70% of Embalmers Report Finding Strange Blood Clots Beginning in Mid-2021

White Clots

70% of Embalmers Report Finding Strange Blood Clots Beginning in Mid-2021

EMBALMERS REPORT BIZARRE BLOOD CLOTS. “The evidence is becoming overwhelming that the pseudo-vax rollout was a mass poisoning event inflicted on us with malice aforethought by the Covid Psyop’s duplicitous architects, aided and abetted by corrupt or simply gormless politicians. The mass poisoning has seen the injuring and killing of tens of thousands of people,” says Jon Davy.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, former Air Force Major Thomas Haviland shared the result of his survey of embalmers, who reported sharp upticks in fibrous clots, micro-clotting, and infant deaths from mid-2021 following the mass rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. BY John-Michael Dumais SOURCEThe Defender

In a recent survey of 269 embalmers across four major countries and three continents, more than 70% reported finding strange fibrous white blood clots in significant percentages of corpses in 2023 — clots they were not finding pre-pandemic.

A similar survey conducted in late 2022 revealed that 66% of embalmers began finding the unusual clots in mid-2021, suggesting a temporal link to the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which began earlier that year.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, the creator of the surveys, former Air Force Major Thomas Haviland, said he conceived of the project after he watched the documentary, “Died Suddenly,” where embalmers reported observing unprecedented fibrous masses clogging arteries.

Richard Hirschman, one of the embalmers featured in the documentary, also spoke with The Defender.

“In my first 20 years of experience, I’d never seen clots like these. And we’re seeing them in arteries as well as veins,” Hirschman said.

Commenting on his survey results, Haviland said, “I know correlation is not necessarily causation, but man, there’s an awful lot of correlation going on here.”

On Jan. 9, Haviland sent his survey results to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health. He has not yet received a response.

Haviland lost his lucrative defense contracting job in 2021 for refusing the mandated vaccine. He then set out to verify the claims of unusual clots by surveying embalmers globally on what they were witnessing in their work so he could quantify how widespread this phenomenon had become.

Haviland to Air Force general: ‘Shame on you’

Haviland served 20 years in the U.S. Air Force before spending 16 years working as an electrical engineer for a defense contractor at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

With a passion for data analysis rooted in his math and engineering training, Haviland helped develop sophisticated aircraft, including the F-16 fighter jet, F-22 Raptor and F-117 stealth fighter.

However, his long military career came to an abrupt halt in October 2021 when he refused to take the mandated COVID-19 vaccine in compliance with federal requirements issued for military, government employees and federal contractors.

Haviland was concerned about the lack of safety and efficacy data on the experimental vaccine. He researched the topic widely, but could not find much official information in the U.S. media or on the CDC website.

However, he found a September 2021 technical briefing (see Table 5) from Public Health England (PHE) showing hundreds of thousands of breakthrough COVID-19 cases recorded among the fully vaccinated, undermining claims that vaccines would prevent transmission.

“The case fatality rate [CFR] [in the PHE document] for the unvaccinated was more than 3.6 times lower than the CFR for the fully vaccinated,” he said.

After the final deadline to comply with the vaccine mandate arrived, Haviland sent the Air Force general an email saying, “Shame on you for not standing up for our right to decide for ourselves whether or not to get injected with an experimental drug.”

In a defiant last stand, Haviland copied the email to the base’s 30,000 personnel.

Thirty minutes later — just as he anticipated — his employer called to say he was fired.

“In a way it was a blessing, right?” Haviland said. He was 61 at the time and drawing an Air Force major’s retirement salary, and his wife, 10 years younger, still worked.

“So we were able to make it financially, and I was able to make that stand,” Haviland said, adding that leaving his role provided space to pursue critical investigations like the embalmer survey.

‘Embalmers actually want to tell you what they’re seeing’

To validate the reports systematically and ensure privacy, Haviland crafted a 12-question survey using the SurveyMonkey platform to collect embalmer input anonymously.

The questionnaire asked respondents to specify what types of blood clots they were observing, when the anomalies began appearing, the estimated percentage of bodies exhibiting the fibrous masses and the ages of the deceased.

To maximize participation, Haviland leveraged extensive funeral director professional networks. He sent emails with embedded survey links to the presidents of 50 state and national organizations asking them to disseminate the questionnaire to their hundreds of member funeral homes.

Simultaneously, Haviland directly emailed more than 1,700 individual funeral home addresses obtained through web searches, targeting major metro areas across the 30 most populous U.S. states and funeral directors in Canada, the U.K. and Australia.

This two-pronged outreach strategy aimed to encourage anonymous survey-taking without employer pressure, he said.

To avoid introducing bias, neither the survey solicitation letter nor the survey itself referenced COVID-19 or vaccines.

“I tried to do it as unbiasedly as possible,” Haviland said. “I sent the survey to as many ‘blue states’ like California, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts as I did ‘red states’ like Ohio, Texas and Florida.”

“If anything, my survey might be biased slightly ‘blue,’” he said, because most of the funeral homes he solicited were located in major cities like Los Angeles, Toronto, London and Sydney, which he said “usually lean ‘blue.’”

Haviland encountered hesitancy during survey distribution, initially garnering only 14 responses. Suspecting many funeral directors were restricting participation to avoid backlash, Haviland directly contacted state association leaders.

After speaking with the Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Association to ensure they circulated his questionnaire, embalmers from the state suddenly uploaded 126 responses in two days.

“It tells me that embalmers actually want to tell you what they’re seeing in the embalming room, if they feel like they have permission” from their immediate supervisor or the state funeral director association, Haviland said.

Hirschman told The Defender that some of the reticence may have been due to social taboos around speaking of the dead.

“It was hard for me, even in the beginning, to speak out because we’re taught in mortuary school that the things we see in the embalming room are kind of sacred,” Hirschman said.

Though most associations declined participation in Haviland’s survey, the grassroots outreach strategy eventually yielded more responses.

“There’s suppression going on at the upper levels,” Haviland said, pointing to examples from the president of the funeral directors’ associations in Canada and the U.K., who simply told him they were not going to participate.

20% of embalmers flagged increased infant deaths relative to 2019

The 2022 and 2023 embalmer surveys demonstrate largely consistent findings of strange blood-clotting phenomena beginning in the middle of 2021 and continuing through today.

In Haviland’s 2023 survey polling 269 embalmers globally, more than 70% reported seeing white fibrous clots in an average of 20% of corpses.

Hirschman said he began seeing clots early in 2021, and to this day continues to see them in about half of the bodies he embalms. “The older the person is, the more I see.”

Credit: Thomas Haviland, 2023 Embalmers Survey

Nearly 80% of survey respondents indicated microclotting in about 25% of cadavers on average as demonstrated by “coffee grounds”-like material in blood drainage. Some embalmers saw these clots in a much higher percentage of corpses.

Credit: Thomas Haviland, 2023 Embalmers Survey

Microclotting was seen very rarely (less than 5%) in corpses prior to the COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines, according to survey respondents.

Embalmers reported an overall increase in all types of clotting in all age groups — but especially ages 36 and up — echoing real-world data from insurance industry trends showing increased death benefit payouts for younger people, Haviland said.

“I’ve been an embalmer for 23 years, and in my first 20 years of experience, I’d never seen clots like these,” Hirschman said.

Additionally, around 20% of embalmers flagged increased infant deaths relative to 2019, about a 25% increase according to respondents who noted the trend.

“I can tell you that I’ve seen an increase in fetal demise, seeing babies, premature babies,” Hirschman said. “I’ve also seen a number of people that are dying of cancers in a very short period of time.”

Credit: Thomas Haviland, 2023 Embalmers Survey

Haviland’s survey included an optional field for adding comments. Here is a small selection of what different embalmers wrote:

“I have seen a larger increase in these large fibrous clots since the COVID vaccine has come out.”

“Almost all nursing/assisted living people, that were vaccinated showed these clots, blackened fingertips, blackened toes, blotchy skin.”

“The structures being removed from my perspective seem impossible for the human body to create in and of themselves; also, I attempted to stain and observe under a microscope ‘blood’ from one of the structures that do not absorb stain as is characteristic of blood.”

“In 2022 our firm had more infant deaths than we have ever had. In 2023 I noticed more white fibrous clots than I had ever seen, mostly in elderly.”

“I rarely have a body without clotting nowadays. Most of the little ones are not embalmed, especially fetal demise. Just about every embalmer and funeral director I know is concerned about the clotting issues. They feel as though it is linked to the experimental vaccine that many of them took themselves.”

“It was noted that those who were considered healthy still provided these clots and the age frame was higher in those ages 50 through early 60’s. I am grateful a study is being done on this as it seems a mystery why this is happening all of a sudden with no change of chemicals, technique, or timeline when embalmings are done soon after death (less than 5 hours).”

“I have observed all sorts of different blood clots in the past few years … One particular clot in fact concerns me … It is stringy with ganglia, almost resembling an octopus or squid in appearance. A solid grape fibrous structure with tendrils or strings branching out from different directions.”

“I think the most of all the questions asked were the highest in 2020 to 2022. And all infant/miscarriages were 100% cremation. With any of these clots, they can appear in a deceased that has been dead for 20min, which makes it so odd.”

“As an embalmer for over 20 years, these types of clots have always existed. This topic is politically inclined in my opinion. COVID is real, the vaccine necessary. This all needs to stop.”

Perspectives on timing, causation of clots

Most of the embalmers Haviland surveyed and interviewed insisted the clotting abnormalities were developing before death rather than postmortem, citing instances of clots in bodies arriving shortly after passing.

“The embalmers that I’m in contact with insist that it’s happening pre-death but there’s been some controversy about that,” Haviland said. “Some embalmers have said, ‘Yeah, the clot’s formed, but we think it’s happening just after death.’”

“The body cools postmortem and the blood starts to coagulate and then things start to separate out,” Haviland explained.

But the embalmers he spoke with told him they thought the clotting had to be happening before death because they were finding the huge white fibrous clots in corpses that were only an hour or two old and still warm.

“There’s no way they could have formed in just the one or two hours when the body was still warm,” Haviland said.

Credit: Thomas Haviland

Hirschman said he has seen a fibrous clot that was removed from a living person, but that he has also seen additional formation of material from blood in an ECMO (a machine that oxygenates blood outside the body) tube post-mortem. The body he was preparing had a clot running the length of the leg.

Hirschman surmised that clot-forming material caused by vaccines could be circulating in the liquid form in blood until some as-yet-unknown process triggers it to solidify into the hardened form found by embalmers.

Hirschman said scientists he is in touch with are working on developing diagnostic tests to determine what’s in the blood causing the clots. “There’s got to be a way they can test if people have this floating around in their body,” he said.

Dr. Ryan Cole, a clinical pathologist with his own diagnostic lab, in a recent interview clarified the difference between clots that form while a person is alive and those that form after death.

“[In] postmortem clots … you can see almost a layering pattern and can tell that the clotting happened as the body was cooling and all those proteins were congealing,” Cole said. “It’s almost looking like rings of a tree.”

But that same deposition pattern is not found in clots that form while a patient is alive, Cole said, such as the fibrous clots reported by embalmers.

“One can analyze and distinguish that difference,” Cole said. “They were in the patient pre-mortem and these patients died with these clots in them.”

Critics of the “Died Suddenly” documentary primarily repeat the truism that “correlation is not causation,” claiming that those who are trying to link the clots to the vaccine rollout are anti-vaxxers, or saying the SARS-CoV-2 virus could be the culprit.

But longtime funeral industry professionals who spoke with Haviland correlate the appearance of the fibrous clots with the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccinations rather than the virus itself.

“They’re not qualified, obviously, to say why or how the clots are forming,” said Haviland. “But they can tell you when they’ve seen something that they’ve never seen before … and the explosion of the clotting took place for them starting in 2021 after the jabs rolled out.”

Theories on how fibrous clots form

Haviland emphasized that the mRNA vaccine’s spike protein has been found in organs and tissues all over the body and, in some instances, as long as six months after the shot.

Dr. Peter McCullough reported clotting in patients with no previous family history or personal history of clotting as long as two years after the shots.

Haviland shared a theory that vaccine-induced spike proteins damage endothelium — a single layer of cells throughout the body separating tissues from circulating blood — triggering blood clotting responses or, through rupturing, allowing material into the bloodstream that results in clotting.

Dr. Lewis Coleman, an anesthesiologist and author of “50 Years Lost in Medical Advance,” who shared his theory on white lung syndrome with The Defender, said the mRNA’s spike protein disrupts the vascular endothelium, resulting in the “leakage” of tissue factor from connective tissues, fat, muscle and organ tissues into the bloodstream.

Through several complex interactions, this leakage alters the way thrombinsoluble fibrin and insoluble fibrin (all clotting factors) are generated and increases the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and thrombosis (clotting), according to Coleman.

Vaccine-induced clotting has been linked to the COVID-19 vaccines in numerous studies and anecdotal reports.

Haviland said, “These white fibrous clots seem to be comprised of fibrin platelets and what’s called amyloid protein, which is basically a fancy term for a misshaped, misfolded protein, that then becomes hard for our body to break down.”

Cole asserted the clots are related to the mRNA vaccines, the spike protein and the DNA contamination that “codes for a very sticky protein,” adding, “It’s an amyloid-type protein, not a traditional amyloid.”

Cole credited Resia Pretorius Ph.D., a researcher from Stellenbosch University in South Africa and Professor Douglas Kell from the University of Liverpool, U.K., who showed how the spike protein can cause proteins to clump together in the blood in the absence of platelets.

A low platelet count or thrombocytopenia is another well-documented side effect of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.

Cole said:

“We know that spike protein can induce clotting pathways. It can induce unusual clumps of proteins and sugars and proteins and sugars. Almost silk-like patterns of interlaced, intertwining blood agents that you and I have circulating right now. They need to be there. They all have a role and a function.

“But when there’s a pileup on the interstate, they all get blocked up behind that pileup. And that’s what we’re seeing with these clots. These unusual amyloids — fibrin that’s hard to break down — [we’re] finding these a long period of time after they should have been broken down.”

‘It’s hard to find a problem if you don’t go looking’

If it can be substantiated that the COVID-19 vaccines are instigating this blood clot crisis, Haviland urged halting the mass vaccination campaign immediately until experts definitively rule out the dangers.

“I think it would be wise at this point to pull all the vials off the shelves to make sure that nobody is given these shots anymore,” he said, adding,

Haviland supports policy changes cementing the right to informed consent and preventing coercion to take vaccines or medications of any kind.

Broader hopes for Haviland center on transparency reforms and overcoming institutional resistance to confronting evidence of vaccine harms.

“It’s hard to find a problem if you don’t go looking,” Haviland said.

Amid credibility concerns surrounding health authorities, public awareness provides the last line of defense, according to Haviland. He said:

“If our Congress doesn’t do anything, if our regulatory agencies like the FDA and the CDC keep quiet about this and Big Pharma continues to push out mRNA-based products using lipid nanoparticle technology in the future, there’s only one last line of defense left — that’s us, the citizen.”

“The good news is, most Americans have actually stopped taking the jabs,” he said. “So Americans are waking up.”

By John-Michael Dumais news editor for The Defender.

https://expose-news.com/2024/01/31/the-plot-thickens-as-comeuppance-looms-for-the-unhinged-zealots-of-the-vax-brigade/

You’ve Been Genetically Hijacked to Produce Pfizer’s Pfrankenstein Proteins

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shots instruct cells to produce additional “off-target” proteins that could pose significant health risks
  • The finding was revealed by a team of U.K. researchers, who found a “glitch” occurred due to the way the COVID-19 shots were genetically modified
  • According to the study, off-target cellular immune responses occur in 25% to 33% of those who have received Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot
  • The “Pfrankenstein” proteins could potentially lead to health problems, including autoimmune conditions or endocrine disruption
  • Pfizer’s Pfrankenstein proteins should have been detected and reduced or eliminated long before mRNA COVID-19 shots were given to millions of people

The toxic spike protein produced in your body if you receive a COVID-19 shot is not the only health concern to be aware of. Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shots also instruct cells to produce additional “off-target” proteins that could pose significant health risks.

The finding was revealed by a team of U.K. researchers1 who found a “glitch” occurred due to the way the COVID-19 shots were genetically modified. As a result, unwanted proteins are produced, with unknown effects — a phenomenon that should have been detected long before the experimental shots were given to millions of people.

Modified mRNA in COVID-19 Shots Is ‘Prone to Reading Errors’

Ribosomes decode mRNA in cells, but about 8% of the time those in COVID-19 shots may misread the coded instructions, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., a former medical scientist with the University of Adelaide and former reporter for ABC News in Australia, explains:2

“The researchers say that ribosomes, which are responsible for decoding the mRNA in cells, can slip and misread the coded instructions about 8% of the time — known as ‘ribosomal frameshifting.’ They say the ‘glitch’ has to do with how the mRNA in the vaccine has been genetically modified.

Unlike naturally-occurring mRNA, the mRNA that exists in the vaccines has had a ‘uridine’ base replaced with a ‘N1-methyl pseudouridine’ (to stabilize it) and unfortunately, has made it prone to reading errors.”

In May 2021, I interviewed Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, about the likely hazards of replacing the uracil in the RNA used in the COVID shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine.3 This process of substituting letters in the genetic code is known as codon optimization, which is known to be problematic.

At the time, Seneff predicted the shots would cause a rise in prion, autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases and, at younger ages, blood disorders and heart failure. One of the primary reasons for this is because they genetically manipulated the RNA in the shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine, which enhances RNA stability by inhibiting its breakdown.

Now, researchers at Cambridge University and the Universities of Kent, Oxford and Liverpool, have discovered4 that the use of methylpseudouridine results in a high rate of ribosomal “frameshifting,” which causes your cells to produce off-target proteins with unknown effects. In an interview with Demasi, research scientist David Wiseman explained the concerning findings:5

“They found the Pfizer vaccine can cause your cells to make proteins that they are not supposed to make — you end up with what I call ‘Pfrankenstein proteins.’ … Imagine the following three-letter English words ABE DAN TEA TON ERA TWO — the letters are like the code on the mRNA. Now instead of starting to read the sentence at the letter ‘A’ of the first word, you frameshift to the next letter — the letter ‘B.’

That means that all the other letters are shifted to the left and it will give you a new sentence with three-letter words BED ANT EAT ONE RAT etcetera. So, the new words have a completely different meaning from the original words. This is what happened in the body of some people vaccinated with Pfizer’s product. New unwanted ‘off-target’ proteins were produced, that actually led to an ‘off-target’ immune response.”

Your Body Is Being Hijacked to Produce ‘Pfrankenstein’ Proteins

According to the study, off-target cellular immune responses occur in 25% to 33% of those who have received Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot. “It means their lymphocytes had seen the proteins before — their immune system had already been primed from a prior exposure, presumably after that person had received the mRNA vaccine,” Wiseman said.6

The study authors stated there were no adverse outcomes related to the “frameshifted products,” and the media has similarly downplayed any risk of harm. However, molecular virologist David Speicher Ph.D., told Trial Site News reporter Sonia Elijah:7

“Whenever our cells create an abundance of unintended proteins or prevent production of appropriate proteins it could lead to an unintended immune response with a huge potential to cause harm.”

Wiseman was also clear in his explanation that the “Pfrankenstein” proteins could potentially lead to health problems, including autoimmune conditions or endocrine disruption. He told Demasi:8

“What you have to realize is that your body is being hijacked, not just to produce spike protein, but also to produce other, what I call, ‘Pfrankenstein’ proteins that are completely uncharacterized. We don’t know what they are, what they do, for how long they’re made or how long they last in the body, and we have no idea what their toxicity is.

From the Nature paper however, we do know that these unwanted proteins elicit immune reactions in the body.

… These researchers showed that frameshifting could create chimeric proteins. Basically, as the ribosome reads the code for the spike protein, it may slip in the middle of reading the code. So, the first half is spike protein, and the second half is a Pfrankenstein protein.

Now, just imagine one half can still attach to the ACE2 receptor on cells but on the other end, you’ve got this Pfrankenstein protein dangling outside of the cells. Your immune system is going to destroy the cell because it looks foreign, and now you’ve got something that looks like an autoimmune condition.

Or you could have a protein that turns out to be not necessarily identical, but sufficiently similar to another protein in our body like a hormone and it ends up mimicking the hormone’s activity and disturbing your endocrine system.”

Reading Errors Could Be Reduced — So Why Weren’t They?

While claiming that frameshifted products weren’t harmful, the Nature study authors stated it was important for future mRNA technologies to reduce ribosome frameshifting events. They suggested that they could identify the garbled sites or sequences and alter the mRNA sequence to reduce such effects in the future.9

But as Wiseman pointed out, this should have been done already. “This work should’ve been done by the vaccine manufacturers and by the regulators before the product was authorized and given to billions of people. They’ve asked people to take a vaccine, and put it into children and they have no clue what is happening inside the body.”10

Further, the study authors are basing their assessment that there’s no risk posed by these ‘Pfrankenstein proteins’ on just 21 people. Wiseman continued to Demasi:11

“The authors wrote, ‘… there is no evidence that frameshifted products in humans generated from BNT162b2 vaccination are associated with adverse outcomes.’ But they only looked at 21 people who received Pfizer’s vaccine, so you cannot call that a serious safety study by any stretch of the imagination.

And how did they select these people? The volunteers were part of another government funded study and had not reported undue effects from vaccination. Since they did not study subjects who had reported adverse vaccine effects, the selection of participants was probably biased.

… What they’re trying to say now is that there have been no problems identified in 21 people, but in the future there may be problems, so we should just keep studying it. Are you kidding me? What they’re saying is that ‘we will inject you first and ask safety questions later.’ It’s not good enough.”

It’s worth noting that two of the researchers on the team have a pending patent application for mRNA technology,12 so they certainly have reason to downplay the problem and propose all we need to do is a bit of tweaking and all will be well moving forward.

Is Foreign DNA Integrating Into Human Cells?

Along with Pfizer’s Pfrankenstein proteins, there’s potential that DNA integration from COVID-19 shots could pose a risk to the human genome. Tucker Carlson spoke with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who has called for an end to the use of COVID-19 mRNA shots, citing concerns about DNA fragments in the products.13

“Could foreign DNA enter your cells through the mRNA COVID vax and change your DNA — and humanity itself — forever? Sounds nutty. It’s not,” Carlson tweeted. “Absolutely that could happen,” says Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the surgeon general of Florida.14 In a December 6, 2023, letter sent to the U.S. FDA and CDC, Ladapo outlined findings showing the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes and simian virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA.

While there are limits on how much DNA can be in a vaccine due to concern over DNA integration, the guidelines don’t consider lipid nanoparticles and other factors in COVID-19 shots that could enhance how much DNA can enter a cell.

“Lipid nanoparticles are an efficient vehicle for delivery of the mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines into human cells and may therefore be an equally efficient vehicle for delivering contaminant DNA into human cells. The presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA may also pose a unique and heightened risk of DNA integration into human cells,” according to a news release from the Florida Department of Health (DOH).15

In a 2023 preprint study, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project16 — and colleagues assessed the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots. “DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements” was found.17

So, in addition to the spike protein and mRNA in COVID-19 shots, McKernan’s team discovered SV40 promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans.18 Further, according to the Florida DOH, the FDA’s own 2007 guidance states:19

  • “DNA integration could theoretically impact a human’s oncogenes – the genes which can transform a healthy cell into a cancerous cell.
  • DNA integration may result in chromosomal instability.
  • The Guidance for Industry discusses biodistribution of DNA vaccines and how such integration could affect unintended parts of the body including blood, heart, brain, liver, kidney, bone marrow, ovaries/testes, lung, draining lymph nodes, spleen, the site of administration and subcutis at injection site.”

The FDA responded to Ladapo’s letter December 14, 2023, but provided no evidence that appropriate DNA integration assessments had been conducted. Ladapo called for a halt in their use as a result.20 “It starts at crazy but it ends at somewhere else that someone could be just so nonchalant and, frankly, willy-nilly, with something as precious and as sacred as our human DNA,” Ladapo told Carlson.21

Help for Those Suffering From COVID-19 Shot Injuries

If you’re suffering from side effects of a COVID-19 shot, your first order of business is to eliminate the spike protein — and/or any aberrant off-target protein — that your body is producing. Two remedies shown to bind to and facilitate the removal of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein are hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. It’s unknown whether these drugs will work on off-target proteins as well, but it probably wouldn’t hurt to try.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has developed a post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. The protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, so your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com.22

The World Council for Health (WCH), a worldwide coalition of health-focused organizations and civil society groups, has also released a spike protein detox guide,23 which provides straightforward steps you can take to potentially lessen the effects of toxic spike protein that may be helpful. Another option is sauna therapy, which can also help eliminate toxic and misfolded proteins by stimulating autophagy.24

Reposted from https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/02/06/pfizer-pfrankenstein-proteins.aspx

Bypassing the Information Blockade

The WHO Has To Go

This is another great post from a substack I read. I have copied it to here in case it disappears from whence it came.

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

What Can Political Polling Teach Us About COVID Vaccine Injuries?

Breaking Down the Most Detailed Vaccine Injury Survey Conducted Thus Far

A Midwestern Doctor

Feb 5

A key theme in George Orwell’s totalitarian classic, 1984, was the ruling party conditioning the citizenry to ignore what they saw with their own eyes if those observations clashed with the interests of the party. In turn, the book detailed example after example of how this was enacted (e.g., citizens were expected to state with conviction “2+2=5”) and how again and again, they forced themselves to deny ever having believed something they had previously espoused with complete fervor for the ruling party.
Note: Orwell termed this cognitive process “doublethink

Since we live in an information age where ideas can rapidly scale throughout the population, determining what constitutes truth has profound economic and political impacts and as a result, a lot of resources are devoted towards ensuring the current “truth” conforms to the vested interests that operate society.

In our society, a cornerstone of this monopolization of truth has been the edification of “credible sources” and conversely, conditioning a habitual tendency to dismiss anything which does not come from a credible source.

The most concise summary I’ve seen of where this began was written by renowned journalist John Pilger. In it, he showed how the companies which came to be viewed as the most prestigious media institutions (e.g., the BBC) quickly compromised on their principles of objectivity and presenting both sides of a story when the government needed them to. In tandem, the idea of “professional journalism” was created which instilled the widespread belief that a news story could only be deemed credible if it came from a journalist working within one of those prestigious media companies.

Thus, what constituted news rapidly became only what either the government or the corporatocracy (who inevitably bought out those news sources) deemed acceptable for the populace to hear. In turn, since our “free” media morphed into being nothing but a propaganda mouthpiece for the establishment, the public was continually mislead on critical issues with enormous social consequences (e.g., consider some of the egregious examples Pilger cited such as the countless costly, catastrophic and pointless wars we’ve been involved in).

Fortunately, the internet has broken that monopoly, and now a thriving alternative media ecosystem (which tells the truth) is rapidly emerging that is slowly outcompeting the legacy media (which fills us with useless drivel). Recently, I saw an excellent comedy sketch describing the current state of affairs:

The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

Credible Sources and Medicine

Since there is so much money in what constitutes a medical “truth” there has likewise been a large investment to ensure tight control exists over the existing medical narratives. In turn, a lot of frameworks have been put in place to ensure a medical fact can only be considered “true” if it is endorsed by a “credible” source. I will now look at three key facets of this paradigm.

Anecdotes

Most of our conception of reality is based off of experiences we’ve had which we then generalize onto future experiences (e.g., if someone was assaulted, they often view entirely benign interactions as threatening). In some cases, those generalizations are invalid, but other cases they are completely valid, which in turn makes it possible to argue for or against making those generalizations (depending upon which perceptual filter one brings into the argument).

Within medicine, I’ve had a longstanding policy to have a fairly low threshold for taking an anecdotal observation under serious consideration. For example:

•If I see someone having an unusual reaction following initiation of a therapy or treatment, I immediately consider the possibility it could be caused by the intervention and then try to figure out how this could possibly be happening or what other things might explain the reaction. In turn, I would often stop therapies much earlier than my colleagues would consider doing so.

•If I hear multiple reports of a therapy working for something, I will seriously look into if it could work and then compare it to the other options I know of for the condition to see if there is merit in trying it.

•If I see multiple instances suggesting something really strange is happening that should not be possible, I will start looking into how it could be possible. This for example is why I put so much work into trying to expose the otherwise inexplicable COVID-19 shedding phenomenon.

•If I see multiple instances of someone having a highly unexpected reaction to a pharmaceutical, I tend to assume that reaction is a somewhat frequent side effect. For example, once the COVID vaccines hit the market, because of the reactions I was coming across in normal clinical practice was clear to me within 1-2 months that they were unprecedentedly dangerous and needed to be pulled from the market. However, since there were no “credible sources” to substantiate my observations, it took the medical profession much longer to recognize the issue (and much of them still have not).

In turn, in my own clinical practice, while I spend a lot of time considering the existing scientific evidence, many of the actual decisions I make are based off “anecdotes” or “uncredible sources.” By the existing standards that have been instilled in our profession, this makes me a horrible doctor unfit to practice medicine. Yet on a case by case basis, I have a significantly higher treatment success rate than my “credible” colleagues—most of my patients either improve or fully recover, something not typically seen within my profession, and more importantly, I almost never harm them.

At this point, I believe that if an effect is somewhat common (e.g., a drug causes 10% of its recipients to develop severe headaches) you don’t need a well-conducted trial to detect it, whereas if an effect is fairly small (e.g., a drug causes you to have a 0.5% increased risk of a stomach ache in the next year) you need a well designed trial to detect it. Since most of the drugs on the market are approved on the basis of relatively small benefits (which may be an artifact of their trials being designed to create the illusion the drug has a benefit that it does not), those trials are needed. However, since minuscule benefits aren’t sufficient to achieve a high treatment success rate, I place a much lower weight on these “credible therapies” than my colleagues.

Credible Evidence

Presently, we deem medical evidence to be credible if it is put forth by a “credible source,” which means that it was published within a prestigious medical journal, espoused by a scientific authority, or pronounced by one of scientific institutions.

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen over the last few years, each of these groups is hopelessly corrupt—which makes sense, as there is so much money in the current “medical truth” ample bribes are available to ensure they all tow the partly line. For example:

•In addition to the pharmaceutical industry being the primary sponsor of the medical journals, it has now been shown that all of the major medical journals are under the influence of the World Economic Forum. This helps to explain why they only published information favoring the narrative (e.g., that supporting lockdowns, remdesivir, or the COVID vaccines) while simultaneously refused to publish anything which questioned it (e.g., vaccine harms or the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

This extended to the point completely nonsensical studies which should have never passed a basic peer-review were published by the top journals if they supported the narrative. For example, the Lancet published a highly impactful study which stated hydroxychloroquine was killing people that was derived from an obviously fake dataset which was created out of thin air by a USA data-analytics firm and the Lancet eventually reluctantly retracted the article after numerous readers pointed out its data had to be fake.

•The public officials whose words were taken as gospel throughout the pandemic (e.g., Fauci) repeatedly contradicted themselves or lied, but nonetheless were still treated as 100% credible experts we must defer to—even after numerous FOIA emails showed they intentionally lied and worked to cover up inconvenient information that undermined their narrative (e.g., Fauci did this with the fact COVID-19 originated from a lab that he funded to weaponize the SARS virus).

•The CDC and the FDA have ignored all evidence the COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe (e.g., by their criteria, the death signal for the COVID vaccines was triggered but they never reported it to the public). Instead, they constantly have repeated the mantra the COVID vaccines (and boosters) are safe, effective, and necessary.

Skeptics

If you manipulate the facts in front of you, it becomes possible to argue almost anything (e.g., I’ve had times where I won a debate and then later won a debate advocating for the completely opposite position). Going through this process gives one an appreciation that there’s more to something being true than how effectively you can twist the existing information to conform to your narrative.
Note: a case has been made that logic evolved not for the purpose of discerning truth, but rather for gaining control of a tribe and getting them to follow you.

One of the pillars the current monopolization of truth within medicine rests upon is having a core of ardent skeptics who will attack anything which deviates from the official narrative, which is typically done by painting the dissenting point as “un-credible” so that an uninformed bystander will assume that dissenting information should not be trusted.

What I’ve found fascinating about interacting with these people is that while they are very good at identifying the short comings of evidence or arguments they disagree with, they simultaneously cannot recognize the identical issue when it occurs within things they support. This in turn has lead to the situation where their entire contingent has marched in lockstep to support the COVID-19 vaccines, despite it being abundantly clear they are.

For example, skeptics know every single way to tear apart a paper which does not conform to their narrative, yet they simultaneously failed to recognize glaring issues within the COVID-19 trials such as:

Countless whistleblowers testifying that the vaccine clinical trials were fraudulent.

The publications of those trials concealing many of the adverse events which occurred within the trials—but even within the data that was shown, those papers making it clear the benefits of the vaccines were minor to non-existent while the harms frequently were significant.

•The COVID vaccines having completely failed to fulfill almost every single thing they had initially been promised to do (which I believe perfectly illustrates the doublethink of 1984).

Note: I frequently reference the work of skeptics to verify the validity of something I am considering. In some cases, they do provide legitimate points that need to be considered and case the entire topic in doubt, but in many others, they invoke a variety of nonsensical criticisms—something I take as a sign no valid counter argument to the point exists and the point in likely true.

Bypassing the Information Blockade

One of the central challenges we’ve faced since the start of COVID-19 has been that the “credible sources” (e.g., the medical journals) have refused to publish information that casts doubt on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. This in turn has forced those trying to bring attention to the vaccine’s dangers to instead use other (“non-credible”) platforms to get that information out—which of course leads the skeptics to immediately dismiss the credibility of those sources.

While monopolizing each “credible source” is often sufficient to conceal something which threatens corporate interests, because over half of the population received the COVID vaccines and so many were injured by them, a lot of unusual workarounds became available to bypass that blockade.

For example, because of how many people were vaccinated and how frequently the vaccines injure their recipients, numerous large datasets show something (which coincided with the vaccine rollouts) has caused an unprecedented spike in disability and death throughout the Western World. While many other toxic pharmaceuticals have entered the market, it was almost never possible to see their harms within population wide datasets nor were members of the public willing to seriously consider what that data said (as typically, owing to the fact they had no personal investment in the issue, their focus instead went to whatever study the media chose to promote to them).

Political Polling

One of approaches that became available because of the unprecedented scale of harm from the COVID vaccines was to utilize the same tools marketing professionals use to sample a market—an approach which has been refined over the years by the political polling industry to have a high degree of accuracy but which only can be used when the question at hand is applicable to a sizable portion of the population (e.g., who will you vote for president).

Unlike many anecdotal sources of data (which can be argued to simply be the product of bias) or polls conducted by authors in this genre (which can be argued to be biased since the respondents tend to come from the subset of the population who already have reasons to be critical of the COVID vaccines), political polls (owing to their need to be accurate) are recognized for sampling a random strata of the population which is likely to be representative of everyone.

Because of this, many of us realized political polling might be the key to providing the critical evidence of vaccine harm—and more importantly, could presented it in a manner politicians would listen to (as every politician knows they have to listen to the polls if they want to stay in power). For example, when I initially met Steve Kirsch, my first suggestion was that he needed to focus his resources on having reputable polling firms collect the vaccine injury data he was looking for—which Kirsch then informed me he was already working on doing.

One of the first organizations which began to break this open was Rasmussen Reports, a highly accurate polling firm (they often come the closest to predicting the results of an election—something I believe results from them not having the respondent talk to anyone who might bias them). Additionally, Rasmussen is known for being willing to touch more controversial subjects the other (typically left-wing) polling outlets won’t cover.

When Rasmussen first examined the vaccine issues in July of 2021 they found 32% of American Adults believe public health officials were lying about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

When this was examined in more detail in December of 2022, by sampling 1000 American adults, Rasmussen found:

•56% of the population believed the vaccines were effective (while 38% did not).

•57% were concerned the vaccines had major side effects.

•Democrats were much more likely the believe the vaccine was safe and effective.

•Those who were vaccinated had a much higher belief in the efficacy of the vaccines, but much less trust in the safety of them (which suggested the scale of the injuries occurring was sufficient to overcome some of their innate biases—as people often wont’ want to admit they were harmed by a bad decision they made).

•56% of vaccinated adults report no side effects from the vaccine, 34% reported minor side effects and 7% reported major side effects (e.g., those seriously impairing their quality of life). On the surface this figure seemed extraordinary, but it matched what we’d seen in many other datasets.

Note: this survey (e.g., it’s internal validity) is discussed in much more detail in this short video by Rasmussen’s head pollster.

Since that time, other polls have been conducted which have found similar results.

For example Rasmussen subsequently found:

•In a January 2023, 49% surveyed believe it is likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths and 28% personally knew someone who death may have been caused by side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, while the vaccinated were only half as likely to think someone they knew died from the vaccine as the unvaccinated (22% vs. 45%) the difference was much smaller between Democrats and Republicans or Independents (26% vs. 33%). This in turn suggested the sudden death issue was becoming obvious enough people who didn’t want to see it for political reasons were starting to see it.

In January 2023, that 57% of those surveyed wanted Congress to investigate how the CDC handled assessing vaccine safety (presumably since many suspected the CDC had covered up the dangers of the COVID vaccination program).

In March 2023, 11% of those surveyed reported that they believed a member of their household died from COVID-19, while 10% believed a member of their household died and that their death may have been due to a side effect of the vaccine.
Note: given that (even by the most extreme estimates) less than 1% of America’s population has died from COVID-19, this suggests that many of the respondents considered their household to be more than just the people they were living with.

In September 2023, 47% of those surveyed stated they did not believe the vaccines were safe and 34% did not believe they were effective. These results also politically stratified as Democrats were less likely to believe the vaccines were unsafe (14% vs. 51%) or ineffective (17% vs. 57%).

In November 2023, 24% of those surveyed stated they personally knew someone they believe died from a COVID vaccine, and of those individuals, 69% would be likely to join a class action lawsuit against the pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, there was no political stratification (of the 24% who said, yes, it was 25% amongst Republicans and 24% amongst Democrats), which again illustrates the population is becoming more upset about what happened.

In January 2024, 53% surveyed believe it is likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths and 24% personally knew someone whose death may have been caused by side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

It should be noted that these results are consistent with each other, and both show that the (politically seismic) issue is not going away and that as time goes forward, more are becoming open to it.

Other surveys have also found similar results, but won’t be covered here in order to keep the article length appropriate. However, there was one I felt deserved a brief discussion. In late 2021, Mark Skidmore conducted an IRB approved study which contracted Dynata, the world’s largest first part data-platform (meaning they were experts at collecting data) to survey the public for the vaccine injuries they were observing.

Dynata found 14.6% of those surveyed reported a health issue following COVID-19 vaccination (13.4% of whom classified it as severe) and 21.6% reported someone they knew had suffered a health issue from vaccination (with the frequently reported issues such as heart attacks and strokes matching those commonly attributed to the vaccine).

Skidmore in turn (like many of the other pollsters) used existing statistical methods to argue that since a lot of people had been vaccinated, this meant a large number of people (millions) were being injured by the vaccine. Due to the “controversial” nature of this claim, his paper was quickly retracted despite no valid reason being given for doing so—which again illustrates why the medical journals cannot be relied upon to public information which deviates from the existing narrative and why alternative datasources (e.g., polls) have sadly become more reliable than the scientific press we used to trust to safeguard the truth.

Steve Kirsch’s Surveys

True to his word, Steve has pursued getting surveys performed to evaluate the rate of vaccine injury. For example, in June and July of 2022, he and the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation commissioned independent polling firms to perform a series of surveys. Four of these surveys specifically evaluated the rate of vaccine injuries and found the following results:

Recently, they commission a much more detailed survey of vaccine injury (which can be viewed here) that sampled 1000 adults (which approximates the sample size Rasmussen used in each of their surveys). It found:

•83.62% of Democrats believe the vaccine is safe and effective, 44.49% Republicans believe it is, and 51.81 of independents believe it is.

•Of the 706 respondents who were vaccinated, when asked if they or someone else in their household was injured by a vaccine, 32.47% of Democrats said yes, 20.14% of Republicans said yes, and 24.24% of independents said yes.

•When the 197 who reported an injury were asked about who was injured, 62.5% of Democrats reported it was them (compared to 37.5% reporting it was someone else), while 62.07% of Republicans reported being the injured party, and 62.5% of independents reported being the injured party.

Of the 197 who were injured, most considered their injury to be significant.

Finally, all of those who had known someone who had died since January 2021 (which was 194 respondents) were sampled and asked some specific questions on the deaths.

First they were asked about the cause of death, and the most common responses were conditions commonly linked to the COVID vaccines.

Second, they reported that the majority of those they knew who died had been vaccinated before their death.

Third, the ages of deaths in those they knew who died was much lower than the average life expectancy in the USA (e.g., almost as many 31-40 year olds died as those over 60—something which should not happen normally).

Finally, when stratified by party, 52.94% of Republicans attributed the death to vaccination whereas 57.33% of Democrats attributed the death to the vaccine. While this can partly be explained by the fact Democrats are more likely to know vaccinated individuals than Republicans (whose unvaccinated friends obviously cannot have died from vaccination), it also illustrates that the political gaps on this issue are continuing to shrink as it is becoming harder and harder to ignore the wave of deaths being caused by these vaccines. This in turn makes me quite hopeful that Democrat voters may be willing to seriously consider a candidate who has campaigned against the vaccines from the start like RFK Jr.

Note: since VSRF has a limited budget, Steve Kirsch funds much of their critical work through his Substack subscriptions. To advance that mission, he made the full version of the survey (which has a lot more information on which injuries were reported in each demographic) available to his subscribers here.

Conclusion

A foundational principle of the modern scientific method is that if something is true, it should be supported by independent pieces of data which all reach the same conclusion. For example, if you look at these survey results, they clearly demonstrate repeatability, as they all have fairly similar results (which like many of you, I can state match what I am observing in the real world from talking people).

Since much of what our society’s vested interests want to be “true” is not supported by real life data, it requires a truly massive apparatus to be in place to ensure a false truth keeps on being propped up.

While COVID-19 has been a truly terrible experience, one of the brightest aspects of it is that it has compelled a lot of people who always want to stay on the sidelines to publicly speak out against the injustices they were seeing happen and begin creating a new era of media which at last is displacing the “professional journalists” who refused to cover these issues (or, as shown by what happened to Tucker Carlson after he called out the media for selling out America to the COVID vaccine manufacturers, were fired if they nonetheless ddid).

In turn, there are more and signs our politicians are both listening to survey results like the ones in this article and the increasing loud voice being created by independent media. It makes me truly grateful this is happening and that the legacy media is at last becoming displaced. Like many, I can emphatically share I share the sentiments expressed by Jimmy Dore in the video I showed at the start of this article.

Note: Like Jimmy, I agree that if the journalists want to get their jobs back, they need to start covering issues people actually care about rather than feeling entitled to your attention because they are attached to a prestigious organization. Similarly, the last few years have taught many of us that the majority of journalists have very little knowledge about the subjects they discuss (which may explain why they constantly defer to the party line on them), and hence do not deserve the blanket trust we’ve always given them to assess critical issues of the time (which was predicated on the assumption they must know what they are talking about if they were allowed to cover it).

When COVID-19 began, and especially when the vaccine rollout started, as I saw how much had been erected to ensure humanity went down the path which had been laid out for us by the ruling class and I thought again and again how it might be stopped, over and over, it felt like I was staring at an impossibly high mountain that could never be climbed.

However, as we’ve all seen, a miracle occurred (e.g., lots of people gave everything they could to help move us up the mountain), and enough things happened for the public to begin awakening to exactly what what was happening. In my own case, it has been both humbling and incredibly difficult to believe the amount of traction this publication has gotten and I thank each of you for helping to make that possible.

The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Thank you for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine. This post is public so feel free to share it.

You’re currently a free subscriber to The Forgotten Side of Medicine. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

© 2024 A Midwestern Doctor
Substack Inc., 111 Sutter St 7th Floor, San Francisco, United States 94104
Unsubscribe

PHARMA OVERLORDS: Moderna’s online censorship agenda detailed in newly released documents

Censored Computer Internet Social Media

How did Moderna, a failing pharmaceutical startup that was on the verge of collapsing before the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “pandemic” conveniently arrived, go from that to becoming a $100 billion company nearly overnight? The answer is simplecensorship. (Tom: No the complete story. If you have heard Dr David E. Martin you will recall the deal for Moderna and Phizer to distribute the Covid vaccines was settled long before the pandemic started.)

Newly released documents show that Moderna spearheaded an online censorship campaign designed to keep its mRNA (modRNA) injections for COVID in the “cure” distribution pipeline, despite widespread criticism and skepticism about its safety and effectiveness.

Moderna targeted three individuals in particular who were very vocal throughout the “pandemic” about the risks involved with getting mRNA jabbed: journalist Alex Berenson, Stanford Health Policy professor Jay Bhattacharya and actor Russell Brand.

In one instance, Moderna “flagged a Russell Brand video in which he raised concerns about former British health official Jonathan Van-Tam, who was instrumental in COVID-19 policymaking and then took a high-level job at Moderna.

Moderna reportedly recruited and unleashed online media surveillance partners to keep tabs on Berenson, Bhattacharya and Brand. One of these was the Public Goods Project, a “non-profit” organization that, like many other non-profits, receives direct funding from Big Pharma. The Public Goods Project played an instrumental role in getting COVID jab skeptics censored or silenced on Twitter (now X).

(Related: Did you know that three different universities have confirmed that COVID injections destroy human health by causing autoimmunity, tinnitus, musculoskeletal inflammation and more?)

Moderna targeted no less than 150 million websites for censorship

The purpose behind Moderna’s online “monitoring” efforts was to stamp out “medical misinformation,” as defined by Moderna. The goal was to suppress all doubt or criticism about the company’s COVID jabs, which turned out to be a major cash cow for the company.

Not only did Moderna target then-Twitter with this censorship campaign, it also targeted various “independent” media outlets, as well as mainstream ones like The New York Times, whenever something “negative” was published in one of these outlets about the Moderna jabs.

The newly uncovered documents, known as “The Moderna Files,” reveal that Moderna targeted no less than 150 million websites as part of a mass surveillance operation designed to keep its profits intact, no matter the cost to public health.

“The documents seem to show that Moderna is running a corporate public relations effort designed to boost sagging vaccine sales under the veneer of public health,” stated journalist Lee Fang, who helped uncover The Moderna Files with the help of RealClearInvestigations.

When public demand for Moderna’s so-called “booster” shots started to wane last fall, the company’s then-chief commercial officer, Arpa Garay, blamed the shift on “uninformed vaccine skeptics,” adding in a call to investors that Moderna is finding ways “across the ecosystem” to ensure that “consumers are educated on the need for the vaccine.”

Ominously failing to provide any further details, Garay would also state that, together with the Public Goods Project, Moderna is already implementing a series of strategies designed to confront what he called the “root cause of vaccine hesitancy” in order to “shut down” all “misinformation” online.

One of these strategies is known as the “Infodemic Training Program,” an indoctrination platform for health care workers that uses artificial intelligence (AI) monitoring to keep tabs on conversations online, particularly among key voices with lots of followers.

“Like the Twitter Files, the Moderna Reports highlight the push by powerful entities – especially government, Big Tech and Big Pharma to identify and brand dissenting opinions about establishment narratives as risky forms of speech,” Fan writes about The Moderna Files. “The growing network these efforts rely on shows the growth of what has been called the censorship industrial complex.”

“Moderna’s faltering financials also suggest, at least for now, the limits of that project.”

More of the latest news about Big Pharma’s anti-free speech agenda can be found at Censorship.news.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-02-01-moderna-online-censorship-agenda-newly-released-documents.html

COVID Vaccines Could Trigger Vasculitis, Damaging Multiple Organs

COVID Vaccine Vial

Several case reports indicate the COVID vaccines may be associated with vasculitis, a condition that inflames and damages blood vessels. Various diseases associated with COVID-19 vaccines have been reported. A recent case study indicated that COVID-19 vaccination may trigger the development of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, potentially damaging multiple organs. ANCA-associated vasculitis can cause damage to small blood vessels. Since these are distributed throughout the body, any part of the body can be affected, with the most common areas being the lungs, kidneys, joints, ears, nose, and nerves.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-vaccines-could-trigger-vasculitis-damaging-multiple-organs-5563233

Andrew Wakefield On His New Film, Protocol-7

Andrew Wakefield and Del Bigtree

Dr. Andrew Wakefield returns to The HighWire with the worldwide premiere of the trailer for his new highly anticipated film, Protocol-7, chronicling the true story of the historic lawsuit against Merck for fraudulent activity behind the mumps portion of their MMR vaccine. Warrior Mom author Tracy Slepcevic also joins Del to discuss the upcoming Autism Health Summit in San Antonio and the dynamic speakers that will be part of it, including producers from Protocol-7.

https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/andrew-wakefield-on-his-new-film-protocol-7/

Spike Protein Completely Replacing Sperm

Dr Arne Burkhardt On Infertility Post Jab

Dr. Arne Burkhardt. Born in 1944 in Germany, a pathologist with more than 40 years diagnostic and teaching experience at the Universities of Hamburg, Bern, and Tabingen. He is the author of more than 150 original publications in international journals, currently engaged in autopsy studies of persons dying after taking the Covid vaccine.

He is shown in a brief clip here: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1408073526456199 talking about and showing slides from males who have dies post COVID jab showing few or no spermatozoa.

He comments: “If I were a woman in fertile age I would not plan a motherhood from a man who had been vaccinated.”

Here is a more complete presentation:

https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/uvc-arne-burkhardt/

DNA Contamination Found in the mRNA COVID Vaccines

“The sequence that’s in these doses, at billions of copies per dose, interacts with the P53 gene. This is a tumor suppressor gene so anything that interacts as a contaminant in the gene is a red flag. Hit the brakes, stop cold. You’ve got billions of copies of something that interacts with our tumor suppressor system. This is a cancer risk. It’s in Moderna’s patents. We know it’s now in the Pfizer vaccines. This needs to be a red stop halt.”

“Like buckshot going into your genome!”

Phizer deliberately removed mention of the SV40 in their filings to the WHO and FDA who are covering for them.

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1749889375549178186

(Tom: Read this article to see how this is playing out in the real world. https://thelibertydaily.com/new-cancer-diagnoses-projected-be-highest-ever-people/)

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1749889375549178186

Dr. David E. Martin exposes the criminal racket that both Republicans and Democrats have covered up.

COVID Who Benefits?
Moderna paid Anthony Fauci’s NAID $400,000,000 for the rights to distribute the vaccine.

Where was it from?
COVID was engineered at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Published admission.

21 Minute True Story: Hear A Story That Will Change Your Mind Forever – David Martin

Hear about his biggest failure to date – a resounding success. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-nI1ut6rg

And if you are interested, here’s the link to his 21 minute failure:

and more:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CuU589xOD24/

Dr. David Martin – The Great Setup

The Most Concentrated Truth Shot Of Key Data