patrick.net

Mandating the injection of highly profitable experimental gene-based crap with zero long-term safety data and no definitive ingredient list into billions of healthy people, resulting in 13 million 17 million pointless deaths so far, is the worst crime against humanity ever committed.

In an uncensored interview with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Tucker Carlson called COVID-19 “the greatest crime ever committed.”

He mentioned that a thousand people were arrested for January 6, but no one has been arrested for the crimes of COVID.

“Millions of people died, and it's related to a funding decision by Anthony Fauci to fund dangerous research in China,” Rand Paul declared in a previous interview.

Resurfaced interview shows Dr. Fauci say this about mandates: "When you make it difficult for people... they lose their ideological bullshit and get vaccinated"

Remember when they tried to take our freedoms away by making it all but mandatory to get the vaccine? They had restaurants, universities, even people's workplaces requiring the vaccine for entry, and many of us gave in due to the inconvenience.

Well, newly resurfaced audio of Anthony Fauci sheds a bit of light on why we were nudged so hard to get the vaccine.



They weren't trying to keep us safe; they were selling a product. And they needed that product to be consumed.

Such a shame what they put us through. And still to this day half of our country thinks it was done in earnest.

Treasonous Archfiend of Pseudoscience and unkempt celebrity grifter Peter Hotez recognizes the danger. Maybe not the full scope of the danger. But Hotez wrote a horrible, self-pitying book last year (that nobody is reading) side-splittingly titled, “The Deadly Rise of Anti-science: A Scientist’s Warning.” Okay, Peter. Whatever. ...

(Wait. A pediatrician? Are you kidding me? My first gobsmacked thought was, who in their right mind would leave their children with Peter Hotez? I’d bet my next three paychecks that disheveled doctor doesn’t see any kiddies as patients at all, that’s just another in a long series of lies. But I digress.)

And, “a scientist’s warning?” Please. Give me a break. That’s all they’ve been doing for the last four years, warning us about a million fake crises that never materialized. If only Peter and his cronies had listened to a lawyer’s warning. From mid-2020 I was telling them as often as I could that, while they could ram their unwanted public health ‘science’ down our throats as pandemic mandates and emergency edicts, eventually there would be a reckoning.

Welp. Their reckoning cruise ship has sailed up to the dock and is now ready for boarding. Time to go.

The UK Covid inquiry has taken its circus north to Edinburgh. Since earlier this month, the inquiry has been hearing evidence from Scottish government officials and SNP politicians in an attempt to examine how they handled the pandemic. Scotland is currently still conducting its own separate Covid inquiry, but there is apparently still plenty to be uncovered by Lady Hallett.

Just as in England, the inquiry hearings in Scotland have mostly devolved into a farce. Despite many leading Scottish politicians having deleted their WhatsApp messages, much dirty laundry has been aired. Last week, the inquiry heard that Nicola Sturgeon considers Boris Johnson to be a ‘fucking clown’. It was revealed that ‘there was swearing’ during the calls between Sturgeon and national clinical director Jason Leitch ahead of the 2020 Christmas lockdown. Earlier today, Sturgeon herself was grilled about allegations her staff had used ‘burner phones’ to withhold messages from the inquiry.

As has been the case in London, the inquiry seems to be less interested in actually addressing the government’s pandemic policies than in what ministers said behind each others’ backs. ...

What’s more, it’s been refreshing to see proper time given to a lockdown sceptic. Professor Mark Woolhouse – an Edinburgh University professor of infectious-disease epidemiology and a member of SAGE – gave a very effective testimony last week about the mistakes made by the Scottish government. This was particularly welcome, given how shoddily lockdown sceptics were treated by the inquiry in London. ...

Next, Woolhouse turned his guns on the mainstream media. The BBC was particularly guilty of spreading disinformation, said Woolhouse, ‘repeatedly reporting rare deaths among healthy adults as if they were the norm’. The Beeb falsely told the public that the ‘virus does not discriminate’, he added, when it had always been clear that the risk to the elderly was far greater than to anyone else.

Woolhouse was not relying on hindsight here. The Covid outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship demonstrated this back in February and March 2020. Of the ship’s 2,666 passengers, 567 were infected and 14 died. Almost all of those deaths were among people over 70. Out of the 1,045 crew, there were 145 infections, with zero deaths and no severe illness. Covid deaths have consistently been concentrated among the very elderly. Saying that ‘the virus does not discriminate’ was mendacious drivel.

Jill Dillingham Hines Admonishes Louisiana State Legislators
Live and Local, August 16, 2021
https://rumble.com/vl9rzl-jill-dillingham-hines-speaking-up-today-at-the-louisiana-legislature-health.html

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: Hello, my name is Jill Hines. I'm co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana.[1] We are a consumer and human rights advocacy organization. And Chairman Bagley,[2] Vice Chairman Turner,[3] thank you for calling this oversight hearing.

For the last 17 months, the citizens of Louisiana have been at the mercy of the unelected state employees who work for the Louisiana Department of Health and who advise Governor Edwards. This state agency has effectively removed parental rights in regards to medical decisions, and education is being held hostage for those do not comply.

They have determined that millions of children across the state must undergo the same medical intervention without providing informed consent, which violates federal law and the most basic medical ethics and human rights.

As a reminder, the chaos the governor's most recent mask mandate has generated might have been avoided had this committee recognized the necessity of protecting the most basic human rights, the right to determine what is done to our own bodies and those of our children.

You had the opportunity to pass a bodily autonomy bill in May, but if you'll remember, you stated it was not necessary. Representative Bagley stated it was a solution in search of a problem. Representatives Bagley, Adams, Cox, Hughes, Johnson, Larvadain, Miller, Presley and Stagni voted to involuntarily defer it.

Last October I sat before this committee and asked two things of you, that you prevent a covid 19 vaccine mandate for employees by creating exemptions similar to those available for school attendance, that you— and, number two, and you provide informed consent to parents and students regarding vaccine exemptions with any communication regarding vaccination requirements.

At that time there were comments from the committee members that we were putting the cart before the horse and that we were offering solutions in search of a problem.

You had the opportunity to pass a bill that would have made it a law for colleges and universities to provide exemption information about vaccines, including the covid vaccines. But representatives Turner, Cox, Hughes, Johnson, Miller, Moore, Owens, Presley, and Felders voted against it.

You had the opportunity to pass a bill that would have prevented a covid vaccine mandate by providing exemptions to employees, but representatives Turner, Cox, Echols, Hughes, Johnson, McMahen, Miller, Moore, Owens, Presley, and Felders voted against it.

You said there would be no mandates, but mandates are here and have been here for over a year now.

While I appreciate this committee for convening for this much-needed hearing, I would ask that you take the opportunity when next its available to protect the rights of the people you serve.

The Louisiana Department of Health does not and should have the authority to determine what I put on or in my person or that of my children, and right now they do. And that needs to change.

Thank you.

3:44
CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: Thank you. I appreciate hearing what I voted for [laughs]. I didn't get my name called many times so I guess we're, we've, we've always been friendly anyway. Yeah. Well, my, my stance on all that has been pretty clear anyway. And I've written letters and called about the mandating the vaccines and—

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: Yes and we appreciate that greatly, Representative Bagley, the point being though is that you wouldn't have had to do that if you guys had passed the bills.

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: Well, there's no reason to argue with you about that.

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: Right. Quite right.

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: That was because it's already in law and right now, while they're, they are trying, they're still trying, they can't do it until they OK it. And you know it—

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: The point I want to make though is the mask. The mask is a medical intervention under EUA [Emergency Use Authorization], as I've mentioned so many times in front of this committee. And part of the, the, the federal law governing EUAs is that parents are informed that it's an experimental medical intervention, that that they're given the right to refuse, that they're given the risk involved, we don't know the risk because there's been no safety studies involved in it, and that there should be an adequate reporting system similar to the VAERS system[4] for vaccines. And that's not been done. The state has violated parents' rights and children's rights by, by removing informed consent about this medical intervention.

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: Well, that's one of the reasons for this meeting to get people to come up and say what they say and, and tell what they believe, and I try to keep this as orderly as possible because you needed to say what you say, just like the ones on the other side need to say what they say. And I do appreciate you, you know that.

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: Thank you for coming again.

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: Thank you so much, Representative Bagley. [rises]

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: Oh, hold on. You have a question.

[Jill Dillingham Hines returns to seat before the microphone]

VICE CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER TURNER: I have a comment.

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: Comment, Representative Turner.

VICE CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER TURNER: OK, so my comment is, you made it sound like the people that voted for the bills were for mandating. I'm not for mandating masks, I'm not for mandating vaccines. And that's why we have the seventeen dash one seven, you have those exemptions on whether you want to take the, the shot or not. So you come in here and saying that, I guess, is not, when we we have a yes or no to make doesn't give all the details of what we think, and what we're thinking, and what we're trying to do. And it's not my place to tell a business what to do, what not to do, and that's what one of those bills referred to. So just know that there's a lot of us that do believe in the vaccine, but I don't want to push it on anybody. And that's, that's that's that's—

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: Right and that would have [inaudible]—

VICE CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER TURNER: That was not a question.

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: That—

VICE CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER TURNER: That was not a question, that was just—

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: Just a statement.

VICE CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER TURNER: —my comment, yes, from the way you presented that information about the way we voted and what we did, I, no way that I don't think there's very many people on this committee that want to mandate that anybody in this room does anything.

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: Thank you.

VICE CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER TURNER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: Thank you.

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: May I reply in response to that?

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: Thank—

VICE CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER TURNER: Never asked a question.

CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE BAGLEY: —you, m'am.

JILL DILLINGHAM HINES: No?

6:39
[END]

# # #

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:

[1] Health Freedom Louisiana https://www.healthfreedomla.org/

[2] Lawrence A. Bagley (R- District 7)

[3] Christopher Turner (R- District 12)

[4] VAERS is the official US government Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/about.html
(Note: https://openvaers.com/ provides VAERS data in a more reader-friendly presentation)

We need now to go back to an event that happened in October 2021. The trial of Kassam vs Hazzard. The trial was conducted in the NSW Supreme Court and the crux of it was that representatives of the working classes of New South Wales took the government to court over vaccine mandates.

The vaccine mandates were enforced on the basis that

COVID was “highly contagious and lethal”

Vaccination reduced transmission and induced herd immunity ...

Although anybody that has read the UNESCO declaration on bioethics 2005 or the UN declaration on human rights or the Nuremberg Code1 or the Australian Constitution section 51.23a would realise that this order egregiously contravenes human rights and bioethics, the judge - Robert Beech-Jones - found in favour of the government, in a scenario reminiscent of those failed attempts to take on the Nazi regime through the court system during the Third Reich judiciary in 1933-1945.



The primary reason given for declaring the novel-gene-therapy-vaccine mandates to be legal was, effectively, that coercion is legal in the realm of employment when it’s deemed by anyone with power to be so. Literally what employment law was designed to protect the worker from.

It’s the Harvey Weinstein defence:

“You can work for me provided that you allow me to violate your bodily autonomy. If you refuse, you will lose your job and your income. It is your choice to do this as you have chosen this occupation”

The Harvey Weinstein defence, and thus Justice Beech-Jones’ decision, was even endorsed by three appeal judges2 :

The principle of legality is not of universal application and the assistance to be gained from it varies widely: [84]. Three rights raised – the right to earn a living, right to privacy and right not to be discriminated against – are not ‘fundamental’ and are not engaged by the principle of legality: [111]–[112]. The other three rights raised – the right to bodily integrity, the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination – did engage the principle of legality but were not infringed by the PHA orders: [113].

I’ll just reiterate that. You have a right to bodily integrity, but if your employer or the government make a law that violates it, this obviously does not amount to an abrogation of that right. Right? ...

And just to cement the validity of Robert Beech-Jones’ performance in putting the proletariat back into line in their mini-rebellion against the government (who of course are always correct), a glowing editorial3 is written in the UNSW Law journal espousing the correctness of Justice Beech-Jones’ reportedly independent and ethical viewpoint.

Although this article concludes that vaccine coercion is both legally and morally justified, it acknowledges the right to refuse medical treatment, freedom of thought, conscience, and opinion, and the right to bodily integrity as important precepts deserving serious consideration.

In many cases, alternatives to coercion are preferable.

So let’s get this straight. The right to bodily autonomy “deserves serious consideration”?

As I reported last week, Governor DeSantis’s Covid Grand Jury issued its first interim report. At the time, I said everyone should read it, but of course that isn’t possible or likely, so I’ll continue to highlight the most important and meaningful parts. Without argument, the most important disclosure in the report was its explanation of how the vaccine lie was perpetrated by the government — aided and abetted by a willing, sold-out media.

Of course you remember the phrase “safe and effective.” How could you forget? That phrase fueled every single vaccine mandate. Well … it was always a lie, even before they found out the shots didn’t work, right from the start, and the Grand Jury Report explained exactly how they did it.

This is critically-important: the federal agencies like the CDC and the FDA played a rhetorical shell game on America. And the corporate media helped them hide the definitional pea. First of all, when government officials called the vaccines “safe,” they were using a legal term of art.

In other words, when they said safe, they deceptively relied on a highly-subjective legal definition that doesn’t actually mean “safe” — but never said so.

Here’s how the Grand Jury Report explained it:




In other words, the vaccines were never considered “safe” in general. When Fauci said the jabs were safe, he meant they were “safe” compared to the relative risk posed by the virus (“relative freedom from harmful effect” and “the condition of the recipient”). All the CDC and FDA had to do was decide the virus was more deadly than the bubonic plague — which they did — and then virtually anything could be considered safe, no matter how risky it really was.

Even worse than helping the agencies mislead people with a legalistic definition of an everyday dictionary word, the media never even asked the agencies to explain the risk/reward matrix. So they got away with using a totally-subjective standard that wasn’t tied to anything — certainly not to anything scientific.

The media could have explained all this to us at the time, but they didn’t. They are pathetically useless and I hope every reporter who helped promote this lie gets fired.

So they can spend time in honest self-reflection, of course.

The term “effective” is nearly as bad. When the government said the vaccines were “effective,” they used a weasel definition for that word too. Legally speaking, the term “effectiveness” can be based on a regulatory determination arising from clinical trials, as you would expect, or from “other data.”

‘Other data’ is undefined.

There weren’t any clinical trials proving effictiveness — Pfizer never even tested for that. The regulators relied on “other data” to conclude the shots were effective. The media never asked the agencies to explain what their “other data” was that caused them to determine the vaccines were so “effective.” From the report, citing federal statute:




It was all wordplay, right from day one. They tricked us by secretly using a different definition for common dictionary words, a stealthy different definition than what we thought they meant. They will blame us for not knowing the legal meanings of those words and stupidly assuming they were using lay definitions. But they are experts, you see, so how can you expect them to speak plainly?

They got away with it last time. But now we know. They won’t get away with it any more. The term “safe and effective” has become a hissing and a byword.

do you get why I say Nuremberg 2.0? Why Malone, Bancel, Bourla, Sahin et al. must sit under oath in legal tribunals and examined for judges and juries to have a go at what these fuckers did…these are evil money making money whore fuckers, they killed people…they knew the risks…all of them…and so we must assess if they must be jailed or hung…not you or I, but proper judges and juries…only after that and if they say they did good, no ill intent, we then praise and kiss them all…celebrate them, hug Malone…but if judges call for death penalty and juries, then I say hang them all!

Delivery — actually getting RNA into cells — has long bedeviled the whole field. On their own, RNA molecules have a hard time reaching their targets. They work better if they’re wrapped up in a delivery mechanism, such as nanoparticles made of lipids. But those nanoparticles can lead to dangerous side effects, especially if a patient has to take repeated doses over months or years.

Novartis abandoned the related realm of RNA interference over concerns about toxicity, as did Merck and Roche. ...

“I would say that mRNA is better suited for diseases where treatment for short duration is sufficiently curative, so the toxicities caused by delivery materials are less likely to occur,” said Katalin Karikó, a pioneer in the field who serves as a vice president at BioNTech.

This particular case is about a young man called Tom, but in essence it is about all of us. We are Tom, and Tom is us.

Tom is 22 years old, but he has the mental capacity of a child aged around 18 months. He is a very happy and loving young man. He enjoys being with animals, listening to music, looking at books, dancing and being out and about meeting people. Family is most important to him. He gives joy to all that meet him. He lives off love and is loved so very much.

As Tom has no speech, he would not be able to communicate symptoms to his mother, ‘mum my heart is racing, mum I can’t breath properly...’ His mother says she would have to live each day with ‘the not knowing of what could be happening to Tom’.

After the ‘vaccine’ rollout began in 2021, Tom’s mother refused to let the state vaccinate him, and in September 2022, Judge Burrows ruled in a county court that Tom must be vaccinated. There was an appeal which was subsequently denied. Tom’s case was then taken over by Justice Hayden who upheld the ruling. It is worth noting that a GP and a pharmacist both refused to inject Tom on principle, however another doctor has decided that it is in Tom’s ‘best interest’ to be vaccinated. This is a ‘vaccine’ that could cause him harm or kill him.

Justice Hayden, the judge presiding at the virtual hearing appeared fully on board with the Covid narrative and despite the fact that the coercion of any medical procedure violates tenets of the Nuremberg Code, especially the doctor’s oath First Do No Harm, he found it strange that more ‘muscle’ hadn’t been used to carry out the ruling ie the vaccination.

Yes, you read that right: Muscle.

My blood pressure rose as it was revealed that at one point in 2022, at the start of the case, the medics were prepared to come to Tom’s home to carry out the vaccination.

I met Kenny Mauer a few weeks ago. He is a NBA referee, fired for his refusal to take the poisonous injection falsely marketed as “covid vaccine”. I was asked by RFK Jr to briefly assist his legal team. I think the story of his ongoing legal fight with NBA is extremely important for all of us as it stands as a historical record of both, the betrayal unleashed on all of us by our own leaders, and enabling of this betrayal by the corruptibility and weakness among fellow humans.

Ken is one of three NBA Referees to work over 36 years. One of only four referees to work in five different decades. One of only seven referees to work over 2,000 regular season NBA games. Has officiated over 200 NBA Playoff games. Has officiated 19 NBA Finals games to date.

In October 2022, Ken was terminated due to his religious exemption being denied. At that time, Mauer was the longest tenure referee on staff concluding his 37th year. In early 2023, he asked to receive his pension and was denied for the reason being, if he happens to win his case, there’s a chance he could get his job back. (They are illegally holding his money so he doesn’t have money to continue with his lawsuit.) Ken now has two law suits against the NBA. ...

Some relevant history of the case below:

Former NBA referees Kenny Mauer and Jason Phillips claim the league's "high standard" of proof required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine exemption violated their religious liberty.

The pair is now taking their grievances to court after the league rejected their requests for exemptions from the vaccine mandate.

In October 2022, Ken was terminated due to his religious exemption being denied.

The injection mandates are the worst crime against humanity ever, violating the most fundamental human right to control our own bodies, and in particular the right not to have one's body pierced by poisonous needles at the whim of government agents of Pfizer and Moderna. Millions are now dead from the mandates all around the world, and yet the genocidal criminals still walk free. This kind of crime was defined and forbidden at the Nuremberg trials, yet was committed again in broad daylight. Hangings are entirely appropriate once again.

McCullough is 100% correct here that students complied out of fear; we knew 2 weeks out that COVID was amenable to risk stratification & that your baseline risk was prognostic or predictive on your outcome; this meant that we needed to take an age-risk stratification approach and not a carte blanche or ‘one size fits’ all approach. COVID spared children, teens, young persons who were healthy etc. We did not need a population wide approach. Age and baseline risk was critical in how we approached (and were to approach) COVID management and this was not done. In fact, quite the opposite was done. 10-year old Johnny was not at the same risk as 85 year-old granny with 3 underlying medical conditions and we also saw 2-3 weeks out that COVID spared and was sparing children. Children were at near zero if any at all risk of severe outcome or death from COVID and today, after 4 years, we can find not one, not ONE, not 1, healthy child in America exposed to COVID who got severely ill or died. Same in Germany, same in Sweden etc. The data is stable globally. No healthy children died of COVID.

Patrick says

In October 2022, Ken was terminated due to his religious exemption being denied.

This "religious exemption" bothers me. He should be able to refuse the injection on the facts the injection is experimental, proven to be ineffective against Covid, and even has risk of harm. Using religion degrades the refusal to be a matter of mysticism rather that the real issue of facts and personal rights.

"Both of my UNJABBED 85 year old parents just survived their 2nd bout of Covid. Between both of them, they've had a heart attack, cancer twice, diabetes and 1 kidney removed. Seriously, how dangerous can "Covid" be anyway?"

"My parents did not have access to either of those medications."

GNL says

"My parents did not have access to either of those medications."

Yes, I know. I am just adding to your comment. Just because someone is old, it does not mean that they are susceptible to Covid, the flu etc. As a people we need to have access to these medications.

This "religious exemption" bothers me.

New York Moves to Begin Vaccinating Children Without Parental Consent

Democrat lawmakers in New York State are pushing new legislation that will allow for children to be vaccinated or put through surgical procedures without their parents’ consent.

The lawmakers behind deeply misleading legislation argue that minors should be able to make their own decisions about medical treatments.

However, it has long been established in law that children are not able to consent for themselves and, as such, their parents must make decisions on a number of issues for them.

The legislation would allow any child or teen under 18 to seek out and consent to medical treatment — including vaccines, dental procedures, hospitalization, and even surgery.

New York Moves to Begin Vaccinating Children Without Parental Consent

Democrat lawmakers in New York State are pushing new legislation that will allow for children to be vaccinated or put through surgical procedures without their parents’ consent.

This makes it sound like NY is already doing it but...

GNL says

This makes it sound like NY is already doing it but...

"Moves to begin" does not sound to me like they're already doing it.

New York Moves to Begin Vaccinating Children Without Parental Consent

Sputnik V is an unlawful experiment, patient advocacy group says

Russia's League of Patients says Covid vaccines have not been proven safe

Sputnik V and other Covid vaccines have not undergone the necessary testing and their continued use in Russia is a “crime”, the head of Russia’s League of Patients, Alexander Saversky, said in a February 15 interview with healthcare news portal medzdrav.info.

Saversky, who serves on the Health Ministry’s Ethics Committee for Clinical Approbation and is regularly cited by Russian media, revealed that his organization has collected more than 1,000 reports of deaths linked to “anti-Covid” measures, as well as statements from Russians who developed serious complications after being vaccinated.

“[T]he effectiveness and safety [of Sputnik V] have not been proven, and this represents a formal crime. It is not even necessary to prove any connection with deaths, because it is almost impossible to prove—we don’t know how these vaccines work, since clinical studies have not been completed,” Saversky said.

He told medzdrav.info that despite these red flags, no one will be held responsible for pushing drugs on the population that have not been fully tested.

The science behind Russia’s flagship Covid vaccine is shrouded in secrecy. In January 2022, Russia’s Healthy Ministry refused to disclose the results of Sputnik V’s clinical studies, claiming that the vaccine’s safety and efficacy data were “confidential and contained information constituting a trade secret.”

The Russian government does not maintain a publicly accessible database for documenting post-vaccination complications. Testimonials from doctors and medical professionals, as well as grassroots campaigns to track vaccine-linked injures and deaths, suggest that Sputnik V is comparable to its foreign counterparts in terms of safety. The genetic technologies behind Sputnik V and Western big pharma shots are also similar.

“The two technologies that underpin AstraZeneca’s vaccine and Sputnik V are very similar,” Gamaleya Center director Alexander Gintsburg said in December 2020.

Pfizer Secretly Studied a Heart Damage Marker, Troponin I, in Five- to 15-Year-Olds, Following mRNA COVID Vaccination in 2021.

By Dr. Chris Flowers, MD, MBBS, FRCR, FSBI

The key questions is:

How could the pssibility of myocarditis in children, the most precious, be kept a secret by the FDA, NIH, CDC, and Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech? ...

See McCullough’s stack here (note I am proud to work with McCullough in scientifically supporting TWC (The Wellness Company, found at TWC.health):

‘We warned that there was proof that the Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA COVID vaccine caused heart damage in teens and young adults, as early as May of 2021.

As more information surfaces from the court-mandated release of Pfizer clinical trial documents by the FDA, and via FOIA'd emails, the CDC’s cover-up of evidence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated myocarditis in minors, becomes increasingly serious. Myocarditis is inflammation of the myocardium, resulting in tissue degeneration or necrosis.

For example, during the same time period that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was repeatedly advising parents to get their children vaccinated against COVID-19, Pfizer was secretly testing for markers of heart damage in vaccinated kids. They looked for Troponin I in minors. When heart damage occurs, troponin I, a protein, gets released into the bloodstream.

While the CDC was urging parents to vaccinate their kids, Pfizer was studying how badly its mRNA COVID vaccine damaged children's hearts. ...

Thus, the CDC knew by then that COVID vaccine-related myocarditis occurred, yet the agency worked hard publicly to minimize the seriousness of that risk, and to conceal that possible cause and effect.

Health Canada Hid Their Concerns About Impurities In COVID-19 Shots From Canadians ...

Health Canada developed concerns about these unintended proteins after learning the real science from my respected colleague, Dr. Jessica Rose, via her Substack article. This article should also be read by everyone since it beautifully describes why these unpredicted contaminating proteins are of legitimate concern.

In short, a scientist at Health Canada that was tasked with investigating this issue agreed that these unintended proteins represent a “high level of impurity”. Internal emails from Health Canada were obtained by The Epoch Times via a freedom of information request. The communications clearly demonstrate concern within Health Canada about how these recently discovered contaminants (that have been a problem from day one) could negate the authorization of the shots. The result was that Health Canada worked hard to find internal ‘fact checkers’ willing to downplay the internal concerns. So, the final summary of the investigation hid the most concerning aspects.

During his testimony, Risch explained how the bioweapons industry has been exploiting a loophole in the Biological Weapons Convention treaty of 1975.

The treaty allowed for “small quantities of offensive bioweapons…to be developed in order to do research on vaccine countermeasures.”

“This loophole was then exploited by our bioweapons industry for the last 50 years,” Risch explained.

“The bioweapons treaty limited offensive bioweapons to agents that would address vaccine development, so-called dual-use agents, or dual-use research.

“And this was the premise and motivation of the various virology grant applications…”

Risch also pointed out that commercial vaccines are typically deployed before a pandemic starts, “not in the middle of one.”

“So, my hypothesis, what I believe is that both the virus origin cover-up and the forced vaccination of the entire planet were orchestrated to protect the integrity of the bioweapons industry,” the Yale professor said.

Risch continued by explaining why the virus’s origins needed to be covered up by the bioweapons industry. ...

Professor Risch continued:

“And my conclusion then is: the reason why the whole population had to be vaccinated is to show that the bioweapons industry supposedly did have a rationale for vaccine development as part of its claim to dual-use research. ...

“And so the Covid vaccines themselves supplied the defense against the charge that the bioweapons industry was not actually dual-use, but offensive only, violating the 1975 treaty.

“So the vaccines had to be dramatically pushed out to be the universal solution to show that the bioweapons industry was actually working for the public good and in this context, it did not matter what collateral damage the vaccines caused. ...

The event is Sen. Johnson’s latest effort to get answers for the American people.

Sen. Johnson and his team have been investigating the links between Covid shots are the soaring sudden deaths and major health complications that have been spiking across the country.

As Slay News has reported, Johnson has been pushing to expose the truth behind the government’s involvement in the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent mRNA vaccine rollout.

In January, Johnson went public with explosive federal government data showing the alarming death rates associated with Covid mRNA injections.

Johnson’s investigators conducted an in-depth analysis of data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

According to Johnson, the data indicates that the COVID-19 injections are 55 times more deadly than the flu vaccine.

Brian Murphy
Feb 26
There needs to be a high profile campaign making examples of doctors, government and medical officials. Charges of intentional iatrogenesis, genocide, crimes against humanity, conspiracy to commit mass atrocities, accomplices to mass murder… Heck, even corporate manslaughter will suffice. Ruin them as they ruined and killed millions by cowardice, compliance and cunning. Then the message needs to go out to every other perpetrator: come forward, speak out, blow the whistle, expose the criminality and conspiracies, and atone, to lessen the impact on you and your families. And if not… woodchipper goes brrrrr…