“We know they are lying. They know they are lying. They know that we know they are lying. We know that they know that we know they are lying. And still they continue to lie.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Credibility Gap
Mission Creep
What exactly is the purpose of the 'vaccination' campaign? Is it to 'vaccinate' every man, woman and child? To reach the Promised Land, herd immunity? Or could it be that it's an option for anyone who wants it, like the flu vaccine? It depends who is delivering the message and when. When vaccines were first mooted, which was surprisingly early on in retrospect, there was no talk of mandates, perhaps because it was not even a thing back then. It's not possible to discuss something you haven't thought of or thought it prudent to mention yet, anyway.
Even when the programme was instigated, in December 2020, we were still in 'reaching herd immunity' territory. The problem with that, of course, was the near constant redefinition of what percentage of the population needed to be jabbed before herd immunity was reached. Conveniently, natural immunity wasn't factored into the equation - we were facing a 'novel' coronavirus, you see, so nobody had immunity already – so herd immunity could only be achieved via a jab. This is not a concept with any basis in the science of virology.
Indeed, in June 2020, the long established definition of herd immunity was still front and center on the WHO website:
“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”(1)
There is nothing revolutionary about this statement. Pre vaccine, exposure to an infection was the only way to achieve immunity and, consequently, that is the way the human body is designed. But, during the summer of last year there appears to have a bit of a rethink, as by October a new definition was foisted upon us:
“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.”(2)
Not subtle, is it? But it's another reminder of the way that language has been co-opted in order to deceive and confuse. Without even trying, I can identify the following as repurposed words: pandemic, herd immunity, isolated, vaccine, emergency, safe and effective. And when I say repurposed, I mean redefined in ways that are often the exact opposite of their true meaning.
Lately, even this re-imagined concept has become a footnote. The emphasis has shifted towards an increasingly shrill insistence that everyone should be vaccinated. This, of necessity, includes children, pregnant women, the previously infected; any category of person you care to name. The justification for this is somewhat confused at present, the product, perhaps, of some on the hoof planning, but the need to eradicate the disease and the need to combat increasingly threatening 'variables' have been advanced as reasonable objectives. Reasonable to the people advancing them, that is.
What hasn't changed is the incessant promotion of the 'vaccines' by the state and their sycophants in Big Media. The only bumps in the road, such as the typically brief suspensions of the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca shots in a number of countries, were a reluctant response to inconvenient facts that found their way into public discourse; such as the seeming correlation between jabs and serious adverse events, such as death.
Usually, after a suitable pause of a fortnight or so, enough time to demonstrate that the authorities were taking the problem seriously, the authorization was inevitably re-instated with an assurance that no evidence had been found that linked any adverse event to the 'vaccine' in question. The obvious dissonance between these actions and the multitude of deaths and serious adverse events recorded in the US, Europe and the UK, which would tend to give the lie to any claim that there is no causal link between 'vaccine' and physical harm, is not addressed by the authorities or the press.
Bioethics
In the light of all of the above, it may surprise you to learn that there is such a thing as bioethics – it certainly surprised me. Actually, in the US at least, it's not just a thing; it's a federal law.(3) The same will be true of every country that signed up to the Nuremberg Code in 1947, which means pretty much everyone. It goes like this. When a drug is not yet approved, it is illegal to market it, offer incentives or indulge in any form of coercion. There are also requirements to ensure that informed consent is more than just an idea; adverse event risk disclosure should be provided at the level of detail disclosed in any drug package insert and should be written in simple, easy to understand language. There must be no enticement or coercion. Who'd have known?
That's what is supposed to happen, anyway. Instead, we have had endless cheer-leading from governments, Big Media, 'fact checkers' and even private entities. Not only that, but a smorgasbord of enticing offers – if you get the jab we'll give you free fast food, free college education, $5 million – I kid you not. (4) This very day we've had Biden's Covid Response Co-ordinator urging the states to reward new vaccinees with $100 payments, whilst at the same time telling federal workers that if they want to keep their jobs, they need to vaccinate or they will be tested twice weekly.(5)
It's completely flagrant. And whilst it is unconstitutional for the government to mandate non approved, experimental 'vaccines', it apparently isn't unconstitutional for institutions that the government controls – like the military – to coerce soldiers into being inoculated. As of September 2020, Covid vaccinations will be mandatory in the US Armed Forces.(6)
Would you say that, in general terms, governments have adopted a neutral stance on these 'vaccines'? Or would it be reasonable to say that policies that include being barred from indoor dining, concerts and sports events (with the threat of more restrictions to come on international travel and the like) have coerced millions of people into having a jab that they wouldn't otherwise have had? Not to mention the ever expanding list of jobs where companies feel justified in insisting that their staff vaccinated themselves or they will be shown the door.
This has reached its apogée with airline companies, some of whom have advised passengers not to fly if they are recently vaccinated,(7) whilst insisting that pilots and other staff get the jab; two positions that are mutually exclusive in a rational world, seeing as how both pilots and passengers will be on the plane together and yet, somehow, they have convinced themselves that it all makes perfect sense. I don't know about you, but I'm a little more concerned about the pilots than the passengers; it's the difference between an emergency landing for an unwell passenger to a potential crash if there's an unwell pilot.
This is not hypothetical, blue sky thinking. Jet Blue Airlines lost five pilots between February and May 2020, British Airways lost four in a week, three Delta pilots died after vaccination, a Canadian pilot was taken by ambulance from the runway (on a non commercial flight, thankfully) and, if it's happening with those companies, it's happening with others.(8) But I'll wager that this is the first you've heard of it, which is odd, don't you think? Usually, if it bleeds, it leads. But not if it's against the narrative.
Bear in mind, also, that pilots are the subjects of much more stringent health checks than most workers; they are inherently healthy people. And these are only short term, immediate effects. Nonetheless, the 'vaccines' had nothing to do with it. And that must be true, because the fact checkers told us so.
It seems that, provided you're in charge and you don't draw attention to the law, you can flout it with impunity, especially if The Fourth Estate has long since been brought to heel. The citizens of Belarus or Cuba are familiar with this phenomenon; and now, the western world will join them.
Wayback Machine
The thing about credibility is that it exists in two dimensions – absolute and actual. Absolute credibility is mediated by a combination of all that has occurred and the taste test. In other words, an unflinching look at the record of conduct and a more subjective judgement of the impression that has been created. Both elements play a part in any decision as to whether to trust or not. Actual credibility, if you're part of the narrative favored by Big Media, means that any unfortunate incidents in the past remain in the past, are not remarked upon – nothing to see here – and the impression created is neutral, at worst.
Whilst this is a function of human nature, inasmuch as we tend to excuse bad behavior in those we like while condemning it in others that we don't like, it is not supposed to be a characteristic of journalists, the fabled 'seekers after truth'. So, are the drug companies that are producing these 'vaccines' and in whom vast swathes of the population have placed their trust, worthy of that trust? Well, no.
In 2009, Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion in criminal and civil liability categories. That's bad enough, but the reason for the fine is worse. They were found guilty of illegally promoting an anti-inflammatory drug called Bextra, for purposes and in doses that were not approved by the FDA, specifically on safety grounds.(9) So, not a 'technical' breach. A deliberate attempt to mislead.
Regrettably, that was the latest in a long line of financial settlements for various misdemeanors. Whilst drug companies must be more than averagely vulnerable to lawsuits, Pfizer seem to be more susceptible than most. They were fined in the 1990s for defective heart valves that resulted in over 100 deaths, fined again for a drug called Rezulin (for diabetes) that caused patients to die of acute liver failure, out of pocket once more for overcharging the NHS in the UK by £40 million a year (for a drug that should have cost less than £2 million), and paid a number of other fines for a variety of offences, both civil and criminal in nature, both domestically and overseas, including bribery, racketeering, bribery again and, finally, for riding roughshod over informed consent for a trial involving Nigerian children.(10) All in the past thirty years. That's what you call a rap sheet.
Not to be outdone, Johnson & Johnson have recently agreed a settlement with various states in the US for their share of the responsibility for the opioid crisis wracking America, for the not inconsiderable sum of $26 billion, the fine to be shared with three other companies.(11) Then, of course, there is the $3.9 billion set aside for various lawsuits relating to some talcum powders that include asbestos fibers, which allegedly cause cancers.(12) Not forgetting the recent class action lawsuit relating to some sunscreen products which contain benzene (a cancer causing chemical) even in low concentrations and which have now been withdrawn from sale.(13)
AstraZeneca paid a fine of $520 million in 2010, in relation to a product called Seroquel, an anti-psychotic drug which they marketed for off label uses not approved by the FDA for safety reasons, a la Pfizer.(14) They were also complicit in continuing to heavily market two drugs that were the subject of repeated warnings from the FDA as to potential side effects – Prolisec and Nexium – and coughed up $20 million for the privilege...so far.(15) As with Pfizer and J&J, the overarching motivation behind these misdeeds is greed and a callous disregard for human life.
Moderna has, thusfar, avoided legal action by dint of not bringing a product to market in the ten years of its existence, prior to its Covid 'vaccine'.(16) While this is encouraging news in one regard, the reason for their relative lack of historic success is more troublesome. They, alone among their current competitors, worked exclusively with mRNA technology and they hadn't been able to make a product that worked safely. Until now, of course.
You may be thinking that most of the illegality detailed above involves companies being caught in the act by regulators, which ought to be reassuring; to us, anyway. Possibly not to the victims, for whom it was already too late. But that hasn't always been so. Merck, a huge multinational drug company which is trialing its Covid anti-viral, molnupiravir, was responsible for a more egregious example of greed and neglect than any of the above, resulting in up to 140,000 deaths from cardiac disease and a fine of $4.85 billion.(17) They produced an anti-inflammatory painkiller, Vioxx, that was clearly a dangerous product from the beginning. They chose to gerrymander the clinical trials, avoiding follow up studies, managed to secure FDA approval and marketed the drug for four years before they were obliged to withdraw it.
There are several lessons to draw from that debacle. Clearly, the FDA were not sufficiently involved in their work, did not examine the scope of the trials in enough detail. Secondly, Merck themselves withdrew the product before the FDA got around to telling them to. Thirdly, tens of thousands of additional cardiac events took place every year for four years without anyone connecting the dots.
In case we have become completely inured to corruption, it should be remembered that it doesn't have to be this way. Governments could adhere to their own bioethics laws and the companies producing the 'vaccines' don't have to be those mired in the precise behaviors that are most worrisome in our current circumstances. Still, even if these companies have caused damage in the past – and by damage I mean death – there has eventually been a way to punish them for it; to gain recompense. So, the same criteria must apply with the 'vaccines', right? Wrong.
Liability Free Zone
As with any number of ideas, the intention may have been good at the outset. In 1986, the US passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, recognizing for the first time that some mandated vaccines could cause injury or death and therefore providing a way of obtaining redress for victims or their families. It was also designed to persuade drug companies to stay in the vaccine creation game by removing most of the liability from them; a public trust paid fines and the drug companies were indemnified against any claim except, possibly, that of design defect.
Over time, this provision came under attack and was largely obviated by a succession of legal judgements, leaving drug companies increasingly insulated from any unpleasantness resulting from their faulty vaccines. Given that this freedom from responsibility was the exclusive preserve of the vaccine industry, not extended to other pharmaceutical fields, it was unsurprising that more companies found it an appealing field of research.
So, on the one hand, we find the US government ostensibly legislating to protect the public. Yet, at the same time, posting instructions into the federal register that stating that is federal policy that any information about vaccine risks that jeopardizes vaccine uptake shall be suppressed,(18) and by so doing, ensuring that the public trust established in the 1986 Act would be disbursing funds immediately.
On top of that, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (2005) shields vaccine makers from any liability for any harm caused by their offerings when a public health emergency has been declared; such as now. The EU has similar confidential agreements with vaccine makers (18) as does the UK.(19) As for any other country wishing to pay the likes of Pfizer large sums of money for the privilege of inoculating its citizens, it will need to agree to some stringent conditions, including an undertaking to:
“indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer … from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements,penalties, fines, costs and expenses … arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine."(20)
The downside is obvious. With no liability comes less responsibility. If there is no prospect of payback further down the line, there is no incentive to safety test comprehensively in the here and now, especially as the companies' primary allegiance is now to their shareholders, not their clients. If one combines this state of affairs with COVID-19 vaccines being fast-tracked to market at "warp speed" with even more minimal testing than usual, we have the potential for a public health nightmare.
Potential is one thing. Actuality is another. So, where are we with that? Has the potential for disaster been realized?
Numbers
As per usual, as with any aspect of the Covid saga, if you want to find anything out, it's best to do it yourself. Nowhere is this more obvious than when attempting to get a handle on what are euphemistically referred to as 'adverse events'. There are some obvious hurdles right off the bat because, unless the event occurred within a matter of minutes of the jab being administered and consist of localized inflammation around the injection site, there is immediate room for debate as to causation.
This is all in the way of things, of scientific inquiry, and it's as well to be accurate, but there is a definite tendency towards skepticism and disbelief that contrasts sharply with what otherwise presents as a pathological desire to ensure that every last one of us is protected. The whole reason behind recording adverse events is to pick up trends, to give the earliest heads up about any harm that may be being done. In that case, over-reporting is a lesser sin that under-reporting.
To add to the confusion, there is a dearth of information available to the physician, who are faced with a blank product insert, whee they would usually expect to see some detail on what side effects to look for. Apparently, there is a loophole in the regulations as regards pharmaceuticals being administered under an EUA, presumably on the grounds that clinical trials are not yet complete and side effects not yet definitively proven; previously, a legitimate precaution, but now deployed as an obstacle to truth.
It should also be realized that the reporting systems in the US, the UK and the EU are all set up as self referral systems and are, as a result, notoriously inaccurate. Estimates vary for the VAERS system in the US, but a figure of between 1% and 10% of all adverse events actually being recorded would be in the right ballpark.
You may think that, while injury could be widely under-reported, surely deaths wouldn't be. In which case, I have some rather disappointing news. Whilst the figure for the amount of overall deaths is unlikely to be inaccurate, the cause of death as recorded on the death certificate has a roughly 50-50 chance of being accurate. This shouldn't be shocking; the data on deaths has been manipulated since early on in the 'pandemic', certainly in the US (where the CDC changed the methodology, but only for Covid) and in the UK.(22)(23) When doctors are operating within a system that is firstly committed to over counting Covid deaths and then under counting 'vaccine' deaths, there is an obvious temptation to take the path more traveled.
Once the patient is safely out of the surgery without keeling over, any subsequent medical issues can usually be attributed to other causes. And the range of possible symptoms is so wide that it is entirely conceivable that myopic physicians, acting in good faith, cannot make the connection – the first few times, anyway, although I suspect I'm giving most of them too much credit. These are the same people who were prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in early 2020, because they knew those drugs were effective, but who then stopped doing so under pressure from the FDA, thus betraying their patients and themselves. They have proved to be as easily coerced as any other actor.
Anecdotally, there is an avalanche of accounts detailing how difficult it has been to get a report accepted onto VAERS and of reports completed and submitted that have never appeared on the system. That's without the enormous backlog and ham-fisted attempts to reduce the numbers. Further, if one accepts that, unless a doctor's entire patient list consists of care home residents, they will have a broadly representative cross section of society on the books, and it may then it may be possible to extrapolate some estimates from the numbers of adverse events reported by the few brave souls who have spoken up. More on that shortly.
However, the official numbers are as follows;
VAERS (US)
23/7/2021: 11,940 deaths, 518,770 adverse events, 63,000 serious.(24)
EU Eudravigilance (EU)
31/7/2021; 20,595 dead, 1.9 million adverse events, half of them serious.(25)
Yellow Card (UK)
7/7/2021: 1,470 dead, approx 1,000,000 adverse events, not sure how many serious.(26)
Remember,, all of these systems are self reporting. The proportion of deaths to injuries are all over the compass, given that the same three 'vaccines' are predominantly in use and that people in Western Europe and the US are well fed, First World countries. Without any other means of verifying accuracy, it's impossible to know which, if any, is the most reliable. None, I suspect.
Especially as the CDC stands accused of presenting a false impression to the public by only publishing the number from one database, not others that exist within the federal bureaucracy. An affidavit filed in a Texas lawsuit alleges a number of fatalities around fives times as high as that published, which would put the official tally at around 50,000 in the US alone; and that's just for deaths within three days of the jab.(27) So, let's have a brief look at some examples that probably aren't in those figures, for reasons that will become apparent, and then indulge in an orgy of speculation. Because, if the following examples are valid, they can't possibly be isolated examples.
In the UK, there was a huge spike in deaths in care homes within three weeks or so of the beginning of the 'vaccination' campaign, with triple the number of weekly deaths over pre-vaccination totals. In Basingstoke, one care home had an outbreak which claimed 22 lives; 60% of the residents tested positive for Covid.(28)(29) In Spain, a nursing home in Cadiz launched its vaccination drive in early January. On 12th January there was a Covid outbreak and by the end of the month, there were 46 new vacancies. Come 4th February, 28 of the survivors (out of 94) were testing positive, as well as 12 of the staff.(30)
Spain again, another nursing home and this time 22 deaths and 109 infected. Twenty nine in a home in Norway, 13 out of 40 residents in a home in Germany (“a tragic coincidence”), another 10 palliative care residents in Germany within four days of injection, another coincidence;(31) there are a number of other examples. How many of these formed part of the official statistics is not known, although I think we can be reasonably confident that the German examples didn't. And it seems likely that other deaths would have slipped under the radar, or been deliberately pushed there.
Bear in mind that clusters of deaths and serious injuries in nursing homes are rather more conspicuous than isolated incidents in otherwise healthy people, although perhaps both phenomena should be deserving of examination. However, a small community comprising the usual cross section of society, which endures a concentrated and comprehensive 'vaccination' campaign should provide a useful guide as to whether there are any issues with 'vaccine' safety. Which brings us to Gibraltar.
Although Gibraltar hadn't escaped what is characterized as the pandemic, by September 2020 there had only been 217 confirmed cases among its population of 34,000. The first three deaths – in nursing home – didn't arrive until November and by January 10th, the day mass 'vaccination' began, the official death toll stood at 16. Within 8 days it had risen to 45, by 2nd February it was 79 and by the end of the month, 93. Total infections, by end March, totaled 4,271.(32) Naturally, authorities denied there was any connection to the 'vaccine', or indeed any connection to jabs of any kind; another 'coincidence', perhaps. However:
“a possibility is that the Rock could be the ‘canary in the mine’ signalling a potentially lethal vaccine hazard in susceptible people, perhaps made worse by concurrent or immediate past Covid-19 infection. The vulnerability may also have been increased by a flu vaccination campaign this winter, the most intense in Gibraltar’s history.
A peer-reviewed study published last October, based on data from 39 countries, found ‘a significant increase in Covid-19 deaths from eastern to western regions of the world’ associated with flu vaccination among those aged over 65”(33)
It's striking that the 'vaccination' was voluntary and that, even in a small community crammed into 2.6 square miles of territory, where it would have been impossible to ignore the unfolding tragedy, nobody thought to call a halt and the population kept lining up to be jabbed. Peer pressure? Herd mentality? Perhaps a deadly combination of the two.
So, at the bare minimum, the US has registered more than 12,000 deaths. To prove it was not an accident, the EU and the UK have also experienced the odd fatality, no matter how shambolic their recording systems may be. In 1976, in the US, the Swine Flu vaccination campaign was called off after 25 deaths.(34) This may be a little on the low side for a modern mass vaccination drive, but a figure of 150-200 would result in the relevant drug coming off the market, while detailed investigation was conducted. And yet, still we plough onward.
To speculate, then. What are the true numbers of deaths and adverse events? It's difficult to know, for sure. Firstly, we are talking about rolling 'vaccinations' that are still ongoing – some people will have been inoculated in January and some as recently as this week; there will also be the fully 'vaccinated' and the single jabbed.
It is perfectly clear from the conduct of the authorities, which ranges from a 'look the other way' approach to a policy of active suppression of the facts (in marked contrast to their as yet unsatiated enthusiasm for anything to do with Covid 'cases'), that the likely figure is much higher than acknowledged. Especially if you factor in the ease with which an adverse event can be blamed on other causes, no matter how unlikely it may be. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the toll was higher by a factor of five to ten and that would just be the short term casualties. Who knows what the numbers will look like long term?
But what is it about these 'vaccines' that is so dangerous? And how are they killing people?
Citations
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0531/1225022-vaccine-incentives/
https://aviationnewz.com/5-pilots-from-jet-blue-are-dead-watch/
https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-covid-vaccine-maker-pfizer-well-documented/
https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/jj-sued-after-recalling-sunscreens-due-to-cancer-causing-chemical/
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing
https://www.consumersafety.org/drug-lawsuits/prilosec-nexium/
Federal Register Vol. 49, No. 107, June 1st 1984, pp 23006-007
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/09/22/583555.htm
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/information-standards/recording-covid-19-activity
https://www.oom2.com/t76389-eudra-adverse-reaction-stats-though-july-31st-2021#160236
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-vaccine-connection-to-death-on-the-rock/
https://sorendreier.com/46-residents-in-spanish-nursing-home-die-after-receiving-covid-19-vaccine/
https://sorendreier.com/46-residents-in-spanish-nursing-home-die-after-receiving-covid-19-vaccine/
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-vaccine-connection-to-death-on-the-rock/
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-vaccine-connection-to-death-on-the-rock/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-27-sci-swine-history27-story.html