![\"Seven](\"http:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Seven_Percent_Increase_In_Deaths_Per_Shot-248x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\nJeff Childers has a SubStack called Coffee & Covid. I recommend it. Today’s ran like this:<\/p>\n
This weekend, the Epoch Times interviewed insurance analyst Josh Stirling on its long-form video program \u201cAmerican Thought Leaders.\u201d In the clip below, you\u2019ll hear analyst Stirling describing his analysis of mortality data by geographic area, in which he found a distinct statistical correlation between rates of vaccine uptake and excess deaths.<\/p>\n
Stirling summarized his conclusion saying, \u201cthe more doses on average you have in a region within the United States, the bigger increase increase in mortality that region has had in 2022 when compared to 2021.\u201d He said the data showed a +7% increase in risk of death for each shot taken, so that a person who took five shots would have a +35% risk of dying compared to an unvaccinated person.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Stirling said they analyzed the data several different ways, and consistently got the same result:<\/p>\n
\u201cIt exactly confirms the conclusion coming out of the UK data, it\u2019s a different way of doing it, it\u2019s a totally different data set, but ultimately it leads to a very similar mathematical conclusion. Which is a really unfortunate one, because, you know, obviously, hundreds of millions of us have \u2014 either we personally or our friends and family, and all of society \u2014 now have to deal with all of these consequences.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Though his conclusions were troubling, the data analyst had an optimistic take: having identified the problem we can work on solutions. I\u2019m an optimist too, but Josh forgot that not everyone accepts there is a problem. Not yet.<\/p>\n
But we\u2019re getting there.<\/p>\n
Robert Kennedy, Jr., is apparently seeing the same evidence that I am, and is reaching a similar conclusion: that the government\u2019s covid response, and then the vaccine rollout, were military operations right from the first face mask announcement. Particularly from the documents Sasha Latypova has heroically collected, it appears that the military somehow licensed the mRNA vaccine technology (through one or more cutouts) to Moderna and Pfizer, rather than those companies \u201cdiscovering\u201d or \u201cinventing\u201d the technology themselves.<\/p>\n
It seems reasonable that the if the military had an emergency drug recipe, it would use private contractors to manufacture, ship, and support billions of doses of the drug; those aren\u2019t normal military functions. So Pfizer and Moderna were likely just military contractors operating under classified contracts, some of which Sasha Latypova has uncovered.<\/p>\n
But I want to be clear: there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that the military orchestrated the pandemic response rather than just helped carry out the Executive Branch\u2019s plan. I\u2019m not sure anymore whether that matters. However, a non-sinister role for the military is hard to square with the fact that the government intentionally obscured the military\u2019s role, purposely play-acting to hide how intensely the pandemic response was in fact a military operation.<\/p>\n
There were lots of reasons to do it that way. For example, because the pandemic response was a military action, the government benefited from a lot of legal shortcuts, such as the thirty-day, truncated FDA-approval cycle. Ask yourself: who told the FDA to throw out all its normal approval procedures, and just rubber-stamp the vaccines? Did the military pull rank on the FDA, perhaps using some obscure emergency authority allowing it freedom to act if the United States is forced to respond to a biological weapons attack on the homeland?<\/p>\n
Remember: disgraced public health officials Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins both knew from day one that the virus was man made; it\u2019s right in the February 2020 emails. It\u2019s true that they illegally tried to keep the public from finding out, but it\u2019s also true that over a dozen scientists were independently contacting both officials, and they were all saying the same thing: this virus is not natural (so it might be a bioweapon).<\/p>\n
It was also telling that the FDA\u2019s lawyers argued to a judge that it would take them 75 years to review all the FDA documents Pfizer had submitted to support approval of its mRNA shot. How could it both be true that it only took thirty days for FDA scientists to carefully analyze Pfizer\u2019s documentation to ensure safety, efficacy, and regulatory compliance, but also that the lawyers would need 75 YEARS to to redact social security numbers from the exact same paperwork?<\/p>\n
I used to think the lawyers lied to keep the documents from coming out; but now I\u2019m wondering if it might have been the other way around. Maybe the truth is the FDA scientists never reviewed all that paperwork. Maybe the mRNA vaccines came out of the government\u2019s emergency-response toolkit, and no drug approval was required. The military doesn\u2019t NEED to wait for regulatory approval for its defensive countermeasures deployed during an enemy attack using biological weapons of mass destruction.<\/p>\n
If the pandemic response WAS a military operation, it isn\u2019t clear yet what it would imply. Here are three possibilities: It would probably mean the government\u2019s lie was even bigger than we thought. It would raise the question of whether covid IS in fact a bio-weapon. And that would raise the question of WHOSE bio-weapon it was \u2014 ours or someone else\u2019s?<\/p>\n