3 years, 2 months ago
We’ve linked and discussed the CDC reported vaccine injuries. There’s a lot of them if you believe their reporting, or otherwise, the reporting of the doctors who are doing the reporting.
There’s good reason to believe there is massive under-reporting of vaccine injuries. Watch this video. I don’t know how long before loyal comrade Google takes it down.
3 years, 2 months ago
“In a normal year, the Kentucky Poison Control Center might receive one call from someone who has taken ivermectin, a drug commonly used to treat parasites in livestock. But amid increasing misinformation about the drug’s ability to both treat and prevent COVID-19, that number has increased to six this year.”
This alarming news was published in Spectrum News – formerly known as Time Warner Cable – on August 24, 2021, and should be a lesson to every American.
The lesson is not about Ivermectin being poisonous because it isn’t, but about the pervasiveness of a type of new internet propaganda termed “informational flooding.”
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12274299/Roberts_gsas.harvard_0084L_11469.pdf?sequence=1
In an even more “alarming” report, NPR wrote,
“Minnesota’s Poison Control System is dealing with the same problem. According to the department, only one Ivermectin exposure case [telephone call] was reported in July, but in August, the figure jumped to nine.”
Are you kidding me? Nine telephone calls are enough to make the news? We have 2,213 deaths on August 26 from COVID-19, but these nine telephone calls are enough to make the headlines?
We have a media blackout on how India used cheap Ivermectin to obliterate the Delta variant while we struggle unsuccessfully to sell the public on problematic yet profitable vaccines.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/indias-ivermectin-blackout
The CDC coordinates all 55 poison control centers across the nation, and they are closely aligned with the FDA, which we now know is captured by Big Pharma. more on this later.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537316/
Suddenly we see hundreds of articles on so-called “Ivermectin poisoning.” Indeed, we see more ARTICLES published than there were TELEPHONE CALLS in August on Ivermectin to poison control centers in the ENTIRE NATION.
NPR reports that during the period January 1 to August 31, there were 1,143 Ivermectin telephone calls to poison control centers which works out to 143 calls per month.
The Mississippi State Department of Health was careful to clarify that although telephone calls to poison control had increased, the vast majority of callers had only mild symptoms, and there were “no hospitalizations due to Ivermectin toxicity.”
https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/15400.pdf
If you are still left wondering whether there might have been a tiny grain of truth in these articles, consider what was reported in Utah. This alarmist article is entitled, “The Utah Poison Control Center has seen a bump in calls about Ivermectin – which is not recommended for treating COVID-19.”
However, inside the article, you will notice the false alarm. The Medical Director of Utah poison control is quoted as admitting that it was only “some small increase” in Ivermectin phone calls, and no one required hospitalization.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/08/30/utah-poison-control/
Yet for Utah alone, I counted at least twenty Ivermectin poison control articles, and for the nation, the count was well into the hundreds.
When the bombs are dropping on you, you’re the target. This is a gigantic propaganda campaign, and you’re the subject of the disinformation. In other words, if they weren’t so scared of it, the laughable legacy media wouldn’t be spending so much time on it.
Now, for what Ivermectin can do for you.
The New York Times reported India’s colossal drop in COVID cases was unexplainable, while the BBC declared that Kerala’s rise was also a mystery. While new cases of COVID in Uttar Pradesh are rare as million-dollar lottery tickets, in Kerala, a tiny state located in southern India, new daily cases are the same as the United States, nearly one case per thousand. Yet, as we have seen in this series, there has been a curious media blackout on India’s overall success against COVID.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58054124
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/briefing/coronavirus-delta-mysteries.html
“Kerala has been reporting over 22,000 new COVID infections in the last three days. No other state in India is even close to the 10,000 mark. The COVID conundrum in the southern state has led to several questions, with no certain answers.”
The Times of India published this statement on July 29. Kerala has continued to have the majority of new daily cases and almost 25% of India’s daily deaths despite a population of 34 million, less than 3% of India’s total population.
On August 15, Kerala accounted for 18,582 of India’s 32,937 new cases and 102 of India’s 417 new deaths. By contrast, the Ivermectin-using state of Delhi, with nearly the same population size, recorded only 53 new cases and ZERO deaths. In comparison, Uttar Pradesh, with almost eight times as many inhabitants, had only 30 new cases and ONE death.
Kerala had 619 times as many new cases as Uttar Pradesh and over 100 times as many deaths.
So what could Kerala be doing wrong?
Hint: Over-reliance on vaccines and under-reliance on Ivermectin.
Uttar Pradesh led India in its use and has done even better than Delhi because they use Ivermectin early and preventatively.
“Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that NONE OF THEM developed COVID-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus,” Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal said.
Uttar Pradesh has a policy of treating ALL the contacts of an infected patient prophylactically with Ivermectin. In other words, in Uttar Pradesh, everyone in the house gets Ivermectin treatment even if only one is infected. Ivermectin is known to reduce mortality in infected and dramatically lowers the viral load, thereby helping reduce the spread of the virus to others.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1.full
Dr. Tess Lawrie discussed the Ivermectin-related reduction in viral load and reduced transmissibility.
There is even indication that it might be effective against various cancers. Where did I get that – some horsy-paste magazine? Try the NIH.
Drug repositioning is a highly studied alternative strategy to discover and develop anticancer drugs. This drug development approach identifies new indications for existing compounds. Ivermectin belongs to the group of avermectins (AVM), a series of 16-membered macrocyclic lactone compounds discovered in 1967, and FDA-approved for human use in 1987. It has been used by millions of people around the world exhibiting a wide margin of clinical safety. In this review, we summarize the in vitro and in vivo evidences demonstrating that ivermectin exerts antitumor effects in different types of cancer. Ivermectin interacts with several targets including the multidrug resistance protein (MDR), the Akt/mTOR and WNT-TCF pathways, the purinergic receptors, PAK-1 protein, certain cancer-related epigenetic deregulators such as SIN3A and SIN3B, RNA helicase, chloride channel receptors and preferentially target cancer stem-cell like population. Importantly, the in vitro and in vivo antitumor activities of ivermectin are achieved at concentrations that can be clinically reachable based on the human pharmacokinetic studies done in healthy and parasited patients. Thus, existing information on ivermectin could allow its rapid move into clinical trials for cancer patients.
Just remember folks. If you trust what Anthony Fauci says about anything, you’re trusting the man who sent millions of FedGov dollars to UNC-Chapel Hill for a professor there and the lady who managed the Wuhan Institute of Virology to work on gain-of-function studies. I still have their technical paper on my laptop. I read it. Don’t tell me it didn’t happen. From there it went to Harvard University (for the history you can search the archives of Harvard to the Big House). From there research went to Canada, where the lady spirited off with genetic material and the know-how to weaponize the virus. The RCMP opened an investigation of the incident, but too late to stop it.
Even after that, Fauci continued to fund Wuhan with NIAID dollars. Around 2015 or 2016, Wuhan went quiet, and an entirely new line of effort secretly went active to formulate a weapon. No more publications were written by the lady in Wuhan from then on.
So Fauci created this monster. Never forget that. If the man who created the monster tells you anything at all about how to kill it, ignore him. Never, ever listen to him.
Do you understand?
3 years, 2 months ago
The name being applied is “adverse events.”
My daughter is seeing a lot of them in her hospital, from blood clotting and massive hematoma (hematological issues), to myocardia and other problems. I won’t say any more about that at the moment.
But don’t take my word for this. See the following data.
CDC: teens injected with COVID shots have 7.5 times more deaths, 15 times more disabilities, 44 times more hospitalizations than all FDA approved vaccines in 2021.
The CDC did another data dump into their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database today. As of August 27, 2021 there have been 13,911 deaths, 2,933,377 injury symptoms, 18,098 permanent disabilities, 76,160 ER visits, 56,912 hospitalizations, and 14,327 life threatening events recorded following experimental COVID-19 “vaccinations.”
Also see this analysis at a recent FDA meeting.
Just last week pple talking this way were "rabid anti-vaxer fake-news misinformers". From the FDA, the SciFi-esque "Delta Variant" may not be in spite of the mRNA vax'es, but BECAUSE OF THEM. Yet another "conspiracy theory" with more-than-theory legs. There was warning – https://t.co/u4RA4V359g
— Stephen Coughlin (@S_Coughlin_DC) September 18, 2021
Make your own mind up, but don’t be bullied into doing something you don’t voluntarily choose to do.
3 years, 2 months ago
A growing number of doctors have threatened to withhold treatment from the unvaccinated, sparking backlash from doctors and bioethicists who say such sentiments violate the Hippocratic Oath. Those critics are even more troubled by the silence from professional organizations tasked with upholding medical ethics.
Doctors in Tennessee, Florida, and Alabama have announced they will refuse to treat unvaccinated patients, while Dallas hospital workers reportedly discussed considering vaccinated status when delegating ICU beds. Such comments have infuriated top medical professionals. Dr. Brian Callister, governor of the Nevada chapter of the American College for Physicians, said doctors should never blatantly refuse to treat unvaccinated patients who are otherwise willing to comply with the rules set out by the practice.
“It is absolutely unethical, period, end of story, to not treat a patient in need,” Callister told the Washington Free Beacon. “It is absurd and amoral for any physician to say they will not treat unvaccinated patients.”
First, I wouldn’t want to be in the services of a doctor who refused to treat patients based on their vaccination status, where I was vaccinated or not. Such a person is wicked and without a doubt cannot be trusted.
Second, fellow physicians should report each and every person who said or intended such a thing and have their license revoked. It would be like me deciding that I was going to intentionally do harm to a client’s engineering project based on their political positions. That’s what they should do – if they had any morals themselves.
Finally, he didn’t mean that it was “absurd and amoral.” That’s the wrong word. The correct word is immoral. And based on the context, that’s what he meant. Does anyone take English any more?
3 years, 2 months ago
At Instapundit Ed Driscoll links this piece at Reason. It’s basically about how the imbeciles caught the anti-Ivermectin train to nowhere and all looked rather stupid. But this particular paragraph that stands out.
It is vital for the media to communicate correct information to the public about ivermectin. While the drug is not only used for de-worming horses and is in fact prescribed to humans, overdoses can cause nasty side effects. Moreover, its viability as a COVID-19 cure is highly disputed. As Reason‘s Ronald Bailey noted in a recent article, there’s little evidence that ivermectin is an effective treatment for the virus. Reporters should make crystal clear that the best way to fight the COVID-19 pandemic is mass vaccination. But communicating wrong information about ivermectin overdoses works against this goal, as it is likely to convince vaccine skeptics that their skepticism is justified.
“Little evidence,” he says.
So for starters, we could cite the following studies: (1), (2), and (3). But why stop there? There are many more such studies.
Here is the source. And they also monitor studies on Hydroychloroquine. When something is important, you can’t leave it to the FedGov.
You might be forgiven for saying that “I just want to see more studies.” That’s a bit strange if you accept the effectiveness of any of the vaccines but reject Ivermectin as a prophylactic. But if you say something like there is “little evidence that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for the virus,” you’re just parroting talking points developed by people who have a vested interest in how this all turns out, whether from laziness or intent.
By the way, if you reject Ivermectin but accept something like Fauci’s Remdesivir, you are aware of the fact that in the very approval given for Remdesivir, of the two (only two) studies cited, in both of the studies, Remdesivir was pulled before the study was complete due to its propensity to cause liver damage and make the disease even worse? You are aware of that, aren’t you?
So who decides to write something like “little evidence?” The author has these creds.
Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason. He enjoys writing about culture, politics, education policy, criminal justice reform, television, and video games. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Daily Beast, U.S. News & World Report, The Orange County Register, and The Detroit News. In 2016, Forbes named him to the “30 Under 30” list in the category of law and policy. In 2017, he became a Novak Fellow at The Fund for American Studies. He also serves on the D.C. Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
I guess as it turns out, when you make enough money to pay professional writers and analysts, it’s tempting for those writers to grab the pronouncements of those who have unearned authority and repeat them, in lieu of doing your own fact-checking.
But wait, isn’t that what Rolling Stone did?
3 years, 2 months ago
Dethguild has an MP4 backup of Dr. Ryan Cole’s full interview, which I embedded here on YouTube.
I wish whenever they do this they would also drop it on Bitchute or some other site, but in this case, it’s viewable elsewhere and thus backed up.
Thanks to Jeremy for doing this.
3 years, 2 months ago
Via WiscoDave.
3 years, 2 months ago
Watch this while you can. Unfortunately, I cannot locate this on any other source (e.g., Rumble, Bitchute, etc.) or I would embed or link it from there.
3 years, 3 months ago
I authored this paper for an individual who wishes that the name be removed. The name has been redacted from the copy provided here.
In order to assist the reader with a framework for understanding this paper, it should first be emphasized that it is written from a very specific theological perspective. The necessary presuppositions are outlined at the beginning.
It could of course be objected that there may be other (what I am calling “committed Christians”) who do not hold one or more of the views expressed here. The intent is not to engage a theological debate. I could very well do that, but it is best left to another occasion.
Presuppositions are axiomatic irreducibles. They are the necessary starting points for discourse, not the subject of proof. For more on that, see Alvin Plantinga, Gordon Clark, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame and others, or any basic course in logic. As I’ve explained in the paper, if one holds different presuppositions, he will [necessarily] come to different conclusions.
That doesn’t mean that presuppositions are arbitrary. Some are properly basic and foundational, and they are always subject to interrogation for whether they can be successfully used to build a coherent world and life view, whether they can be shown to be logically compatible, and whether they are existentially pleasing and answer man’s basic questions about life. None of that occurs in this paper. That’s not its design. That’s best left to another occasion for readers interested enough to return.
The conclusions in this paper might find a welcome home with, say, Doug Wilson’s church in Moscow, ID, or Apologia in Mesa, AZ, or John MacAuthur’s church in Sun Valley, California. On the other hand, they might evoke laughter in the National Cathedral. I am as settled with the potential willing acceptance as I am the laughter of Hyenas. It doesn’t matter to me any more than the price of eggs in Siberia.
This paper will be meaningless to some readers. It might assist others. That’s up the reader.
Warning up front: I am attaching at PDF of the paper here (Religious_Exemption_Modified). It has the full list of footnotes and references (36 in all). I’ve included footnotes by copy/paste below, but I regret the way WordPress incorporates them. If you wish to read what I consider to be a “cleaner” document, download the PDF.
Thus the paper begins.
Religious Exemption from Forced Vaccination
[name redacted]
Basis and Preliminaries
The presuppositions behind this position statement follow: [a] The Holy Scriptures are inerrant in the Autographa (αὐτόγραφος), and protected in transmission by God’s wise providence, [b] The Holy Scriptures has many authors but one singular author, God Himself, as the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit, [c] The Holy Scriptures are internally coherent and logical in all of its parts, and does not contradict itself, [d] God has given mankind all we need to make ethical judgments that comport with His will for our lives,[1] and [e] The Holy Scriptures are perspicuous and clear enough to make ethical judgments. We cannot issue a Linux ‘grep’ command to interrogate God’s knowledge on a particular subject, for such a script would never end in our lifetimes and God has not subjected Himself to His creatures in such a manner. God has not given us comprehensive knowledge of Himself or the world, nevertheless, everything necessary for obedience has been properly cataloged for us,[2] or by “good and necessary consequence” may be deduced from the Holy Scriptures.[3] Finally, it is sinful and abhorrent to God to dishonor lawful oaths and vows.[4] Differences in presuppositions will lead to different conclusions than outlined herein. My presuppositions are my own, and I am entitled to them and in fact theologically bound by them.
The Biblical View of Abortion
The testimony of the Holy Scriptures is uniformly that life begins at conception. In Psalm 139:13-18, David speaks of himself using first person, present tense pronouns. As an example of the legal protections afforded the unborn, we may cite Exodus 21:22-25. Psalm 51:5 and Jeremiah 1:5 assign a moral status to the unborn child, something that can only obtain upon the presupposition of ontological unity of body and soul. Luke 1:15, 41 and 44 notes that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in utero.
This pattern is seen throughout Scripture where those in the womb are commonly referred to by the same language used of persons already born.[5] These citations are sufficient to explain the fact that, Biblically considered, life begins at conception, but this list is not all-inclusive and these aren’t the only passages or references that could be produced.[6]
The Testimony of the Church on Abortion
The only historically consistent position against abortion has come from classical Christianity. Various writings of the early church contain references to abortion, always in a tone of condemnation. The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Council of Elvira, The Council of Chalcedon, and the Council of Ancyra condemn abortion and infanticide as murder. Additionally, condemnation of abortion is seen in the writings of various theologians and church fathers, including Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Methodius of Olympus, Ambrose, Jerome, Crysostom and Augustine.[7]
In contrast, the NIH has attempted to address the issue of the ethical considerations of taking the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, but in language reminiscent of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism rather than the Holy Scriptures.[8] The NIH hasn’t even come close to developing a full-orbed discussion of ethics necessary for the committed Christian (and wisely didn’t attempt such a project, leaving their analysis vacuous, based on secular views and utterly void of religious considerations).
The Sources of the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines
This data is based on multiple references, some of which will be supplied herein. [[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]]
Various writers have attempted to address this ethical issue for the committed Christian by pointing out that it is highly unlikely that the cells from aborted babies end up in the vaccines themselves, that it was the “immortalized cell lines” that were used in the development of the vaccines. [[24], [25]]
The church has for more than 2000 years held that life begins at conception. This isn’t the first time we’ve faced issues with euthanasia. Abortifacients (chemical agents) were in use during the days of the Greek empire, as well as the Roman empire at the time of Christ.
A simple denial that the cells from aborted babies were used to develop the vaccine isn’t sufficient, and the suggestion that it would be so is virtually insulting to committed Christians. What they are calling the “immortalized cell lines” wouldn’t exist if not for the original cell lines from the aborted baby.
These considerations are determinative, insurmountable and final for the committed Christian. Religious commitment does, after all, still exist in America, as the CEO of Houston’s largest hospital system recently learned when he fired 150 nurses for refusal to take the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, incorrectly expecting that he could quickly find more. Doubtless, some of these nurses refused because of religious reasons. To his dismay, his hospital is now so burdened that it cannot properly function.[26]
To the committed Christian, her religious views are not an “add-on” or an iPhone “App” for additional information. They are a world and life view.
Oaths, Vows and Informed Consent
Christian theologian and philosopher R. J. Rushdoony has stated “For Christians, healing, i.e., medical practice, is a religious practice and salvific activity. This means that medicine is a priestly vocation and calling. For this reason, historically the church has fought for the sanctity of the confessional. What is confessed to a pastor . . . (holds true) of all communications between a patient and a doctor; it is a form of confession for the purpose of healing. The doctor is God’s agent in process, and the communication is privileged.”[27] Continuing this line of thought, he observes,
“Salvation in the Bible means literally health, health of life in relation to God, and also health of body, since the body is God’s creation. The biblical fruits of medical practice are in the Levitical ministry. The relation between patient and Pastor or Dr. is immune from man’s controls and intervention, because it is a facet of God’s ministry to man’s total life.”[28]
“Primum non nocere” isn’t a punch line or catch phrase to be taught in school. To the committed Christian, it is a religious commitment, an expectation of the Almighty.
The knowing and intentional administration of unnecessary or potentially harmful medicines, vaccines or treatments isn’t just an error or an incident to be considered in morbidity and mortality conferences.
It is a sin.
Even the NIH has gone on record stating that there is a risk of ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) from administration of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.[29] If this URL becomes “disappeared” from the web, there is an archived version.[30]
And yet, on how many occasions have doctors, the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies explained this risk to patients? Even the NIH, who sponsored the study on “Informed Consent,” has ignored its own counsel on the subject. But there is indication that ADE may indeed be a problem with variants of the virus, [[31], [32]] and epidemiologists have now begun to admit that no one knows the long term effects of the vaccines.[33] No one knows the long term effects for a very simply reason – there is no such thing as long term for vaccines that have been available for a year. Monte Carlo and Las Vegas are inappropriate models for patient care, especially in the absence of proper informed consent.
With such risks being explained, this is more than merely something for medical professionals to consider as it relates to their own behavior. It is something to consider for the individual who is considering the vaccine, as well as for corporations who attempt to force the vaccine on their workers.
In short, this is more than a medical issue. This is a religious issue for reasons of lawful oaths and vows (WCF XXII), the practice of medicine seen as a ministry, and personal consideration for taking the vaccine. For the committed Christian, self-immolation and self-harm is a sin. For the committed Christian, enticing others to sin by offering the vaccine without “informed consent” is to create a stumbling block for others (Lev 19:14, 1 Cor 10:32-33), and is thus sinful and abhorrent to God (who doesn’t grade “on a [Gaussian] curve”).
Finally, even the flu vaccine has non-trivial risks associated with reproduction,[34] and mankind was instructed by the Almighty to “be fruitful and multiply,” and children are considered in the Holy Scriptures to be a blessing from God.
Unexplored Ethical Considerations
There are unexplored ethical considerations for the committed Christian. There has been speculation and even hints that DNA can actually be modified from mRNA vaccines.[35] As a matter of fact, a recent study conducted by MIT and Harvard suggests that segments of the vaccine are indeed ending up in the DNA genomic coding.[36]
If true, this opens an entirely new line of effort where committed Christians need the help of Christian theologians and philosophers and Christian medical ethicists. Thus far, sadly and tellingly, they have been absent in this conversation. Does God approve of man modifying the genomic coding designed by Him? We must assume not since He is the creator.
This is not all-inclusive, but just one more line of inquiry for the committed Christian to consider.
Summary
The single pertinent piece of information the committed Christian needs for consideration of the vaccine is found in its origins. Yet, there are other pressing religious issues that would be problematic in the total absence of consideration of the origins of the vaccine(s).
The committed Christian must resist the temptation to acquiesce to pressure from secular corporatists for the purpose of employment when the Almighty has made His precepts known to all men everywhere.
[1] 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
[2] Deuteronomy 29:29.
[3] Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.II.
[4] Westminster Confession of Faith, XXII.
[5] Gen 25:22, Job 3:3, Is 44:2, Is 49:5, Hos 12:3.
[6] It should also be pointed out that this position is unaffected by whether one takes a “creationist” or “traducianist” view of the origin of the soul.
[7] Michael J. Gorman, “Abortion and the Early Church,” Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1982.
[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6844122/, accessed 8/21/2021.
[9] https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/.
[10] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.08.280818v1.full
[11] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2622-0
[12] https://www.janssen.com/emea/emea/janssen-vaccine-technologies
[13] https://sputnikvaccine.com/about-vaccine/human-adenoviral-vaccines/
[14] http://actanaturae.ru/2075-8251/article/view/10302/106
[15] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-regulation-174
[16] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/67/NCT03232567/Prot_000.pdf
[17] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.04.20226282v1.full
[18] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6520/1089
[19] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(20)30118-3/fulltext
[20] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-021-00324-5
[21] https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/the-national-research-council-of-canada-and-cansino-biologics-inc-announce-collaboration-to-advance-vaccine-against-covid-19/
[22] https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/51/32657.full.pdf
[23] https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30812-6
[24] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccine-idUSKBN27W2I7
[25] https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/11/no-cells-from-aborted-fetus-are-in-covid-19-vaccines-that-rumor-is-patently-false.html
[26] https://fee.org/articles/massive-nurse-shortage-hits-houston-weeks-after-150-unvaccinated-nurses-and-hospital-workers-fired/
[27] Rushdoony, R.J., Chalcedon Medical Report No. 11: 11: 11: 11: 11: The Church and Medical Ethics. Vallecita, CA: Chalcedon, 1985.
[28] R. J. Rushdoony, Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991), 493.
[29] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/
[31] https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/08/21/study-finds-vaccinated-are-at-real-risk-of-suffering-antibody-dependent-enhancement/
[32] https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00392-3/fulltext
[33] https://torontosun.com/news/national/burial-costs-covered-for-canadians-killed-by-approved-vaccines
[34] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/812621_4
[35] https://thewashingtonstandard.com/bombshell-moderna-chief-medical-officer-admits-mrna-alters-dna/
[36] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/, and https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2021/03/16/mit-harvard-study-suggests-mrna-vaccine-might-permanently-alter-dna-after-all
3 years, 3 months ago
Those aren’t my words. This is another must-watch video.
If you’ve gotten sick with SARS-CoV-2 or know someone who has, then you know that doctors will not prescribe Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin. They will have their license revoked by the states in which they practice because the state is an organ of the almighty FedGov.
But there is a single therapeutic that a doctor is in fact allowed to prescribe – Remdesivir. Because Anthony Fauci approves of it. BLUF: Of the two alleged studies which found it effective and safe, this drug was removed from the trial before completion because not only wasn’t it effective, it led to organ failure in a large number of participants. Watch the video.
On another front, this Navy Commander has some courage to say these things (via WiscoDave).
The forced vaccination of all military personnel with the present COVID-19 vaccines may compromise U.S. national security due to the unknown extent of serious vaccine complications. Further study is needed before committing the Total Force to one irreversible experimental group. Recent reports leave more concern for the COVID-19 vaccinations than the virus itself for the (at present) exceptionally healthy military population, which is not appreciably impacted by the virus without vaccination.
First, SARS-CoV-2 is unlike any other virus. We have yet to completely understand the virology and it is rapidly mutating. Second, the COVID-19 vaccines are all experimental. The world is simultaneously learning about this new technology amongst the largest vaccine rollout in human history. The data on both the virus and vaccines are new and not yet scientifically reliable. Basic assumptions are changing with unprecedented levels of breakthrough cases in the vaccinated population. The U.S. military service member is extremely healthy compared to the general population and is not succumbing to the virus at any significant level, even without the vaccination. According to the CDC, “COVID overall has a 99.74% survival rate. Among young people, that number is even higher. For people aged 18 to 29, the survival rate is 99.97%.” As of August 12, 2021, only 29 (or 0.001%) of the 2.2 mil military population had expired from COVID-19.
To date, the vaccine is more seriously injuring this unique population than the virus itself. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study finds 23 U.S. service members experienced post-vaccination moderate to severe myocarditis who were otherwise healthy and non-symptomatic. There have been many other COVID-19 vaccine harm or death outcomes documented in the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). In fact, COVID-19 vaccine adverse events comprise a full one-third (over 500,000) of the three-decade total for all VAERS reports. Plus, the VAERS system is underreporting COVID-19 vaccine deaths by a factor of five, according to a whistleblower who is described in their court filing as a “[…] subject matter expertise in the healthcare data analytics field, and has access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintain by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).” They attested that the 9,048 reported COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths in VAERS is more like 45,000, after reconciling the various databases.
The UK government agency Public Health England recently published a report showing that, “people who received the COVID-19 shot are more than three times as likely to die than those who have not received the vaccine.” Early signs in Israel indicate the same. Officials there recently reported that at least 85% of all severe and new COVID-19 hospitalizations are prior vaccinated individuals. The inventor of m-RNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, recently disclosed that “[…] new data indicates that people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are at greater risk of getting Covid than someone who is not vaccinated.” The Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines also demonstrate significant problems as compared to the negligible military COVID-19 mortality rates. In the European Union (EU), more than 22,000 vaccination-associated deaths are now documented in the EU drug adverse events database. Which caused Doctors for COVID Ethics (an international doctors group from over 30 countries) to conclude on July 9, 2021 “[…] the benefits of vaccination are highly doubtful. In contrast, the harm the vaccines do is very well substantiated […]” Vaccine-enhanced herd immunity is in question. On August 3, Iceland’s Chief Epidemiologist announced that their 95% nation-wide full vaccination rate, “[…] has not led to the herd immunity that experts hoped for. In the past two to three weeks, the Delta variant has outstripped all others in Iceland and it has become clear that vaccinated people can easily contract it as well as spread it to others,”
There is precedence for vaccine failure in respiratory viruses as noted in the journal Nature Microbiology last September, “Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), resulting in failed vaccine trials.” Evidence suggests ADE could cause viral interference and along with other (influenza) vaccines alter our immune systems non-specifically to increase susceptibility to other infections. The mRNA vaccines may redirect our cells away from suppressing latent immunity issues from previous infections (e.g., chicken pox). Consider along with what Dr. Malone describes as an “entire population [that] has been trained via a universal vaccination strategy to have the same basic immune response, then once a viral escape mutant is selected, it will rapidly spread through the entire population – whether vaccinated or not.” It could mean massive problems ahead for the global COVID-19 vaccinated as they encounter variations and even simple viruses like the flu, in combination.
Natural immunity already possessed by the military population recovered from COVID-19 is effective against all known variants and also likely durable over time, according to Dr. Peter A. McCullough, who is regarded as one of the most credentialed experts on COVID-19 in the U.S. This past January, the journal Nature published that greater than 95% of COVID-19 recovered people have “[…] durable memories of the virus […]” There is precedence here, as well, with SARS-CoV-1 demonstrating 17 years of natural immunity. A Cleveland Clinic study concluded, “Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination […]” Another recent Israeli study questions “[…] the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals […]” after comparing re-infection rates for the vaccinated and recovered segments of the country’s national health database.” Dr. McCullough strongly asserts that the current vaccination programs have become dangerous and should be shut down immediately – that mass vaccination programs in the middle of a pandemic actually causes the variations, making the entire vaccinated population vulnerable to those same variants.
Currently, about 50% of all active and reserve service members have yet to receive a COVID-19 shot of any type. Based on recent reporting data supported by published research findings, this paper argues that instead of lumping two very large unknowns (COVID-19 virology & vaccine efficacy) into one experimental group — possibly threating U.S. military personnel combat readiness — the DOD should maintain the “unvaccinated-half” as a force protection CONTROL GROUP, thus guarantying a viable fighting force. Similar safeguards should also be considered for the civilian DOD population to support the Warfighter, regardless of the long-term vaccine verdict.
Given the COVID-19 mortality in the military, the U.S. can presently maintain the nation’s defensive manning levels, in all critical fields. Pressing forward against these extremely large unknowns by mandating COVID-19 vaccines could potentially threaten basic military deployment assumptions, to say nothing of the long-term destruction to morale and recruiting. If it is true that the military is, in fact, essential to national survival thereby justifying massive budgets and sweeping measures to protect the Force, then deciding to gamble the entirety of those vital forces on what little is certain, is reckless at best. To do so given such low demonstrated serious outcomes in the unvaccinated Force could prove fratricidal. With a better than 99.74% COVID-19 recovery rate in the military population, the singular act of stopping the present vaccination drive, thus preserving a force protection CONTROL GROUP, could prove existentially critical to the country. Immediately, cease and desist all coerced COVID-19 vaccination initiatives for service members and civilians (except for any remaining co-morbidity groups). Moreover, the force protection CONTROL GROUP should commence harmless alternative and preventative protocols like I-MASK+ currently used in nations around the world with great efficacy. According to the American Journal of Therapeutics in their May-June 2021 issue “Multiple, large ‘natural experiments’ occurred in regions that initiated ‘Ivermectin distribution’ campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.”
Bottom line, the known science does not justify committing the entire U.S. troop strength to one singular experimental group. Given the many unknowns and what we have come to learn most recently, mandatory COVID-19 vaccination may not only be rash, but perhaps become life-threatening to the nation vis-à-vis those dedicated to her defense, against very well-known strategic competitors. Simply, COVID-19 forced-inoculation could prove to be a grave national security threat at a time when the nation can least afford it. We must immediately pause and reevaluate the U.S. defensive strategic assessment of COVID-19 vaccinations for the entire Department. There is absolutely no imperative of ‘benefits outweighing the risks’ to continue with mandating the COVID-19 vaccines to the military population who do not self-elect. Doing so could potentially trigger manning shortfalls brought on by resignations and lost enlistments from this all-volunteer armed force. At this time, there is more than enough justification for a COVID-19 vaccination safety standdown to reconsider how the decision to mass vaccinate will critically impact overall mission effectiveness.
I think the commander isn’t allowing for the possibility that they know all of this and choose to weaken the national security infrastructure anyway, as if that’s their entire point.
