Category: Vaccines

Posted on

Permission or Manipulation by Greg Yodis

Permission is defined as allowing yourself to proceed forward with the choices, decisions and actions you make.

Yet there is a second part to the definition that cannot be left out. It becomes permission only when one is willing to accept full responsibility for their choices, decisions and actions.

If one allows themselves to proceed forward with their choices, decisions and actions without taking and accepting full responsibility, than this changes the label from Permission to Manipulation.

When a person allows someone else to take responsibility … than that is the purest definition of manipulation.

Understanding the differences between these two words in a real and genuine way, helps you to discern in life much easier and faster.

Example 1: What about a man who wants to live with a woman, yet doesn’t want children and will leave if the woman gets pregnant? Is he giving himself permission to love her or would this fall under the definition of manipulation? This is a conversation I’ve had with my own daughter.

Example 2: I spoke with a man in Bali and he told me how a business of his didn’t do well and he was stuck being responsible for all the debt and his partners were not. His partners had the agreement that he would shoulder the debt while they were “allowed” to share in the profits. I looked at him and I said, “Wow, they weren’t real business partners, they were just manipulator partners. He said, “Oh no, I don’t think so.” … I said to him, “They never took responsibility for the business … you did. You gave yourself permission while they gave themselves manipulation.” It’s so quick and easy to see once these words are understood.

So, really think about the differences between these two words. Where do you see the two differences playing out in your life? Where do I see them being played out in my life? Where do you see them playing out in the world?

So the question is this: Does what you see and hear have the credibility of permission or the cleverness of manipulation?

The thing about these definitions, is once I personally came to understand them, it became easy for me to understand up front who was giving themselves true permission and who was only manipulating. It gave almost a clairvoyance to insightful discernment.

When I finally understood what these words really meant, it didn’t take long to perceive the truth and respond to most situations. People tell me who they are and I believe them.

Does a politician, your doctor, your grocer, your gov’t, the companies you deal with and buy from, the people you deal with, your pharmacist, your car salesman, the Media give themselves permission or give themselves manipulation?

How about the Pharmaceutical Companies?

When Fauci absolved all the Pharmaceutical companies from any liability for the Vxxxns they manufacture and are now forcing on the world, did he give them permission or manipulation? In 1986 when the gov’t absolved all the Vxxxn companies from any liability to to the adverse effects of their products, were the companies given permission or manipulation? When the Gov’ts of the world need to give a waiver on the liability of a Vxxxn before a Pharmaceutical Corporation will sell to them, are they giving themselves and the companies permission or just the ability to manipulate?

Really ask yourself these questions and answer for yourself honestly. Upon reflection of these two definitions, It doesn’t take much thought process to understand what is happening does it?

They want to give your children these shots and they have never given themselves true permission to do so.
So why should you give in to their manipulation and take all the responsibility?

People tell me who they are and I believe them. Companies tell me who they are and I believe them.
The people in gov’t tell me who they are and I believe them.

The politicians of today and the Big Pharma companies are manipulators through and through. Nothing more needs to be understood. This whole Covid mess could have been stopped right in the beginning if the world only understood the meaning of these two simple words …

Permission and Manipulation

So do it now. Stop this mess, stop the ruse and protect your children. Stop participating and say NO to these manipulative criminals.

Posted on

CDC Data Reveals COVID Vaccine Could Shave Off 24 Years from Men’s Lives!

The long-term consequences of Covid-19 vaccination are now being realised…

A year ago, doubly vaccinated Australians were 10.72x more likely to catch Omicron than the unvaxxed. Now they are 20x more likely and the triply or more vaxxed are 35x more likely, as the latest NSW Health stats show (see below).

Meanwhile, the latest Cleveland Clinic Data and the latest US data analysed by Josh Stirling, founder of Insurance Collaboration to Save Livess and former #1 ranked Insurance Analyst, shows a really really disturbing trend.

The damage to health caused by each vaccine dose does not lessen over time. It continues indefinitely.

In fact, CDC All-Cause Mortality data show that each vaccine dose increased mortality by 7% in the year 2022 compared to the mortality in year 2021.

So if you have had 5 doses then you were 35% more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021. If you have had one dose then you were 7% more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021. If you are unvaxxed then you were no more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021.

Conclusion
The population of NSW in Australia is 6½ million people. They are a highly vaccinated group. Looking at the Australian Government data for the last 6 weeks of 2022 we see that.

1. Those with 1 or 2 doses are 20x more likely to be admitted to hospital with Covid than those with no doses.
2. Those with 3 or 4 or more doses are 35x more likely to be admitted to hospital with Covid than those with no doses.
3. Being unvaxxed provides 100% protection from having to go to the ICU. Being vaxxed gives you a 6 in 100,000 chance of being hospitalised in the ICU.
4. Vaccines are unsafe and extremely ineffective.
5. COVID-19 vaccination is putting unsustainable pressure on hospitals and ICUs in NSW and by implication all over the world.
6. The NHS in the UK will be destroyed unless vaccinations are banned immediately. It may already be too late.
7. The vaccines prevent herd immunity. Herd immunity will never be reached in the vaxxed. It has already been reached in the unvaxxed
8. The continuation of the pandemic is entirely caused by the anti vaccines.

The last time I looked at the data in NSW, for the last 6 weeks of 2021, the double vaxxed were 2.18x more likely to catch Omicron than the unvaxxed.

Here were are today, 12 months later in the last 6 weeks of 2022, and the double vaxxed are not 2.18x, but actually 20x more likely to catch the latest variant. And the triple jabbed are 35x more likely!

So there is the immune system destruction that I predicted in October2021. There is the progressive vaccine-mediated AIDS. These are farcical Monty Python kinds of numbers. As I understand it the Australian government is now going to stop classifying hospital data by vax status.

Talk about bury your head in the sand. In any event. It is too late. The cat is out of the bag. These figures are an accelerating immunological catastrophe.

https://expose-news.com/2023/09/01/c19-jab-reduces-lives-of-men-by-24-years/

Posted on

Pfizer Drip Feeds Data From its Pregnancy Trial

Ultrasound

Important data on a poorly executed trial of COVID vaccines on pregnant women. All the usual flaws and deceptions and very slow, incomplete release of results.

In January 2021, in the absence of any human data in pregnancy, the CDC stated on its website that mRNA vaccines were “unlikely to pose a specific risk for people who are pregnant.”

Former CDC director Rochelle Walensky backed it up with a full-throated endorsement of covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

“There is no bad time to get vaccinated,” said Walensky.

“Get vaccinated while you’re thinking about having a baby, while you’re pregnant with your baby or after you’ve delivered your baby,” she added.

Behind the scenes however, Pfizer was scrambling to conduct a clinical trial of its vaccine in pregnant women.

By February 2022, Pfizer revealed it still did “not yet have a complete data set.” Its statement read:
“The environment changed during 2021 and by September 2021, COVID-19 vaccines were recommended by applicable recommending bodies (e.g., ACIP in the U.S.) for pregnant women in all participating/planned countries, and as a result the enrollment rate declined significantly.”

This month, Pfizer finally posted some trial results on clinicaltrials.gov.

The data do not appear in a peer-reviewed journal or a pre-print, nor has it been submitted to the FDA for evaluation.

I spoke with experts who have analysed the data with a fine-toothed comb and made some alarming observations.

Trial design

Pfizer originally planned to recruit 4,000 healthy women aged 18 or older who were 24 to 34 weeks pregnant. Half would be randomised to the vaccine and the other half to a saline placebo.

The efficacy and safety of the vaccine would be determined by assessing covid-19 cases, antibody responses, and adverse events.

Peculiarly, Pfizer planned to vaccinate all the mothers in the placebo group, one month after giving birth to their babies.

Retsef Levi, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management said that vaccinating mothers in the placebo group during the assessment period would introduce a new variable into the experiment and “corrupt” the data.

“We now know that mRNA from the vaccine is detected in the breast milk, so those babies born from mothers who were all vaccinated after giving birth, are also potentially exposed to mRNA through breastfeeding,” explained Levi.

“This corrupts the comparison of the two groups of babies because you don’t have a true control group anymore,” he added.

Sample size too small

Less than 10 percent of the originally planned 4,000 study participants ended up in the trial.

“Only 348 women were recruited – 174 in each arm – meaning that the trial was never going to have the statistical power, particularly when analysing potential harms,” said Levi.

Notably, study protocols indicate that Pfizer was given the green light as early as May 2021 by drug regulators to scale back the trial and reduce the sample size.

“To me, the wording in the protocol suggests that the FDA or another regulator basically gave Pfizer permission to do less,” remarked Levi.

“It’s not surprising though. The vaccine had already been recommended for pregnant women and many have taken it, so there is no upside to completing a trial that may detect signals of potential harms. It can only create problems for them, right?” he added.

Given that pregnant women were being vaccinated with a product that had not undergone rigorous safety testing in pregnancy, the FDA was asked if and why it allowed Pfizer to scale back the trial.

The FDA replied, “As a general matter, FDA does not comment on interactions it may or may not be having with sponsors about their clinical trials.”

Angela Spelsberg, an epidemiologist and medical director at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Aachen in Germany agreed that the integrity of the study had been compromised.

“There are just not enough babies in this trial to detect rare or very rare adverse events. We learned from studies in animals that lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine can deposit in many organs including the ovaries, so we must be extremely cautious about the potential negative impacts of the vaccine on reproductive health,” said Spelsberg.

“The scientific community urgently needs access to the pregnancy study data on the patient level for transparency and independent scrutiny of vaccine safety and efficacy because regulatory oversight is failing,” she added.

Exclusion criteria

The small sample size may have been the result of the strict selection process.

Pfizer recruited participants with an impeccable pregnancy history, and most were in their third trimester (27-34 weeks gestation), a stage when the baby’s major development has already occurred.

“It appears that they cherry picked the mothers to get the best results,” said Levi. “We have no idea what impact this vaccine has on the early stages of development of an embryo or foetus, because all the women had advanced pregnancies when they were recruited.”

Spelsberg agreed.

“The first trimester is particularly vulnerable to adverse reproductive health outcomes,” she said.

“Based on only weak observational evidence, regulators have reassured the public that the vaccines are safe throughout pregnancy. However, we don’t have reliable evidence on the vaccine’s impact on miscarriages, malformation, foetal deaths, and maternal health risks because they excluded pregnant women from pivotal trials,” added Spelsberg.

Missing data

Levi also noticed that “only partial data” were published.

“It doesn’t include any important metrics such as covid infections or antibody levels and its says we must wait until July 2024 for those results. It’s disturbing to say the least,” said Levi.

Also missing from the dataset was a full account of birth outcomes. Of the 348 women in the trial, Pfizer only reported on the birth of 335 live babies.

Of the 13 pregnancies unaccounted for, Pfizer reported one foetal death (stillbirth) in the vaccine group and the outcome of the other 12 pregnancies remains unknown.

“This is unacceptable,” said Levi. “Failing to report the outcome of 12 pregnancies could mask a potentially concerning signal of the vaccine in pregnancy. What happened to the babies, did they all die? Were their mothers vaccinated or unvaccinated?”

Trial dropouts

Finally, there were quite a few babies that were lost to follow-up in the trial.

“Twenty-nine babies in the placebo arm didn’t get to the end of the 6-month surveillance period, versus 15 babies in the vaccine arm. That’s almost double.

Again, this is concerning and requires a detailed and transparent explanation,” said Levi.

Overall, both Levi and Spelsberg say the delays and failure to disclose vital data are unacceptable.

“Pfizer took a year to publish the data. When they finally did, it is incomplete. And we are expected to wait until July 2024 for the next batch of results, while authorities continue to recommend the vaccine in pregnant women,” said Levi.

“We still don’t have solid scientific evidence whether this vaccine is safe for pregnant women and their babies,” said Spelsberg. “It’s a tragedy and a scandal that vaccine use has been recommended, even mandated to women before, during and after pregnancy.”

Questions were put to Pfizer, but the company did not respond by the deadline.

Moderna is also conducting a clinical trial of its mRNA vaccine in pregnancy, but no data are available.

Article by Maryanne Demasi, relayed from Rational Ground substack

Posted on

Have your say on the Vaccine Indemnity Bill

Senator Ralph Babet writes:
It has been a big few weeks in Canberra. I returned home a few days ago and have just found a moment to sit down and reflect on everything we have achieved.
I successfully introduced to the Senate our Vaccine Indemnity Bill. This bill seeks to prevent the finance minister from granting indemnity to vaccine manufacturers. Introducing this bill was not easy, but we were able to secure the support of the Coalition, Greens and all crossbenchers to refer our bill to a Senate Committee for review. CLICK HERE to download Frequently Asked Questions.
The great thing about this committee process is that you will be able to have your say on the bill and put in a submission. This submission does not need to be a novel, it can be as simple as your personal thoughts and opinions. 
 
My bill is open to public submissions for the next six weeks, so please share this far and wide, we need as many submissions as possible. Click the button below to make a submission.

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/VaccineIndemnity47

Posted on

Families that inject mRNA together, develop Turbo Cancer together?

Battling Cancer Together

Dr. Makis: Families that inject mRNA together, develop Turbo Cancer together? – 12 unbelievable stories of two or three family members developing aggressive cancer at the same time! mRNA technology

https://palexander.substack.com/p/dr-makis-families-that-inject-mrna

This was predicted two years ago:
https://theexpose.uk/2021/10/15/its-worse-than-we-thought-fully-covid-vaccinated-ade/

I don’t know if you recall a post from a while back by a doctor who said taking the vaccine was like taking a sledgehammer to your immune system? Turns out he was right!

And it is not just the jabbed who are at risk. The latest research shows that even the blood from the unjabbed has been affected.

I have seen and shared several presentations on different things that various health professionals thought would do something to help mitigate the damage from vax ingredients but they all seemed very partial solutions so I amalgamated and documented them here: https://www.tomgrimshaw.com/tomsblog/?p=35644

Please, take advantage of my work in compiling this! I am not charging for it. It is far too important to take the chance of being denigrated by critics as a money making exercise!