point in the battle against the virus, the Biden Administration, Government Health agencies, and Pfizer went on a full PR blitz to crush what they deemed “vaccine hesitancy.” Big Tech and media “fact checkers” also joined in on the mRNA uptake blitz campaign, with all of these forces maintaining a false reality in which FDA approved vaccines were readily available.
Four emergency use authorization shots (and counting) later, It has became very clear, despite shoddy academic papers to the contrary, that the mRNA drug does not work, is particularly risky for young men, and is not in any way, shape, or form a vaccine by its traditional definition. But at the time of the FDA approval, “fully vaccinated” meant just two shots, and the government rubber stamp measure was weaponized to convince Americans to get the shot. “Safe and Effective,” and now, “FDA approved.”
Additionally, the Biden Administration leveraged this fraudulent FDA approved status to pressure private companies into coercing their employees to take the shot, Of course, they did not actually have access to an FDA approved shot. However, the campaign succeeded with flying colors, as millions of Americans were forced to take the shot under duress, as they couldn’t afford to be rendered unemployed by the biomedical security state.
The American government engaged in a pharmaceutical sales campaign, based on polling data, to trick its own citizens into taking a shot that they thought was FDA approved. However, everyone in America was being injected with — and continue to take — the legally distinct emergency use authorization (EUA) version of the shot. The FDA approved Comirnaty shot has never become available to the American public in the United States.
In the months following the initial FDA approval, Pfizer continued to make new excuses for why it was not rolling out the FDA approved version of the mRNA injection. The pharmaceutical company seemed to be playing what amounted to a shell game.
Finally, in June, as reported in The Dossier, Pfizer acknowledged in quiet filings to the CDC that they would never produce the FDA approved version of Comirnaty that was authorized on August 23, 2021.
The Dossier has the full timeline in our piece, “Ghost Shot,” which you can click below.
The Dossier has been “fact checked” by the likes of Politifact and USA Today, which falsely claimed that there was indeed an FDA approved vaccine available to the public, when that is absolutely, provably not the case.
Now, as the one year anniversary for the FDA approval of Comirnaty approaches, we are left with more questions than answers. The Biden Administration, Big Pharma, and Big Tech teamed up to fool Americans into taking a shot that they thought was FDA approved, but it turns out, that shot never actually existed, and will never exist.
Exhibit E) Caring governments are really careful that the medical treatments they authorize are very well studied, to be sure they’re safe and effective. They surely wouldn’t just dump a brand new double-strain shot on the market without any safety testing, and for extinct variants, to boot, right?
Potentially Twice As Deadly For Two Variants That Are Now Long Gone: First bivalent COVID-19 booster approved by UK medicines regulator
Today’s eugenics crimes are brought to us courtesy of the shadiest of all legalized drug dealers in Moderna:
The adapted COVID-19 vaccine made by Moderna targets two different coronavirus variants – the original virus from 2020 and the Omicron variant.
Think about the absurdity of this latest bideadly injection; how can anyone with any critical thinking accept a drug for strains that no longer exist. This is total madness.
The decision to grant approval for this booster vaccine in the UK was endorsed by the government’s independent expert scientific advisory body, the Commission on Human Medicines, after carefully reviewing the evidence.
In each dose of the booster vaccine, ‘Spikevax bivalent Original/Omicron’, half of the vaccine (25 micrograms) targets the original virus strain from 2020 and the other half (25 micrograms) targets Omicron.
And surely they would never suppress a study that shows almost ONE THIRD of young adults getting the mRNA shots have cardiac effects, right? So let me know if this study is on the CDC and NIH sites tomorrow.
Thailand study of young adults post jab showed nearly 30% with cardiovascular injuries
It is amazing what you find when the people doing the study are honest.
A new study on cardiovascular impacts of the COVID vaccines done in Thailand is particularly troubling: 29% of the young adults experience non-trivial changes in their cardiac biomarkers.
It is amazing what you find when scientists doing a study are honest and want to know the truth.
“Why isn’t a study like this being done in the US?” asks UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad.
This is just more evidence of corruption of the medical community that nobody was calling for any of this data.
These vaccines are a disaster. Every day, the evidence gets worse and worse.
Will this new study stop the vaccines for kids? Of course not!
18% of kids had an abnormal EKG post-vaccine?!? That has to be extremely troubling. A vaccine is not supposed to do that. Are doctors telling parents the vaccine causes serious heart issues in 18% of kids? At least let them know.
The paper noted that “Cardiovascular effects were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia, palpitation, and myo/pericarditis.” Wow.
Almost 30% of the cases?!?! That’s not “rare.”
Finally a 3.5% rate of myo/pericarditis (including subclinical) among males 13-18 is not rare either. We were lied to by the CDC. Big time.
Interestingly, this is consistent with the number of myocarditis rates at Monte Vista Christian School in Watsonville, CA which was in excess of 1% but they wouldn’t reveal any of the details beyond that publicly; gotta keep the school safe from lawsuits. Major credit there goes to Head of School Nikki Daniels for making sure that nobody found out that the shots they gave at the school were hurting kids. When adverse reactions started showing up, they did the right thing: they kept their mouths shut.
Exhibit F) Governments who care do everything they can to save their citizens’ lives, right? So if there are some old generic medications with a very well established safety profile, and some simple vitamins, which may save lives in a pandemic, your government would be the first to tell you, right?
So strange that did happen in “third world” countries, but not here. 🤔
If you have any theory that can explain all the above inconsistencies, other can “I can no longer trust my government”, please do let me know.
In the meantime, please think about this:
The Torah foretells that in the final days before the Redemption, G-d will cause all of the pillars of society - those things that we trusted in - to crumble, so that we see that we have only Him to rely on. This newfound trust in Him will bring the Redemption.
So, I think we’re in those days now, and the more of us realize that we ought to place our trust in G-d and not in government, the closer to Redemption we get.
Here are some pages from last week’s Torah portion, Parshas Va’eschanan, in the Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy.) These verses clearly lay out much of what G-d asks from us, as the Ten Commandments are reviewed here. (This is photographed from the Artscroll Stone Edition Tanach.) Please especially notice Chapter 4, verses 29 and 30, which I believe refer exactly to the times we are now living through.
Please share this message!