Professor Cahill being interviewed on how she travels freely without masks or vaccinations.
https://www.facebook.com/ifpdolorescahill/videos/209949584126961/
Why Did the CDC Silence the Million Dollar Harvard Project Charged With Upgrading Our Vaccine Safety Surveillance System?
There are major problems with the vaccine adverse event reporting system (known as VAERS) which the CDC considers the “front line” of vaccine safety. VAERS was created in 1990 by the CDC and FDA as a means to collect and analyze adverse effects that are associated with vaccines. Unfortunately, the failings of VAERS are “kept from the consciousness” not only of the public, but also from the doctors, pediatricians, and nurses that the public rely on to provide reliable information as to the safety of vaccines. I say “kept from the consciousness” rather than “kept secret” because while these failings are publicly disclosed for all the world to see, they are for all intents and purposes BURIED in documents seldom searched out by the average member of the medical community, much less by the average individual. You could say that the information has been very effectively hidden in plain sight.
By far, the most dire failure of the VAERS system is the vast underreporting of vaccine adverse effects which leads to a dangerous false security in vaccine safety and an erroneous assumption that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.
Who DOES know about the deadly elephant in the room?
The CDC, the FDA, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), and Congress to name a few. Oh, and an organization called Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc.- but we’ll get to them in a minute.
This is what the CDC says about the VAERS system, “Passive surveillance systems (e.g. VAERS) are subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, reporting of temporal associations or unconfirmed diagnoses, and lack of denominator data and unbiased comparison groups. Because of these limitations, determining causal associations between vaccines and adverse events from VAERS reports is usually not possible.” (emphasis mine)
In 2000, the 6th Report by the Committee on Government Reform addressed the failings of VAERS in its address of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The report states, “The quality of VAERS data has been questioned. Because reports are submitted from a variety of sources, some inexperienced in completing data forms for medical studies, many reports omit important data and contain obvious errors. Assessment is further complicated by the administration of multiple vaccines at the same time, following currently recommended vaccine schedules, because there may be no conclusive way to determine which vaccine or combination of vaccines caused the specific adverse event.”
The same Congressional report notes (on page 19), “Former FDA commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.” (emphasis mine)
The Congressional report above listed 4 limitations that the IOM Committees noted, “1) Inadequate understanding of biologic mechanisms underlying adverse events; 2) Insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case series; 3) Inadequate size or length of follow- up of many population- based epidemiological studies; 4) Limitations of existing surveillance systems to provide persuasive evidence of causation; and 5) Few published epidemiological studies.” The report continues by noting that the “IOM warned that ‘if research capacity and accomplishments [are] not improved, future reviews of vaccine safety [will be] similarly handicapped.’”
The IOM has been telling the CDC for over 23 years that they have inadequate information (and none at all in some cases) to advise on the causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events for a majority of adverse events reported. In a 1994 report on vaccines and adverse events the IOM stated, “The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee…Although the committee was not charged with proposing specific research investigations, in the course of its review additional obvious needs for research and surveillance were identified, and those are briefly described here.” (emphasis mine) In 2011, the IOM conducted another study examining the scientific evidence in studies available for 158 vaccine adverse effects. Again, they concluded that they had inadequate information to come to a decision, “The vast majority of causality conclusions in the report are the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.” (emphasis mine)
While one might expect a new program (new in 1990) to have a few bugs that need to be worked out, I would expect that when it comes to being able to ascertain vaccine safety, working out those bugs should be priority number one. Certainly today in 2017, a whopping 27 years later, the failure of the CDC to address this monumental danger to public health should be viewed with a skepticism much greater than mere suspicion.
That leads us to the interesting case of the CDC and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Inc.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave Harvard Medical School a $1 million dollar grant to track VAERS reporting at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for 3 years and to create an automated reporting system which would revolutionize the VAERS reporting system- transforming it from “passive” to “active.”
This project was called Electronic Support for Public Heath- Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). According to the grant final report, the scope of the project was, “To create a generalizable system to facilitate detection and clinician reporting of vaccine adverse events, in order to improve the safety of national vaccination programs.” To accomplish this the team used the electronic medical records at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc, which is described as a “large multi-specialty practice.” Every patient that received a vaccine was automatically identified and followed for 30 days. Within that 30 days the individual’s diagnostic health codes, lab tests, and prescriptions were evaluated to recognize any potential adverse event. Another goal of the project was to evaluate the performance of the new automated system via a randomized trial and to compare this new data to the existing data collected by VAERS and Vaccine Safety Datalink.
Just the preliminary description of this program is head and shoulders above the current functioning of the passive VAERS system. In our current system, adverse events are to be spontaneously reported by parents or health care providers. Most parents aren’t even aware the VAERS system exists, much less aware that they are supposed to be reporting to it. Health care providers are “supposed” to report adverse events, but we have no idea of the efficiency level with which this is occurring, and more than a hunch that this reporting is grossly neglected for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, many vaccine adverse events are never reported because either the parent, patient, or doctor is completely unaware that a subsequent adverse event is in fact due to a vaccine. This new reporting system would remove all of these failures from the equation.
What were the results?
Data was collected from June 2006 to October of 2009 on a total of 715,000 patients. Of those 715,000 patients, 376,452 were given 1.4 million doses of 45 different vaccines. A total of 35,570 possible adverse reactions were identified, so 2.6% of vaccinations were followed by a possible adverse reaction.
Let’s just take a minute to reflect on that last sentence. Out of only 376,452 individuals that received a vaccine at this Harvard practice, the new automated system identified 35,570 possible adverse reactions in a three year period. How does that stack up to the number of adverse effects reported to VAERS? According to the CDC, only 30,000 adverse events are reported every year for the entire US population. This finding alone should have had the CDC saying:
I’ll quote the findings directly from the report, “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. […] Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”
Again, let’s stop and think about this revelation for a moment: fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccination are exceedingly rare (and predominantly minor). According to the CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 10,274 emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? Simple multiplication would yield vaccine adverse events reports numbering 5,911,700!
Of course, at this point that figure is nothing but a guess. But, again, why do we HAVE To guess? Because in 27 years the CDC has failed to provide a post- licensure vaccine safety surveillance system that the IOM, FDA, physicians, and the public can have confidence in.
The report also states, “Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of the clinician’s usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.
So, WHY aren’t the reports currently being made to VAERS? According to the findings above, clinicians don’t know for sure what a vaccine adverse event is. This isn’t surprising at all considering what we learned from the 2011 IOM report above. There haven’t been enough studies performed for highly trained IOM scientists and physicians to even determine whether or not the majority of the currently suspected 158 adverse vaccine effects are indeed caused by vaccines. How could we possibly expect our average pediatricians or general practitioners to know what a team of IOM personnel have determined we have inadequate information to decide? In addition, this report basically finds that your clinician frankly doesn’t have the time to devote to proper VAERS reporting under the current inconvenient system.
You’d think that the CDC would be jumping for joy that this Harvard team just created a proactive, reliable, automated system that would improve the quality of our vaccination program by improving vaccine adverse event detection thereby increasing public confidence in post- licensure surveillance.
What was the CDC’s response?
Basically, the same response your average college student falls back on when they decide they are no longer interested in continuing a relationship- they cut all lines of communication. No more answering phone calls or emails. You heard me correctly, the United States of America Centers for Disease Control ghosted Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc. For those who are unaware, Google dictionary defines ghosting as, “the practice of ending a personal relationship by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication.” Personally, I would hope that I could hold an organization like the CDC to a higher standard, but…
After a one million dollar grant was paid and three years of research conducted on what appeared to be a very successful upgrade to the passive VAERS system, the team’s CDC contacts went MIA. The ESP:VAERS final report states, “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”
According to the final report, the only thing left for the CDC to do was link the VAERS system to the Harvard Pilgrim system in order to transmit the data. The team requested that the CDC do this, “However, real data transmissions of non-physician approved reports to the CDC was unable to commence, as by the end of this project, the CDC had yet to respond to multiple requests to partner for this activity.”
What do we, the public, take away from this debacle?
As I see it there are only two options.
You give the CDC the benefit of the doubt, assume deep down they have the safety of the public at heart and chalk up their monumental waste of money, time, and a good idea to bureaucratic incompetence.
You stop naively believing that the CDC cares ultimately about public safety and realize that the vaccine industry makes way too much money to allow public confidence in the safety of vaccines to be eroded by a surveillance system capable of giving the public a glimpse of the scope and magnitude of the adverse effects vaccines are actually responsible for.
To assist you in your decision making, I’ll leave you with a statistic from the ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) request to the HHS to meet the obligations set forth by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Safety Act regarding the CDC’s role in the vaccine industry market, “When the CDC recommends a pediatric vaccine for universal use, it creates for that vaccine’s maker a liability free market of 78 million children typically required by law to receive the vaccine.” (emphasis mine)
Don’t Stop Doing
Food Shortages Coming
I have posted previously about the dystopian view the World Economic Forum has of the future. This is part of it. Have you seen the film Soylent Green?
I haven’t yet. Must make time for it.
The End Of America – Ten Steps To Close Down an Open Society
Below is from Naomi Wolf, auther of: The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot
1 Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it.
2 Create a gulag
Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal “outer space”) – where torture takes place.
3 Develop a thug caste
When leaders who seek what I call a “fascist shift” want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens.
4 Set up an internal surveillance system
In Mussolini’s Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China – in every closed society – secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours.
5 Harass citizens’ groups
The fifth thing you do is related to step four – you infiltrate and harass citizens’ groups.
6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release
This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game.
7 Target key individuals
Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don’t toe the line.
8 Control the press
Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s – all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists.
9 Dissent equals treason
Cast dissent as “treason” and criticism as “espionage’. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of “spy” and “traitor”.
10 Suspend the rule of law
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency – which the president now has enhanced powers to declare – he can send Michigan’s militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state’s governor and its citizens.
The Collapse Of Civilization
How nanotech is changing your world
The American engineer Eric Drexler, who coined the term nanotechnology in the 1980s, is not afraid of ambitious thinking. In his 2013 book Radical Abundance: How a Revolution in Nanotechnology Will Change Civilization, Drexler imagines a 3D printer-like “factory in a box”, which could manipulate atoms precisely enough to manufacture almost anything.
We may still be far from realizing Drexler’s vision, but the field which he named is maturing quickly. Only a few years ago, nanotech was still caricatured as the preserve of crazy scientists. According to Aymeric Sallin, chief executive officer of venture capital firm NanoDimension, that has all changed and “it is now getting traction from large corporates and institutional investors. CEOs are moving from big, established companies to nanotech enterprises”.
No-needle vaccines
Nanotech is everywhere – from the needle-less Nanopatch vaccine delivery system of Vaxxas, one of the World Economic Forum’s new crop of Technology Pioneers, to the work of the Forum’s Young Scientist community member Hele Savin on making solar panels more efficient by removing impurities in silicon. So how big is the nanotech industry?
The question makes no sense, says Sallin. “Nanotech is not an industry in itself, but an enabler across all industries. By manipulating individual atoms and molecules, you can access intermediary states of matter where nature’s physical properties have changed; this is unlocking commercial opportunities from health to manufacturing, energy to farming.”
In medicine, especially, the promise of nanotechnology has been apparent for years but is only now coming to fruition. CEO of venture capital firm Flagship Ventures, Noubar Afeyan, explains: “If we could cure diseases with human imagination alone, we’d be done by now. You can write things down, and design them, and they should work – but reality is always more complex. For example, original approaches to creating nanomedicine often underestimated the need for targeting, so they were interacting with all kinds of things in the body.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/09/nanotechnology-revolution-making/
Peruvian court rules that Bill Gates, George Soros and Rockefeller family “created” coronavirus pandemic
Bill Gates, George Soros, and several members of the Rockefeller family were deemed responsible for the advent and spread of the Chinese virus, which has killed tens of thousands of small businesses and forever changed the world for the worst.
The Chicha and Pisco Criminal Appeals Chamber decided that the ever-dreaded Chinese germs were the product of “criminal elite around the world” – mostly multi-billionaires with global depopulation on their minds.
https://www.newstarget.com/2021-01-29-bill-gates-george-soros-rockefeller-family-coronavirus.html
Farenheit 451
Steve Boehme writes: An essential title in my library of timelessly relevant fiction, ever too prescient about the approaching dystopia. This is the one of the books that convinced me, as a teenager, that I needed to live in the country. The ending of the book was my personal takeaway…
COVID-1984 PCP Update – Prima Facie Evidence of Pandemic Fraud
From Michael O Bernicia via Flote.app
Over the course of the past month, we have amassed a plethora of prima facie evidence, which proves that the defendants in the Private Criminal Prosecution are responsible for COVID-1984 and are guilty of multiple acts of pandemic fraud.
Whilst we are more than confident that we now have enough evidence to justify the issue of either a warrant or a summons, we are still waiting for key FOI responses, which are due to be received no later than today.
In the event we receive the responses due, we will be aiming to lay the new information before Christmas. If all the key the responses don’t come in, we will be forced to wait until the new year.
However, in the meantime, here lies a summary of the allegations we can prove beyond reasonable doubt.
False Representation
The defendants knowingly relied upon the following dishonest statements for material gain, in breach of section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006:
a. 510,000 people would perish due to Sars-Cov2 in the UK alone, if the draconian measures imposed had not been introduced.
b. Sars-Cov2 is an airborne High Consequence Infectious Disease [HCID], worthy of being declared a worldwide pandemic, as well as a Public Health Emergency.
c. Sars-Cov2 has been isolated and purified, and therefore, proven to exist.
d. Masks are a safe and effective method of preventing the spread of Sars-Cov2.
e. The policies introduced were entirely founded on the latest scientific data available.
f. PCR tests detect the presence of Sars-Cov2 in the human body.
Non-Disclosure
In breach of section 3 of the 2006 Act, we have prima facie evidence that shows the defendants have also knowingly failed to disclose that:
a. Two days after the WHO declared a worldwide pandemic on 11/03/2020, which was also the day that the inflated Imperial College predictions were pre-published and disclosed to the WHO, Sars-Cov2 was reclassified as not being an HCID on 13/03/2020.
The WHO’s declaration was founded upon Neil Ferguson’s computer-generated Imperial College Model released on 16/03/2020, which falsely predicted that there would be 510,000 Covid deaths in the UK, if the strict lockdown restrictions were not imposed. He did so on the same day of the 1st reading of the Coronavirus Bill 2020, sponsored by Matt Hancock.
b. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, the Department of Health & Social care [DHSC] and Public Health England [PHE] unanimously agreed that Sars-Cov2 should no longer be classified as an airborne HCID, before the 1st reading of the 2020 Act on 16/03/2020. Three days later, on 19/03/2020, news of the reclassification was published by PHE, which was six days after the decision to reclassify the supposed pandemic.
Yet, on the 23rd of March 2020, BoJo decreed the first lockdown, which was given the force and effect of the legislature on 26/02/2020, despite the fact that Neil Ferguson had reduced the Imperial Model predictions from 510,000 to 20,000 deaths by no later than 24/03/2020 – the day after the initial lockdown decree and two days before the 2020 Act was passed.
Moreover, the so-called undisclosed ‘science’ relied upon by the defendants was and remains the Imperial College model, the credibility of which had been emphatically destroyed before the Coronavirus Bill was enacted, along with the purported legitimacy of the Public Health Emergency declared by the secretary of state, upon the advice of other defendants to this action.
c. It is well established that Sars-Cov2 has never been isolated or purified and has therefore never been proven to exist. In fact, no supposed strain of Coronavirus ever has been.
d. The defendants have all materially gained or stand to gain from long-standing commitments to maximise vaccination uptake in the UK, for the purposes of which they engaged in engineering an entirely fraudulent pandemic, in order to justify a mandatory or compulsory vaccination agenda.
e. PCR tests have been scientifically proven to detect human RNA sequences, not viruses or disease, whilst a Portuguese court recently declared that the tests are useless in relation to detecting the presence of a virus or disease.
f. It is also alleged that the WHO approved flu vaccines that have been administered from 2019-20 in the UK, which kill 377 of every 100,000 healthy people who take them and have never been tested on the sick and the vulnerable; and that these flu vaccines have been responsible for many of the deaths which have been dishonestly recorded as Covid deaths, in accordance with the 2020 Act, which provides for the falsification of death certificates.
Since the new Covid vaccines have never been subjected to rigorous and empirically controlled safety tests and because they contain many, if not all, of the same ingredients, it can be reasonably presumed that all the deaths due to the administering of all of these vaccines have been falsely recorded as Covid deaths, on the basis that no vaccine mortalities have been recorded in the UK this year, as far as we are aware.
Nevertheless, the only way to know for sure what caused those deaths would be to conduct autopsies, which have been prevented by the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. Thus we are seeking a declaration from the court that those autopsies are conducted, under independent supervision, to determine how many of those people died shortly after being injected with this year’s vaccines.
g. A German court has recently ruled that unequivocal scientific evidence shows that wearing masks for long periods of time causes significant brain damage, via oxygen deprivation and carbon dioxide poisoning. Yet the UK government continues to mandate mask wearing in all public settings, including schools and universities, when there is no evidence of any benefit derived from mandating that they be worn.
In summary, we’ve nailed the charges with such an abundance of prima facie evidence that only the suspension of the criminal justice system is capable of protecting the accused from the consequences of their heinous crimes.
The Rigged System, Dolan’s Defeat & The Last Remedy Standing
During the past few weeks, many UK activists have declared, in the wake of the Hancock warrant being denied and Simon Dolan’s case being dismissed, that it is clear that there is no legal remedy possible in the courts, but they have done so without recognising the stark differences between the two cases, whether knowingly or unknowingly.
Firstly, the warrant application in the PCP was not dismissed as vexatious or without merit – we were merely told that we needed more prima facie evidence before a judge would issue either a warrant or a summons in the names of the defendants.
As expressed in the foregoing, we are on the brink of providing that evidence in a fresh application to the criminal court under the Common Law, as we prepare to move to the next stage in the proceedings.
Whereas Dolan has had his expensive case thrown out by the high court, the court of appeal and the supreme court, all of which presided in the civil domain, where the courts have long since been rigged to protect the establishment from the consequences of their crimes.
Nevertheless, even if the civil system wasn’t rigged, Dolan was always destined to lose because he was hopelessly arguing that he was entitled to his lost company revenues as a human right, which was allegedly denied to him by the government’s COVID-1984 regulations.
In other words, he was claiming that corporate revenues are a human right, when they are merely the result of successful business operations, all of which are conducted in the name of a corporate legal person, not a natural person or a human being.
Doomed To Fail
It appears everything else he alleged was mere window dressing, carefully designed to secure crowd-funding for nigh on half a million pounds worth of completely wasted legal costs, which one of the judges implied he didn’t have the funds to pay himself, at the outset of the application for permission to bring a claim of judicial review.
At least, that’s what I read in the transcript of his judgment and the summaries of the original claim being made, which I found in the public records of the case. The courageous solicitor I shared the judgment with wholeheartedly concurred.
No wonder Dolan spurned both my constructive criticism and my offer of collaboration, before proceeding to attempt to discredit our case on social media, on the fallacious ground that there was no such thing as a Private Criminal Prosecution, despite the fact that I ran one myself in the summer of 2013, alleging multiple breaches of the Fraud Act 2006.
Our Most Realistic Chance
Secondly, in the criminal domain, when there is sufficient prima facie evidence that proves indictable offences, such as fraud, have been committed, a single district judge decides whether the case is properly pleaded, with or without a hearing.
Whereas, in the civil courts, judges allow hearsay evidence that is inadmissible in the criminal courts, whilst they effectively preside as the sole arbiter of whether justice is done; which, my own direct and indirect experience has taught me, very rarely occurs in the civil domain.
Furthermore, in the event a summons or warrant is issued by a criminal court, the case then proceeds to a pleading hearing, before a trial is listed and the evidence is presented to a jury, which decides whether the defendants are innocent or guilty.
In the most simplistic terms possible, it is much harder to control the outcome of a decision made by a Common Law Jury, than it is to control a civil decision, which money almost always decides.
Suitably Cautious Optimism
However, even though we are much more likely to succeed by relying upon the ancient Common Law Jury Trial to see that justice is done, don’t for one moment think that I’m not fully availed of the certainty that the establishment was always going to do everything it could to derail the PCP, just as the banksters tried to do when I took them on and won, albeit after a nine year war of attrition.
Suffice to say, this occasion is no different in many respects. I am therefore well versed in decisively dealing with the predictable strategies of my adversaries, none of whom ever foresee even the remotest possibility that they will suffer the humiliating defeats they always incur in the end, as much of the content on this blog unequivocally affirms.
Having said that, I can’t guarantee what the eventual outcome will be at this precise juncture, but I’m cautiously optimistic enough to guarantee that the Private Criminal Prosecution we are running is the last remedy standing under the Common Law and that we will not relent in our struggle until justice is done, freedom is restored and our children’s future is secured, irrespective of the seemingly insurmountable problems we appear to face.