It is way past time to conduct a REAL WORLD documentation of ACTUAL health outcomes between vaccinated and the TRUE "controls" who avoided the jabs. But instead, they do "studies" grounded upon nothing more than literal LIES (baseless assumptions) that were never based upon any DATA.
And when we go into court, we go in with all courts pressing the presumption that any and ALL injectable drugs that get classified as "vaccines" produce a net public health benefit. And even when we produced clear and irrefutable evidence that NONE of these drugs produce anything other than a net destruction to public health, these conflicted judges (who are heavily invested in pharma) refuse to acknowledge that any evidence has been presented.
It will not stop UNTIL some prosecutors grow a set and start tossing these scumbags in prison. If they refuse to allow us any CIVIL remedy to prevent our own extermination at the hands of government,....... I guess there won't be enough security in the whole world to stop what's likely coming from the FURIOUS victims, who are now realizing what's been done to them and their loved ones. Genocide is a very risky way to make a living;-)
We must continue to peacefully observe reality and comment on actual health outcomes. I don't see what is happening as a genocide, but there is certainly a great deal of harm that should not have happened and that should be avoided in the future. People aspiring to positions of power should do so by serving the truth, not by seeking dominance using dishonest means.
Deaths of Americans of working age people are suddenly up by over 50% since they rolled out the new jabs. And MOST of the victims will be dying over the next year or so, due to the fact these jabs work like delayed incendiary devices. They OPENLY state that the goal is to reduce the world population by over 90% by 2030. Anyone who actually believes any of this is happening to "save lives" needs to read more, and watch less TV.
These deaths, (and the billions to come) are NOT a mere "accident" or a coincidence. I know it is a level of evil beyond comprehension, but it is VERY real. Monsters look like normal people. This is HOW they get away with these things.
Vaccine adverse effects definitely need to be studied honestly and systematically. Personally, I do not tend to believe that it is a deliberate plan, but regardless of that, adverse side effects must be acknowledged and studied to avoid repeating the same mistake again. At the very least, similar vaccines, if they are on the market in the future, must be subject to true, free and well-informed personal choice without coercion.
It's not as if "vaccine adverse events" haven't been "studied honestly and systematically". The problem is that every single one of these studies that IS conducted is ferociously censored. Do you not know that the medical journals receive more than 95% of their funding directly from Pharma? They will not publish evidence which indicts them and kills the goose that lays the golden eggs for them. Vaccines are their biggest money-maker.
Do you not know that "news" channels receive 60 to 70% of their advertising revenues from Pharma? Do you not know how deeply in bed big-tech is with Pharma? Do you not know that our so-called "health" agencies get up to 50% of their funding directly from Pharma?
- where you will see the conclusion that: "Adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with LESS THAN 1% reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."
Please explain to me HOW an accounting system that FAILS to capture the relevant data OVER 99% of the time was NOT specifically engineered to fail? Flipping a coin would be a more accurate accounting system.
So long as people keep going along with the LIE that adverse events are "rare' -or that there are NO STUDIES - (and waiting for pharma to conduct or "publish" them) we're not going to be able to get the point across that there are ALREADY more than adequate studies which have irrefutably proven CAUSE.
It is now time to actually LOOK at the studies that have already been conducted. Waiting for pharma to agree to publish these studies before we're ready to call it "science" is a losing game. Evidence is evidence, whether or not the pharmaceutical-industrial complex agrees. Letting pharma dictate the meaning of "science" or "evidence" is beyond absurd, but it's sort of where we are at the moment.
Pharma defines a "control" as a person who has been injected with OTHER dangerous vaccines. If the new one being tested (on the "treatment" group) produces an "equal" number of INJURIES and DEATHS, then the new jab is called "safe". This type of outright fraud is then referred to as "science"- and the sheep believe it without ever examining the raw data or questioning the methodology of their "trials".
There is no "health" agency even pretending to track the long-term health effects of vaccine exposure, and the immediately-visible destruction is reported at a rate of less than 1%. If it were NOT a "deliberate plan" how then would you explain the CDC's directive to classify all recently vaccinated people who appear at hospitals with disabling and deadly vaccine-injuries as "unvaccinated"? The have ordered the hospitals to classify all those who received their 2nd covid jab less than 14 days before the onset of their symptoms at "unvaccinated". Please clarify how this is not "deliberate"?
These are NOT "accidents". This directive is no different than the CDC sending the hospitals bags of lime, shovels, and directions to the nearest remote dumping grounds, along with specific instructions on how to bury the maimed and dead bodies from public view. Far from being an "oversight" or mere negligence, directions to hide the evidence of vaccine injury is evidence of mens rea. This is a proactive move to hide EVIDENCE and it is quite "deliberate".
Thanks for this detailed information. I agree that all existing data has to be studied and that unfortunately there are incentives in the system to not do so. I think that sometimes the spontaneous behavior of controlling people is quite similar to a conspiracy in terms of how it looks, but this does not necessarily make it a deliberate conspiracy. In either case, the responsibility to seek the truth remains. Because I am not a person with expertise in science, I focus on writing about this from a cultural/historical/literary point of view and emphasizing the basic value that human beings have the right to observe the reality around them and to speak out when they suspect that we are being manipulated--even if I do not fully understand the absolute truth.
Automatically ruling out the possibility of a deliberate and coordinated effort requires one to intentionally ignore an ASTOUNDING amount of profound evidence to the contrary.
The WHO & UNICEF are primarily organized to promote and distribute vaccines world-wide. They are both subsidiaries of the UN. The UN's PRIMARY goal is depopulation, and they openly state that this IS their goal. Do you actually believe the UN funds vaccine programs to "save lives"???
I know such deliberate evil is hard to wrap one's mind around. However, one must only look to our recent history to see many profound examples of such evil. Why people believe this type of evil has somehow been eradicated, or that it no longer exists in high places, is beyond me.
Always automatically ascribing good motives (and ruling out any bad motives) when the evidence is so stunningly contrary to such a conclusion, is not helping us resolve this. Evil is a real "thing". It DOES exist in high places today. And those at the lower levels of this machine are afraid of losing their income, or even their very lives, for speaking out and/or refusing to go along with "orders" from on-high. However, in the end, the defense of "I vus ohnlay followink ohdahs" won't protect ANY of these people.
Thank you, thank you! I have not gotten a covid jab and don't plan to. But when I read a mainstream media news story about Fisman's study, I was concerned. Am I putting other people's health at risk? Your post reassurred me that my decision to remain unjabbed is the right one for me.
You're benefitting others by remaining unjabbed. As many virologists have made clear for a very long time (including Dr Luigi Warren, who pioneered mRNA reprogramming during his postdoctoral work at Harvard Med School), the mRNA "vaccines" do not confer immunity, so cannot contribute to herd immunity. Only the unjabbed can help society reach herd immunity (if it can be done at all, as the jabbed are driving mutants). Carry on being unjabbed, and feel good about it, not only for your own health, but for the good of others.
And, sadly, the unjabbed will have the burden of caring for the sick and dying jabbed over months and years, and then burying them and having to adopt their pets and minor children. We'll have a lot of necessary work to do.
I'm already in a position of helping a childless, triple-jabbed woman in her early 60s who was perfectly healthy before the Pfizer jabs but whose immune system is now shot and who is getting more and more sick (severe auto-immune issues and testing positive for Covid). She owns 8 rescue felines, all getting up in years like her, who will need to be re-homed in the not-too-distant future. The unjabbed will be surrounded by such situations. Brace yourself ...
I am not a scientist, but your argument about herd immunity fostered by those who are not unjabbed makes sense intuitively. I am not as pessimistic about the extent of harm that will be done, but I am sorry for all those who suffered adverse effects, and it is disturbing that adverse effects are not being taken seriously. I myself did get two doses because I would not be able to work otherwise and because the social tension was too much for me. I had an episode of fainting and repeated dizzy spells that I believe were associated with the second dose, but then I went back to feeling normal. It seems from reports that many people suffered much more, and these reports should be studied seriously. Regardless of the extent of vaccine adverse effects, medical decisions should be an individual choice--not forced.
I am pleased to hear that you are feeling "normal" after being forced to take the jabs to keep your job, but I would advise you, if you aren't already doing so, to take certain supplements to protect yourself:
Another to add to the list of critiques: "We did not model waning immunity." Um....what? So the authors assumed one gets a new jab every 6 weeks or so. (Note that Fisman "has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines...") That might explain why he thinks 6 weeks is a good period between jabs.
And then there's the editorial language in the introduction, which has no place in science. Unless, of course, one begins from a biased conclusion and hides it behind a methodology that smells a bit like "science" but is actually a political assertion of segregation.
Weak mathematical models have driven public policy through the Covid period. They will continue to do so as long as the decision-makers and public health officials hold this unprecedented level of power.
Thanks for your insightful analysis, which helps to show that this is indeed about power, not about genuine truth seeking. I am not a scientist, but I do not think that editorial language (thanks for the term) such as the following one is how science should be written:
"However, antivaccine sentiment, fuelled in part by organized disinformation efforts, has resulted in suboptimal uptake of readily available vaccines in many countries, with adverse health and economic consequences.8–10 Although the decision not to receive vaccination is often framed in terms of the rights of individuals to opt out,11,12 such arguments neglect the potential harms to the wider community that derive from poor vaccine uptake."
Precisely! And fortunately one of the critiques on the CMAJ website points this out. It's highly unprofessional, but also compromises their credibility. Sadly, the principle author has been shaping Canada's pandemic response all along, despite his ties to Big Pharma.
Here's an enlightening piece about Fisman from May of 2021 --
"Meet David Fisman: OST; ETFO; Gaslighting; When a Side Hustle Goes Horribly Wrong"
An excerpt:
"The Dalla Lana School of Public Health, or DLSPH, is effectively a branch of the World Health Organization. While masquerading as scientists, this UofT cabal provides political cover for Doug Ford. There are conflicts of interest everywhere.
This focuses on David Fisman. It’s not because he has anything particularly interesting or insightful to say. Instead, it’s because his side grift with ETFO accidentally exposed a huge problem."
Thank you for the reference. It is unfortunate that so many health authorities seem to be motivated by interests other than the wellbeing human beings.
It is way past time to conduct a REAL WORLD documentation of ACTUAL health outcomes between vaccinated and the TRUE "controls" who avoided the jabs. But instead, they do "studies" grounded upon nothing more than literal LIES (baseless assumptions) that were never based upon any DATA.
And when we go into court, we go in with all courts pressing the presumption that any and ALL injectable drugs that get classified as "vaccines" produce a net public health benefit. And even when we produced clear and irrefutable evidence that NONE of these drugs produce anything other than a net destruction to public health, these conflicted judges (who are heavily invested in pharma) refuse to acknowledge that any evidence has been presented.
It will not stop UNTIL some prosecutors grow a set and start tossing these scumbags in prison. If they refuse to allow us any CIVIL remedy to prevent our own extermination at the hands of government,....... I guess there won't be enough security in the whole world to stop what's likely coming from the FURIOUS victims, who are now realizing what's been done to them and their loved ones. Genocide is a very risky way to make a living;-)
We must continue to peacefully observe reality and comment on actual health outcomes. I don't see what is happening as a genocide, but there is certainly a great deal of harm that should not have happened and that should be avoided in the future. People aspiring to positions of power should do so by serving the truth, not by seeking dominance using dishonest means.
Deaths of Americans of working age people are suddenly up by over 50% since they rolled out the new jabs. And MOST of the victims will be dying over the next year or so, due to the fact these jabs work like delayed incendiary devices. They OPENLY state that the goal is to reduce the world population by over 90% by 2030. Anyone who actually believes any of this is happening to "save lives" needs to read more, and watch less TV.
These deaths, (and the billions to come) are NOT a mere "accident" or a coincidence. I know it is a level of evil beyond comprehension, but it is VERY real. Monsters look like normal people. This is HOW they get away with these things.
Vaccine adverse effects definitely need to be studied honestly and systematically. Personally, I do not tend to believe that it is a deliberate plan, but regardless of that, adverse side effects must be acknowledged and studied to avoid repeating the same mistake again. At the very least, similar vaccines, if they are on the market in the future, must be subject to true, free and well-informed personal choice without coercion.
It's not as if "vaccine adverse events" haven't been "studied honestly and systematically". The problem is that every single one of these studies that IS conducted is ferociously censored. Do you not know that the medical journals receive more than 95% of their funding directly from Pharma? They will not publish evidence which indicts them and kills the goose that lays the golden eggs for them. Vaccines are their biggest money-maker.
Do you not know that "news" channels receive 60 to 70% of their advertising revenues from Pharma? Do you not know how deeply in bed big-tech is with Pharma? Do you not know that our so-called "health" agencies get up to 50% of their funding directly from Pharma?
If you want to see the truth about the actual DATA, and the public "health" effects vaccines have produced, SEE: https://cdn.website-editor.net/s/fbd2f2a8b1b04bdba97a21e6e5d356aa/files/uploaded/Control%2520Group%2520Graph%2520Adults%2520Dec%25202020.jpg?Expires=1653845434&Signature=s3H3rfpelXhzMgyo4YnEr~3xAGBeCfs81Ktsx0EaJQXXEF31AbBWEj2pfA6HymYl-vIAuRhNIaYkJZKwchkD3L4tKhdAChzoTFjUp1xGw11NB8xYvfLXtB1cGtDezhZHvjoqG5NWYdYuLLBESTi6u~hQxqr9nQvFJ7DaRL39IuTt8DC05y7D31zb8kpTpcTNpUaX9zE1dge048cKyv7rNrL13R5aVawEVrYM3igd2-NE-1hPDEUe0P-rRghEgSACe39-P-9g1~dblrlpplEJ81u1OuoHKPUZ-Jx3WNUKXefAIY1VNxM0Tx9gu76KGoQooEDLloEmIk8Fufl7QffoWg__&Key-Pair-Id=K2NXBXLF010TJW
And if you want to see the Harvard study that proved the government's own tracking of vaccine injuries and deaths has a failure rate OVER 99%, SEE: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system
- where you will see the conclusion that: "Adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with LESS THAN 1% reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."
Please explain to me HOW an accounting system that FAILS to capture the relevant data OVER 99% of the time was NOT specifically engineered to fail? Flipping a coin would be a more accurate accounting system.
So long as people keep going along with the LIE that adverse events are "rare' -or that there are NO STUDIES - (and waiting for pharma to conduct or "publish" them) we're not going to be able to get the point across that there are ALREADY more than adequate studies which have irrefutably proven CAUSE.
It is now time to actually LOOK at the studies that have already been conducted. Waiting for pharma to agree to publish these studies before we're ready to call it "science" is a losing game. Evidence is evidence, whether or not the pharmaceutical-industrial complex agrees. Letting pharma dictate the meaning of "science" or "evidence" is beyond absurd, but it's sort of where we are at the moment.
Pharma defines a "control" as a person who has been injected with OTHER dangerous vaccines. If the new one being tested (on the "treatment" group) produces an "equal" number of INJURIES and DEATHS, then the new jab is called "safe". This type of outright fraud is then referred to as "science"- and the sheep believe it without ever examining the raw data or questioning the methodology of their "trials".
There is no "health" agency even pretending to track the long-term health effects of vaccine exposure, and the immediately-visible destruction is reported at a rate of less than 1%. If it were NOT a "deliberate plan" how then would you explain the CDC's directive to classify all recently vaccinated people who appear at hospitals with disabling and deadly vaccine-injuries as "unvaccinated"? The have ordered the hospitals to classify all those who received their 2nd covid jab less than 14 days before the onset of their symptoms at "unvaccinated". Please clarify how this is not "deliberate"?
These are NOT "accidents". This directive is no different than the CDC sending the hospitals bags of lime, shovels, and directions to the nearest remote dumping grounds, along with specific instructions on how to bury the maimed and dead bodies from public view. Far from being an "oversight" or mere negligence, directions to hide the evidence of vaccine injury is evidence of mens rea. This is a proactive move to hide EVIDENCE and it is quite "deliberate".
Thanks for this detailed information. I agree that all existing data has to be studied and that unfortunately there are incentives in the system to not do so. I think that sometimes the spontaneous behavior of controlling people is quite similar to a conspiracy in terms of how it looks, but this does not necessarily make it a deliberate conspiracy. In either case, the responsibility to seek the truth remains. Because I am not a person with expertise in science, I focus on writing about this from a cultural/historical/literary point of view and emphasizing the basic value that human beings have the right to observe the reality around them and to speak out when they suspect that we are being manipulated--even if I do not fully understand the absolute truth.
Automatically ruling out the possibility of a deliberate and coordinated effort requires one to intentionally ignore an ASTOUNDING amount of profound evidence to the contrary.
The WHO & UNICEF are primarily organized to promote and distribute vaccines world-wide. They are both subsidiaries of the UN. The UN's PRIMARY goal is depopulation, and they openly state that this IS their goal. Do you actually believe the UN funds vaccine programs to "save lives"???
I know such deliberate evil is hard to wrap one's mind around. However, one must only look to our recent history to see many profound examples of such evil. Why people believe this type of evil has somehow been eradicated, or that it no longer exists in high places, is beyond me.
Always automatically ascribing good motives (and ruling out any bad motives) when the evidence is so stunningly contrary to such a conclusion, is not helping us resolve this. Evil is a real "thing". It DOES exist in high places today. And those at the lower levels of this machine are afraid of losing their income, or even their very lives, for speaking out and/or refusing to go along with "orders" from on-high. However, in the end, the defense of "I vus ohnlay followink ohdahs" won't protect ANY of these people.
Godspeed,
Joy
Thank you, thank you! I have not gotten a covid jab and don't plan to. But when I read a mainstream media news story about Fisman's study, I was concerned. Am I putting other people's health at risk? Your post reassurred me that my decision to remain unjabbed is the right one for me.
Thank you. And here is what Byram Bridle wrote about this issue from a scientific perspective. I am going to add the link to this post: https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/fiction-disguised-as-science-to-promote?s=r
You're benefitting others by remaining unjabbed. As many virologists have made clear for a very long time (including Dr Luigi Warren, who pioneered mRNA reprogramming during his postdoctoral work at Harvard Med School), the mRNA "vaccines" do not confer immunity, so cannot contribute to herd immunity. Only the unjabbed can help society reach herd immunity (if it can be done at all, as the jabbed are driving mutants). Carry on being unjabbed, and feel good about it, not only for your own health, but for the good of others.
And, sadly, the unjabbed will have the burden of caring for the sick and dying jabbed over months and years, and then burying them and having to adopt their pets and minor children. We'll have a lot of necessary work to do.
I'm already in a position of helping a childless, triple-jabbed woman in her early 60s who was perfectly healthy before the Pfizer jabs but whose immune system is now shot and who is getting more and more sick (severe auto-immune issues and testing positive for Covid). She owns 8 rescue felines, all getting up in years like her, who will need to be re-homed in the not-too-distant future. The unjabbed will be surrounded by such situations. Brace yourself ...
I am not a scientist, but your argument about herd immunity fostered by those who are not unjabbed makes sense intuitively. I am not as pessimistic about the extent of harm that will be done, but I am sorry for all those who suffered adverse effects, and it is disturbing that adverse effects are not being taken seriously. I myself did get two doses because I would not be able to work otherwise and because the social tension was too much for me. I had an episode of fainting and repeated dizzy spells that I believe were associated with the second dose, but then I went back to feeling normal. It seems from reports that many people suffered much more, and these reports should be studied seriously. Regardless of the extent of vaccine adverse effects, medical decisions should be an individual choice--not forced.
I am pleased to hear that you are feeling "normal" after being forced to take the jabs to keep your job, but I would advise you, if you aren't already doing so, to take certain supplements to protect yourself:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world-council-for-health-reveals-spike-protein-detox_4304171.html
Here's more info on what our government's medical bureaucrats SHOULD have done to allow populations to achieve herd immunity:
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/herd-immunity-was-entirely-possible?s=r
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/moderna-knew-vaccinated-people-will?s=r
More info on how the Covid jabs negatively affect your immune system:
https://www.rcolemd.com/post/cancer-depleting-immune-systems-and-the-who-pandemic-treaty-maria-zeee
Got a normal Vitamin D level? Here's Dr Cole explaining some anti-clotting tips:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iQRtzWsW68qv/
Fermented soy product: nattokinase
https://www.iherb.com/pr/now-foods-nattokinase-100-mg-120-veg-capsules/11904
Another to add to the list of critiques: "We did not model waning immunity." Um....what? So the authors assumed one gets a new jab every 6 weeks or so. (Note that Fisman "has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines...") That might explain why he thinks 6 weeks is a good period between jabs.
And then there's the editorial language in the introduction, which has no place in science. Unless, of course, one begins from a biased conclusion and hides it behind a methodology that smells a bit like "science" but is actually a political assertion of segregation.
Weak mathematical models have driven public policy through the Covid period. They will continue to do so as long as the decision-makers and public health officials hold this unprecedented level of power.
Thanks for your insightful analysis, which helps to show that this is indeed about power, not about genuine truth seeking. I am not a scientist, but I do not think that editorial language (thanks for the term) such as the following one is how science should be written:
"However, antivaccine sentiment, fuelled in part by organized disinformation efforts, has resulted in suboptimal uptake of readily available vaccines in many countries, with adverse health and economic consequences.8–10 Although the decision not to receive vaccination is often framed in terms of the rights of individuals to opt out,11,12 such arguments neglect the potential harms to the wider community that derive from poor vaccine uptake."
Precisely! And fortunately one of the critiques on the CMAJ website points this out. It's highly unprofessional, but also compromises their credibility. Sadly, the principle author has been shaping Canada's pandemic response all along, despite his ties to Big Pharma.
[I edited my original comment to correct an error.]
Thanks
Here's an enlightening piece about Fisman from May of 2021 --
"Meet David Fisman: OST; ETFO; Gaslighting; When a Side Hustle Goes Horribly Wrong"
An excerpt:
"The Dalla Lana School of Public Health, or DLSPH, is effectively a branch of the World Health Organization. While masquerading as scientists, this UofT cabal provides political cover for Doug Ford. There are conflicts of interest everywhere.
This focuses on David Fisman. It’s not because he has anything particularly interesting or insightful to say. Instead, it’s because his side grift with ETFO accidentally exposed a huge problem."
https://canucklaw.ca/meet-david-fisman-ost-etfo-gaslighting-when-a-side-hustle-goes-horribly-wrong/
Archived here -- https://archive.ph/RQOJ9
Thank you for the reference. It is unfortunate that so many health authorities seem to be motivated by interests other than the wellbeing human beings.