sexta-feira, 4 de outubro de 2024

Five points on the assassination of Nasrallah


 

Friday, September 27, 2024 is a pivotal moment in the history of Lebanon. It is comparable in importance to September 14, 1982 (the assassination of Bashir Gemayel) and February 14, 2005 (the assassination of Rafik Hariri).

Fady Al-Ahmar - Asas Media

For three decades, Sayyed Nasrallah dominated the political arena in Lebanon. His influence extended beyond Lebanon to the wider region, and his fame spread throughout the world. Foreign media outlets have often broadcast his speeches and it is no exaggeration to say that leaders of countries sometimes waited upon what Nasrallah would say to formulate their policies in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Hence, the repercussions of his assassination will extend beyond the party and beyond Lebanon to the region as a whole. What comes after September 27 will not be the same as what came before it, especially since this assassination exposed new realities while confirming older ones.

Iran distances itself

1- Let us start with the reality of Iran and its arms dealings in the region. Under the pretext of not falling into the trap of a comprehensive war, Tehran is distancing itself from the military confrontation that broke Hamas in Gaza and shook the structure of the party. If the confrontation in Gaza is the responsibility of Yahya Sinwar, who decided to attack on October 7 without Iran's knowledge, then the support war launched by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah came at the request of Iran and in coordination with it. For two weeks, the party has been subjected to mass and individual assassinations, sometimes by bombs and sometimes by missiles. Iran has been content to issue mere threats and intimidation. Its attack on the first of this month was no different from the attack on April 13, except for the killing of a Palestinian man. It was an attack to save face with their allies and to send a message to Israel and America that targeting Iranian strategic facilities will not go unanswered, because Iran's priority is to preserve the regime and protect its nuclear project. Therefore, Iran's role in the war on Lebanon will be restricted to simply assisting and supporting the Party of God. It will not participate directly. The division of opinions in the emergency meeting of the Supreme National Security Council called for by the Supreme Leader after the assassination of Nasrallah gave a clear indication. Ali Khamenei's statement after the assassination of Nasrallah confirmed this. He said that "the resistance forces will stand by the Hezbollah," rather than the Revolutionary Guards doing so, and that "Lebanon will make the evil and outcast invading enemy regret its actions," rather than Iran performing this role. He called on "Muslims to stand by the Lebanese people and the 
Hezbollah, which is proud of its capabilities, and to help confront the usurping and malicious regime," rather than calling on Iranians to do this.

Nasrallah's Mistake

2- The second fact is the
mistake of the Hezbollah and its late leader in assessing the military situation at the beginning of their support war. Nasrallah knew about Israel's air and technological superiority, but he did not appreciate the extent of the security breach of his military and security apparatus. What was reported yesterday in the British newspaper "Financial Times" was revealed to us by George Malbrunot, chief journalist of "Le Figaro", in an interview we conducted with him on the "Asas" website. Malbrunot said that the party's involvement in the Syrian war and its recruitment of large numbers of soldiers were an opportunity for Israel to penetrate it security-wise. This breach is what allowed the Mossad to provide the Israeli army with accurate information about the presence of military officials in the Party and their movements, even accompanying the Hezbollah leader on his way to chair a meeting in the suburb and assassinating him. We had written in a previous article in "Asas" (dated August 1, 2024) following the assassination of Fouad Shukr that "this brings us back to the talk of Israeli officials about Israel's ability to target Hassan Nasrallah himself. These are words that should have been taken seriously after Fouad Shukr was targeted. 

3- The third fact is that the Hezbollah, after the series of assassinations that began months ago and targeted its military leaders, was unable to dismantle any of the Israeli spy networks within its organisation. In his last appearance, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the decision to respond to the bombings on Tuesday and Wednesday would be within a narrow circle, indicating their size with his hands. However, his assassination showed that the security breach is also within this circle. And Israel continues to carry out assassinations. This is what Netanyahu announced in his speech at the United Nations. His Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi, confirmed it, saying that the assassination of Nasrallah is not the last thing they would do. Indeed, the assassination of party leaders continues in Lebanon and Syria.

Destabilizing the Hezbollah and destroying Lebanon

4- The fifth fact is that the
Hezbollah not only suffered a major blow, as the Sayyed said in his last speech, but its political and military structures and frameworks were also shaken, especially after the assassination of its Secretary-General and senior leaders who were meeting with him. This makes it weaker in confronting Israel in this war. The election of a new Secretary-General and the appointment of a leader to replace his assassinated predecessor does not mean that the party has recovered and will regain the initiative. The blow is deep. Recovery from it will take months and perhaps years, and it is difficult to achieve during this type of war. Perhaps that is why the late Nasrallah agreed to a ceasefire, as Foreign Minister Abdullah Bou Habib revealed on CNN. [FW comment: This cannot be confirmed and is conceivably disinformation, since Nasrallah always linked a ceasefire to the end of hostilities in Gaza]

5- Last but not least, we must recall the truth that everyone knows, which is that Lebanon is not ready or able to bear this war either politically, economically, or socially. Ministers declare daily that their ministries are unable to bear the burden of displacement, which will reach the threshold of one million Lebanese and Syrian refugees. If the war continues, the little aid that reaches Lebanon today will stop tomorrow if Israel bombs the airport and surrounds the port.

The war on Lebanon is in its early stages. The confrontations in the south are at their most intense. All eyes are on the Israeli response to Iran, especially after it became known that it will be coordinated by the United States. Is targeting the Iranian nuclear program the goal? Will Netanyahu succeed in dragging Washington into this war?

The next few days will provide us with the answers. Perhaps they will reach us during the period between writing these lines and publishing them.



Source: Lebanon Files

domingo, 29 de setembro de 2024

Beirut under bombs and rockets: the Israeli air force bombed districts of the Lebanese capital all night long



Top War
September 29th

Throughout the night, Israeli airstrikes hit the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The IDF bombarded the city in waves, hitting a wide variety of Beirut neighborhoods, including dense residential developments.

According to initial estimates, at least 40 civilians were killed and more than 200 injured in the overnight strikes. At least 17 others remain missing. Emergency services are working to remove debris. The rubble in the streets is hampering the movement of ambulances, which are also in short supply due to the large number of calls from across the capital.

Beirut is shrouded in clouds of smoke. There is no electricity in several neighborhoods of the Lebanese capital. There are also problems with the supply of drinking water.

With these bombings, the Israeli military and political leadership has shown that it does not accept the proposals of several countries to cease fire and begin the negotiation process.

In this context, reports indicate that the Israeli army is preparing to launch a ground invasion of the neighboring state in the next 24 hours, if not the next few hours. The Israeli army's armored vehicles, especially Merkava tanks, have been concentrated for several weeks near the southern border of Lebanon, with the crews awaiting orders. 

 


Source: https://topwar.ru/250973-bejrut-pod-bombami-i-raketami-vvs-izrailja-vsju-noch-nanosili-udary-po-kvartalam-livanskoj-stolicy.html

sábado, 28 de setembro de 2024

In killing Nasrallah, Israel chose to open the gates of hell. We'll all pay the price



The West, via Israel, is fomenting for Hezbollah and the Shia resistance their own ISIS moment. Moderates are once again losing the argument – because we lost it for them 

Jonathan Cook
Sep 28, 2024

Hezbollah has confirmed that its longtime leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was among the hundreds of Lebanese killed in Israel’s massive bombardment of a suburb of Beirut last night.

Israel’s decision to assassinate Nasrallah, using some of the enormous bunker-busting bombs the United States has been arming it with, is beyond foolhardy. It is outright deranged. Israel has removed – and knows it has removed – a moderating influence on Hezbollah.

Israel’s action will achieve nothing apart from teaching his successor, and leaders of other groups and countries labelled as terrorist by western governments, several lessons:

* That Israel, and the West standing squarely behind it, do not play by any known rules of engagement, and that their opponents must do likewise. The current restraint from Hezbollah that has been so baffling western pundits will become a thing of the past.

* That Israel is not interested in compromise, only escalation, and that this is a fight to death – not just against Israel but against the West that sponsors Israel.

* That Israel's ideological extremism – its Jewish supremacism, and its endless craving for Lebensraum – must be met with even greater Shia-inspired extremism.

Decades of western terrorism in the Middle East unleashed a Sunni nihilism embodied first in al-Qaeda and then in ISIS.

Now, the West, via Israel, is fomenting for the Shia resistance its own ISIS moment. The moderates in what the West dubs “terrorist organisations” have once again lost the argument. Why? Because the US imperial project known as “the West” has once again demonstrated it will not compromise. It demands full-spectrum, global dominance – nothing less.

Israel may make very short tactical gains in killing Nasrallah. But we will all soon feel the whirlwind.

When that whirlwind comes, the job of our politicians and media will be to ensure we make no connection between this moment of savagery and insanity from us and the blowback.

The role of western establishments will be to cry victim, to insist “They hate us for our freedoms”, for our civilisational superiority, because “they” are simply barbarians.

But what comes next, as with what came before, will be entirely predictable. Violence doesn't beget calm, it begets more violence. Israel knows that. Our leaders know that. But they opened the gates of hell anyway.

(Disclaimer: Nothing in this post, in line with Section 12 of the UK Terrorism Act, in any way indicates, or should be seen to be encouraging, support for any group designated as a terrorist organisation by the British government.)

Death of Nasrallah: Shock, fear and anxiety in Lebanon 

 

Source: https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/in-killing-nasrallah-israel-chose

quinta-feira, 26 de setembro de 2024

Discovering "Truth" amidst the diversity of viewpoints




Joseph Stroberg
25/09/2024

People are becoming so accustomed to the single-track thinking of the mainstream media that there is also tendency towards a single-track thinking in the alternative media.

There is only one Truth, but is it within the reach of individual human beings? One person will describe a house from its south side, another person will describe it from the north, another from the air in an airplane or helicopter, and another will go inside it. But each of them will describe it only from a particular angle. The Truth of the house can nevertheless result from the combination of these different points of view.

Even science cannot claim to have the Truth that it nevertheless actively seeks. While some of its theories have not yet been factually refuted and are therefore still considered valid
1, others are much more contested.2

Let us note that even a very reliable and unanimously accepted theory can only be considered truly scientific if it remains falsifiable and can be refuted by new discoveries that find fault with it or contradict it.

On the other hand, when a hypothesis becomes incontestable, such as the hypothesis of pathogenic viruses, each time it is found to be faulty, instead of being abandoned we apply new patches and excuses to allow it to linger on, despite the growing internal contradictions that this produces (and possibly a lack of fundamental evidence)
3. In this way, we abandon the scientific framework and enter into religious or ideological beliefs. Supporters of the hypothesis may still consider themselves "scientists", but they have become scientists, high priests or gurus who propagate their beliefs without ever again questioning them. Science, however, is based on doubt and permanent questioning.

Nowadays, in many areas, it seems that only two mutually exclusive narratives are allowed, and this allows the authorities to dismiss other, more inconvenient, explanations4 for the phenomena in question. This is how we see a dominant current, compatible with globalism, affirming that SARS-CoV-2 is natural, while another widespread current, supposedly "opposed" to globalism, affirms that this alleged virus which would be the cause of an allegedly new disease "Covid-19" was created in a P4 lab. This futile contest facilitates the erasure those who propose a third solution: namely that no virus has yet been scientifically isolated and that there is nothing new  or specific about covid symptoms, whose explanation is most likely to be sought elsewhere.

Another example is the battle between the supporters of covid vaccines and their opponents who promote the mRNA vaccine. Although several of these vaccines are not based on this supposed genetic technology, they nevertheless generate the same kinds of side effects. This unscientific conflict between vaccine advocates and anti-mRNA vaccine activists allows the erasure of those who bring up the existence of graphene in all types of covid vaccines, knowing that this substance is toxic and can explain the observed side effects.
5 However, patents and various analyses and observations tend to demonstrate the existence of an injectable nanotechnology that can transform human beings so as to include them in the Internet network.6

In our era which seems dominated by lies, manipulation, hypocrisy and corruption, a gauge of truthfulness vs lies can undoubtedly and likely be established on the basis of the following proposition:

The truth harms the establishment of a New World Order that is based on lies and the inversion of reality. By contrast, lies favour that order.

If we consider this proposition as well-founded (or true), then any hypothesis or story that supports the NWO is likely to be false.

Is the viral hypothesis harmful or useful to the New World Order?

The belief in evil viruses capable of invading human or animal bodies and multiplying there not only allows the enrichment of multinational
pharmaceuticals owned by the promoters of globalisation, but also to justifies totalitarian "health" measures without which such a NWO could hardly see the light of day.

Would the public and media-supported recognition of a vaccine nanotechnology which generates a universal identifier and connects the human body to the Internet be harmful or useful to the New World Order?

In combination with the coming CBDCs, this nanotechnology could be used to control not only the purchases of our
transhumanised human beings, but also their other actions. Would human beings let themselves be vaccinated as easily if they knew the primary and probable purpose of the injections? While a secondary goal may be the sterilisation of a part of Humanity in order to control the herd, the brutal depopulation suggested by some does not seem to be a real goal, because otherwise it would have been easy to use only lethal vaccine batches.

How to find the Truth beyond false dualities?

The Truth will most likely be found by not limiting oneself to the authorised narratives in either the mainstream or alternative media, but rather by exploring together all avenues and hypotheses, however incredible they may seem at first glance, and by making the individual and collective effort to question all of our beliefs, measuring them again and again against the facts. 

 

Notes

1 Like the fundamental laws of optics or those of thermodynamics.

2 As in medicine, biology in general, and in climatology.

3 Concerning the pseudoscience that virology has become, see in particular Aveuglés par la pseudo-science and Les sophismes logiques de la virologie. Virology has been refuted and its opponents expose its inability to provide real proof of the existence of a pathogenic virus, proof that virologists are currently unable to provide by following the scientific method. The latter cling to the dogma of evil viruses because they believe that it is the only way to explain what appears to them to be epidemic contagions. However, even if there were no alternative explanations for the apparent contagions, the viral hypothesis remains unproven and clinging to it is not a matter of reason, but of faith or emotional attachment.

4 Inconvenient to the powers that be. 

5 See especially Les nanoparticules de graphène : Propriétés, applications, toxicité et réglementations
and Dr David A. Hughes : « Qu’y a-t-il dans les soi-disant “vaccins” COVID-19 ? » — Preuves d’un crime mondial contre l’humanité

6 In particular: Une étude japonaise confirme l’existence d’éléments artificiels autoassemblés dans les vaccins anticovid,
Nanotechnologie et « vaccins »,
Nanoréseau intégré au corps humain. Extraordinaire dossier réalisé par un scientifique
and Très important — Émissions de rayonnements à énergie dirigée de cinquième génération (5G) dans le contexte des vaccins Covid-19 à nanométaux contaminés avec des antennes en oxyde de graphène ferreux


Source: https://nouveau-monde.ca/note-sur-la-diversite-des-points-de-vue/

Translation: David Montoute  

quarta-feira, 25 de setembro de 2024

Statement by Mike Yeadon



Apr 19, 2024

1. I, Mike Yeadon will say as follows. I have training in biochemistry and toxicology (1st class joint honours) followed by a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology. I then worked at increasingly senior levels in biopharmaceutical R&D (new medicines) and was vice president and worldwide head of allergy and respiratory at Pfizer. A position I left in 2011. After leaving my employment at Pfizer I took on work as a consultant to over 30 biotechnology companies and was very highly regarded both by investors and management. More recently I founded and led as CEO a biotech which was acquired by Novartis (2017).

2. I have a wide knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, including all aspects of new medicine design, research, and development. In particular I have an in-depth knowledge of custom and practise in designing molecules likely to be safe, as well as of immunology and respiratory.

3. I provide the above outline of my credentials as evidence that as a senior former pharmaceutical company research executive I have the expertise and knowledge to make me a credible witness in speaking out about the grave concerns I have (concerns which are shared by others) about the alleged pandemic & countermeasures, especially the gene-based injections.

4. I have been raising these concerns now for a period of around for 3.5 years to date.

5. Overall it is my expert opinion that the injections purporting to be vaccines against an alleged virus (I say alleged, as no evidence has ever been provided of an isolated SARS-CoV-2 virus) are intentionally harmful, and as such must immediately be withdrawn from the market.

6. Below I will provide a short summary, which I have sought to make substantially non-technical, in explanation for why I have formed my opinion that that the injections as intentionally harmful and that as such they should be immediately withdrawn from the market.

7. However, before presenting my summary I will first make the following point, which I can substantiate.

8. In my view, the backdrop to this alleged “pandemic” is not a matter of medical and scientific issues, but a global crime scene of unprecedented scale and nature.

9. Claim 1: Choosing to invent, develop and manufacture a new vaccine is unquestionably the wrong response to a pandemic, even had the narrative presented to us not been false.

10. Given I have had an over 30-year career in “big pharma” and biotech, I knew that it was impossible to create a vaccine in under 5-6 years if they were going to demonstrate clinical safety and hone manufacturing to yield the customarily high-quality manufacturing necessary to produce tightly defined final drug product.

11. If this was not done, the product would be highly variable, and this is inherently dangerous. This is what has happened and the resulting variability of the product has completely invalidated any data obtained during toxicology and clinical development. In brief, the effect of overly expeditious development is that the product injected into literally billions of innocent men, women and children is not the same product as was used in the clinical trials.

12. No honest expert would even contemplate running a research program to bring forward a vaccine, because no pandemic in history has lasted a fraction of the minimum time necessary to create a safe and effective new vaccine. This timeline cannot be much shortened because a number of activities are performed in a stepwise manner, each step depending on the outcome of the preceding step.

13. In addition, we must consider the clinical context. We have been told of a public health emergency of international concern, where anyone could catch the virus and the elderly and already sick were particularly at risk of death. I believe this to be a deliberate deception, but even if we accept it, its vital to understand two things.

14. One, injected vaccines cannot and do not protect humans against acute respiratory illnesses believed to be due to respiratory viruses landing in the airways. This is because the immune response is primarily to stimulate the production of antibodies which circulate in the blood.

Antibodies are very large molecules and they are not able to leave the circulation and appear on the air side of the respiratory tract. In short, the product of the immune response to the vaccine and the virus itself do not meet, as they are in different bodily “compartments.”

15. Two, the very people we were told are particularly at risk, the elderly and sick, are in part, in this vulnerable state because their senescent immune systems respond poorly to new infectious disease threats. Why would anyone expect a good response to an injected vaccine? This is said to mimic a new infectious disease threat. It is important to note something very little known by the public but injected “flu vaccines” do not work. They do not reduce hospitalisation or death in the elderly. Yet flu vaccines have been promoted as a vital public health measure for decades and are paid for by taxpayers. Furthermore, even flu vaccines can lead to adverse events, sometimes serious, but this is not compensated by an expectation of protection against a threat to health, namely influenza. Now you know this, you may find it rather less difficult to believe that this industry is willing to lie and deceive in order to reach its objectives.

16. I have outlined why it is impossible to produce a safe and effective vaccine in much less than 5-6years, yet we are asked to accept that this has been accomplished in less than one year. I have also described why it is that an injected vaccine could not work, even if it was safe, in the setting we are told exists. Yet they went ahead. This is malevolent, as I will show.

17. Claim 2: Gene-based vaccines were advanced as the exclusive solution, but was a means to misuse the reduced regulatory hurdles for conventional vaccines in order to push gene therapies onto the market.

18. Vaccines have been developed and used against an increasing range of infectious disease targets rather widely since the middle of the 20th century and some are much older. Every vaccine until the covid pandemic era has involved taking a sample of the disease-causing agent and formulating it for injection or instillation into the airway. This has the advantage that the amount of pathogen is known and fixed. In many ways, this process mimics what we are told is a similar process to when we are infected by the wild pathogen. Many vaccines have been developed and marketed and over many decades, the makers, the regulators, doctors, and the public have acquired a common understanding of what kind of product these are and how to evaluate them. This is the background that has led to the regulatory pathway for their development. In certain regards, it has been appropriate to truncate or not even to study certain properties of “conventional vaccines” because they are uninformative and do not contribute anything to evaluation of the agent.

19. The preparations called vaccines in this alleged pandemic are in no way like these older products. Instead, these are gene-based agents, which commandeer the recipients’ cells to manufacture whatever is encoded in the gene sequence. This is a crucial difference, as I will exemplify later. But it is important to understand that there are additional steps in the biological response to gene- based agents as compared to old-style vaccines. Old style vaccines do not travel far from the injection site. The materials injected are suspensions, small pieces of cells and killed or weakened infectious agents. Our bodies are well-adapted to recognise that foreign materials have arrived and have evolved to respond appropriately to this event. The gene-based injections, by contrast, can and do travel all over the body, prompted to make foreign proteins in anatomical locations where the pathogen would be unable to reach, such as the brain.

20. Gene-based treatments are often called by a slang term “gene therapies.” This is an imprecise term and causes much argument, since it is often stated that they do not modify ones’ genes. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that it is a gene that is at the heart of the treatment. A gene is simply a code for the manufacture of a protein. These mRNA-based agents ARE, however, classified by their manufacturers as “gene therapies” for the purpose of describing to investors the nature of the development and commercial risks being run. Rightly so, for none of these products had reached the market by 2020, though there had been a number of unsuccessful attempts.

21. I first encountered the idea of mRNA-based therapeutics in the late-1990s, when I led respiratory research for Pfizer. I could see a potential clinical utility only in life-threatening, inoperable cancers that were unresponsive to chemotherapeutics and radiotherapy. Somewhat of a niche opportunity only.

22. The reason they were perceived to have some use in this narrow but important application is vital to understand, if I am to explain clearly why I am so sure that these are wholly inappropriate to protect against an alleged respiratory virus. The original idea was that a piece of genetic code coupled to something else that would enable the preparation to travel to and be taken up by the remote tumour. The cells making up that tumour would copy the genetic code and make whatever protein was encoded. Because that protein was foreign, and not normally made by humans, our immune systems would recognise that we had something foreign inside us and this would stimulate a lethal attack upon every cell that had taken up and followed the genetic instructions. This is a branch of what is called “immunooncology” and a number of companies have tried to develop such “gene therapies” as anti-cancer agents, so far without success. The crucial point to remember is that these preparations were expected to work by precipitating lethal immune attack on every cell that had taken it up.

23. Returning to the development pathway for these agents. Because they are new and unprecedented, the medicines regulators around the world have laid down onerous conditions for their development. Obviously, they are potentially very potent medicines and being new, great care was to be taken to avoid predicted as well as unanticipated harms. With new types of medical treatment, while some potential harms can be anticipated and characterised properly, other harms may arise which were not expected. This is why the development pathway for new types of powerful medical interventions are given especially tough review.

24. I now make an important point. In 2020, we are told that at least four biopharmaceutical companies decided to develop gene-based vaccines. As I explained earlier, conventional vaccines are given a somewhat easier time of it in relation to developmental obligations. Despite classifying to the financial markets their own products as “gene therapies” & subject to lengthy and expensive development obligations, they persuaded the medical regulators (and deceived the public) to classify them as “vaccines”. This was improper and was accompanied by bodies such as WHO and even dictionary makers to change the definition of the word vaccine to facilitate this deception.

25. Deception matters not because of mere naming conventions, but because the manufacturers knew that vaccines are much lighter in terms of development obligations. Even given this improper advantage, the makers of the gene-based vaccines failed to meet all, of even the relatively light development obligations. The end result has been billions of people being injected with mis-classified and inadequately tested gene-therapies. The adverse effect profiles and deaths as a consequence are extraordinary yet are being ignored by multiple bodies tasked with vigilance in patient safety. None of this can be constructed as accidental or inadvertent.

26. Claim 3: The design choices made in constructing the gene-based agents purporting to be vaccines are evidence of intentional harms.

27. Medicinal preparations contain molecules that were chosen by its designers. Nothing is in them that was not thoughtfully included. My career has been wholly within the sphere of endeavour called “rational drug discovery” or “rational drug design”. My main responsibility was to select biological targets for intervention with a chemical or a biological molecule, the latter usually being designed by more than one person. I was part of the design teams for decades. Our objective was to reach and interact with the molecular target, hoping to bring about desirable effects in patients, and to do so without inducing unacceptable unwanted effects, taking into account the seriousness of the illness at issue.

28. My contention is that, by close examination of the products of such design teams, I can, at least in part, deduce the intentions of the designers. It gives me no pleasure to lay out below several features of the design of the mRNA “vaccines” from Pfizer / BioNTech and from Moderna, ALL of which predictably give rise to toxicity. The features of interest are common to both products. There is no reasonable conclusion to this analysis other than that the designers intentionally created products which would be expected to cause harms including death and sterility.

29. Designed-in toxicity 1: axiomatic induction of “autoimmune” responses, regardless of what the genetic sequence codes for. As described earlier about how immunooncology was considered the leading application, when our bodies manufacture a foreign or non-self-protein, our immune system recognises this as a threat and mounts a lethal attack on every cell performing the genetic instruction. In short, wherever in the body these materials travel after injection into the upper arm, the immune system will destroy those cells and tissues. I believe it is very likely that the reported extensive range of adverse effects is due to this common process, autoimmune destruction, occurring in all kinds of tissues around the body. This is expected. Anyone with a basic knowledge of immunology knows this.

30. Designed-in toxicity 2: The next was choice of the gene chosen. I believe selecting the spike protein of the alleged coronavirus is irrational, because it was highly likely to be directly toxic. These surface proteins are known from comparison to related pathogens to be toxic to blood, initiating blood clots and damaging the function of nerve cells. Not only is it very dangerous to force human bodies to manufacture a pro-coagulant protein, it was unnecessary. There are several alternative genes that a safety-orientated designer would choose from.

31. In addition to the toxicity of spike protein, spike is, we are informed, subject to the most rapid mutation (so a vaccine might lose efficacy quickly) and also it is the least different from human proteins (and so might trigger bystander attacks on even somewhat similar self-proteins).

32. Yet all four leading players chose spike protein as their genetic coded antigen. What a coincidence! If I had been in one of the roles leading these efforts, I would ’have called up my peers in the other companies to ensure we did not do that. That is because from a strategic standpoint, it would be highly undesirable to have common risks to all programs.

33. Designed-in toxicity 3: On formulation, the teams developing mRNA-based products both selected lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to encapsulate their genetic message. Yet there was industry knowledge that these not only travel all over the body including into the brain but that they accumulate in the ovaries. Yet, knowing this, the companies and regulators went ahead and then others compounded the toxicity risk by recommending these injections in pregnant women and children.

34. This is not an exhaustive list and I am aware of further toxicity liabilities. I felt three was an adequate number to exemplify my concerns. Remember, please, that these agents are not expected to yield benefits as explained earlier and have been developed at a pace completely inconsistent with normal practise, absolutely required to result in a consistent product.

35. I am very confident of this conclusion. I have said so in more than 100 video interviews which have been viewed millions of times, despite the obvious efforts of censors. If these claims were completely wrong, I expected to have been corrected years ago and at least injuncted not to repeat the claims.

36. I know all the companies are aware of my views, because I sadly know three of the four individuals responsible for R&D on vaccines and I have written to them laying out my concerns. Not one replied, though one resigned a few months later without giving a reason, which is extraordinarily uncommon, because it results in forfeiture of very substantial deferred compensation.

37. Claim 4: The evolution of the target population, from initially only the elderly, eventually to everyone is confirmatory evidence of intentional harm.

38. This is simple to explain, but it is worth laying out. Recall at first, we were told that those most at risk from this alleged virus were the elderly who were already sick. Consistent with this, the first cohorts of the public invited to receive these injections were the over 60s.

39. Over a period of months, the threshold age for receiving the injections fell and continued to fall until healthy youngsters were being pressurised to get injected even though they had essentially no risk of death from the alleged virus.

40. Along the way, and outside of medical practise of 60 years standing, pregnant women were encouraged to get injected, too. There is no evidence that they were at risk. Even if they had been, it has been policy NEVER to expose pregnant women to novel medical treatments, because of the risks to the developing baby. The watershed event was thalidomide and this awful event set a firm, never breached red line not to allow risky interventions in pregnancy. Until 2021, when this red line was driven right over without comment. The manufacturers had not then even completed regulatory reproductive toxicology. They had absolutely no information, yet women were told it was safe, when in fact it was not.

41. Finally, children were called to be injected, even though the authorities had previously told us that children were at no risks from the alleged virus.

42. In conclusion there are several, completely obvious safety issues built into these products. This is intentional.

43. I was still slow to piece together all this evidence of carefully thought-out harms. But eventually I got there are and have been speaking in what many regard as extreme terms ever since.

 

Former Pfizer VP Dr. Mike Yeadon - Contagion or Infection is a Psyop

 

Source: https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/statement-by-mike-yeadon

segunda-feira, 23 de setembro de 2024

With pager blasts and airstrikes, Israel unleashes its terror on Lebanon



Israeli leaders have threatened to replicate the ‘Gaza model’ in south Lebanon. But Hezbollah may prove to be an even more challenging foe than Hamas.

On the afternoon of Sept. 17, my phone buzzed with dozens of messages from friends in Beirut, who described the surreal scenes they had just witnessed. One friend saw a man’s face blow up while he was on a motorbike. Another said his sister was with her 2-year-old when she heard a loud bang, followed by a rush of people running toward them in terror. A third sent a clip of security camera footage from a grocery store, where a man reaches to grab his beeping pager before it explodes in his hand.

Although no one has officially claimed responsibility for the attack, everyone understood very well what had happened: Israel found a way to detonate simultaneously thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah members. In our text exchanges, my friends and I began to wonder how the Israelis pulled this off — and if this meant that all electronic devices in Lebanon were now at risk.

A similar attack occurred the following day, this time targeting Hezbollah’s walkie-talkies. In one highly publicized incident, an explosion at a funeral for Hezbollah members killed in the first attack sent mourners scrambling in fear. Across the two days, around 3,500 people were reported injured, many still in serious condition, and at least 42 people killed, including two children.

We later learned that the Hungarian company from which Hezbollah had acquired its communication devices was, in fact, an Israeli front. The devices were not intercepted and then bugged, but manufactured by Israel from the start — a “modern day Trojan horse,” as the New York Times called it. This was a sizable security breach for Hezbollah, which even the group’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, somberly acknowledged in a speech two days later.

But it now seems that the attacks of last week were the prelude for a more traditional — and more deadly — open phase of war. At the time of writing, Israel has launched multiple airstrikes throughout south Lebanon and the Bekaa valley, and countless Lebanese civilians are currently fleeing the area following “immediate” evacuation orders from the Israeli army.

 
Israeli soldiers seen in the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona. September 19, 2024. (Michael Giladi/Flash90)

So far, at least 492 people have been reported killed, including 35 children, and 1,645 wounded, and casualties are expected to rise. This makes Sept. 23, to quote Lebanese journalist Timour Azhari, the “deadliest day in memory in [the] Lebanon-Israel conflict,” and with Hezbollah launching rockets deeper into Israel, de-escalation is increasingly out of reach.

‘This cannot be the new normal’

For Justin Salhani, a journalist based in Beirut, the psychological impact of the pager attacks on Lebanon’s civilian population cannot be underestimated. People are “already fearful,” Salhani told +972, noting how many Lebanese have remained deeply traumatized since the devastating Beirut port explosion on Aug. 4, 2020.

Four years later, the harrowing scenes in Lebanese hospitals were repeating themselves. At the American University of Beirut’s medical center, one of the country’s largest and most prestigious facilities, it took two days for doctors and nurses to attend to the thousands of injuries from the first pager attack, according to a communications staffer at the hospital who spoke with Salhani. This was before the second wave of injuries from the walkie-talkie attacks.

Salhani and I were talking shortly before the Sept. 20 Israeli airstrike on the Dahiya neighborhood in southern Beirut, the third one this year, which killed Hezbollah’s operations commander Ibrahim Aqil, other senior members of the elite Radwan unit, and several civilians, including three children. Yet the device explosions stand out for their wide-ranging consequences — “not just for Hezbollah,” Salhani noted, but the future of warfare.

 
An Israeli fighter jet flies over the northern Israeli city of Haifa, September 23, 2024. (Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)

In the words of Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the pager attacks “represent a new development in warfare where communication tools become weapons.” He condemned the tactic as a violation of international law and a possible war crime, affirming that “this cannot be the new normal.”

But given Israel’s history of using warfare to test new military technology and strategy, there is no indication that Türk’s warning will have any impact — and the pager attacks may, like other lethal Israeli innovations, become quickly normalized.

Gaza has long been Israel’s preferred military laboratory, and Israeli start-ups that market “battle-tested” weapons have reaped the benefits. This has turned Gaza into a place where the most morbid world records have been broken — home, for example, to the highest percentage of child amputees, with around 10 children per day losing one or both of their legs to Israeli bombs, according to the UN.

But Lebanon, too, has been a key battleground for Israel to develop its military stratagem. First outlined by IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot during the 2006 war, the infamous Dahiya doctrine endorses “disproportionate” force to “the enemy’s actions and the threat it poses,” and includes specifically targeting civilian infrastructure “to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes,” according to a 2009 report by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. 

Anyone affected by Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon instinctively understands the Dahiya doctrine. And after the nearly year-long genocide in Gaza, which has seen the relentless destruction of entire cities, and recent statements from Israeli leaders, Lebanese citizens are firm in conviction that the Israeli military will not hesitate to inflict massive civilian casualties. Last November, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared that “what we can do in Gaza, we can do in Beirut,” while last week, IDF Major General Ori Gordin proposed re-occupying south Lebanon to create a “buffer zone” with Israel.

Israelis watch airstrikes in southern Lebanon, near the Israeli border, September 23, 2024. (David Cohen/Flash90)

Add to this the explicitly genocidal rhetoric emanating from Israeli society against the Palestinian people in Gaza, with both traditional and social media consumed by open calls for genocide, as well as by Israelis soldiers themselves in Gaza. To anyone who has experienced Israeli occupation and bombardment in Lebanon, the reports, images, and videos coming out of Gaza feel eerily familiar — and now they fear they will witness the same in their own country.

Hezbollah’s difficult calculus

At the beginning of 2022, I argued in +972 that “Hezbollah couldn’t ask for a better enemy than Israel,” given how Israeli escalatory rhetoric and actions have helped Hezbollah justify the maintenance of its military hegemony in Lebanon. This is only more true today: pointing to Israel’s actions in Gaza, and now increasingly in Lebanon, Hezbollah can tell its supporters that no compromise with the Israeli state is possible, and that without armed resistance, Lebanese civilians will suffer the crimes that begin the moment Israeli troops enter any Arab territory.

As some analysts have pointed out, the Israeli attacks are likely to drive Hezbollah further underground — for some members, quite literally. In August, Hezbollah released a Hebrew-subtitled video, reposted by Israel’s own Foreign Affairs Ministry on YouTube, showing a hidden tunnel in Lebanon wide enough to fit large missile launchers and a convoy of trucks. It is not known how many similar tunnels exist. 

Keeping the extent of this underground network a secret is naturally part of Hezbollah’s psychological warfare against Israel. It is a way of reminding the latter that — unlike Hamas and the densely populated Gaza Strip — Hezbollah operates in a much larger territory with no such restrictions, with much greater physical access to its allies in Iran and Syria than Hamas under Israel’s blockade.

 
A woman watches the speech of Secretary-general of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah at her home in Mishmar David, September 19, 2024. (Nati Shohat/Flash90)

Meanwhile, threats by Israeli leaders to apply its “Gaza model” to Lebanon risks pushing some Hezbollah members to employ more irregular warfare tactics, which the Israeli army has historically had difficulty confronting, such as ambushes, hit-and-run attacks, and other cross-border incursions.

This is especially true if Israel attempts another ground invasion of south Lebanon — a territory that Hezbollah has operated from as a guerrilla group since the 1980s, with increasingly sophisticated weapons after each round of fighting, and a more battle-hardened force since their interventions in Syria.

In other ways, however, Hezbollah is in a precarious domestic position. There is no sizable appetite for a war with Israel in a country that is still feeling the effects of one of the world’s worst economic crises, especially since the Beirut port explosion. The group’s decision to support Hamas after October 7 has, for these same reasons, also been highly controversial. It is, as of now, also unclear to what extent Hezbollah can rely on Iran’s direct support if that would bring an all-out war to Tehran’s own doorstep.

But without international pressure to stop the openly exterminationist policies of the Netanyahu government, Hezbollah may be pushed to a point of no return — with unimaginable consequences for the region.

 


Source: https://www.972mag.com/lebanon-hezbollah-pagers-israel-gaza/

quinta-feira, 19 de setembro de 2024

What Happens When a Hospital Vaccine Injures You?


The tragic but insightful story of Alexis Lorenze

 

After finishing the first part of the DMSO series (which explains how millions of permanent disabilities and deaths from strokes, traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord injuries could have been prevented if the FDA hadn’t blacklisted DMSO), I decided to take a technology break.

However, as I was drifting to bed last night, a lot of people began contacting me about a disaster that was unfolding in California.

 

 
Before and after a mandatory vaccine

What I find astounding about this case is that within minutes of looking into the limited information that was available, I was relatively certain of what happened, and now that her basic labs were posted online, it was indeed what happened. However, as best as I can tell, a fairly straightforward (conventional) diagnosis was missed and Alexis Lorenze has instead been put at risk of a life threatening injury.

I was initially in disbelief this was possible (and to an extent still am), but people directly connected to the situation confirmed this indeed is the case. As this case is an instructive example of medical blindness, I felt it would be helpful to share what happened.

Note: premier academic hospitals, while less likely to have a compassionate and caring relationship with their patients, are normally better at recognizing less common diagnoses and are typically equipped with the specialized services needed to address those situations—all of which makes me particularly surprised this was missed. To some extent, I am juxtaposing my understanding of the Midwestern academic centers onto this situation, so if you are directly familiar with the UC hospital system (particularly Irvine) and there’s is something I am missing here, please let me know.

Medical Blindness

A major in medicine is that doctors are frequently unable to recognize conditions which:

Create cognitive dissonance for them (e.g., by forcing them to acknowledge they hurt a patient or accept that the guidelines their medical tribe gave them are flawed).

•They were not taught to identify to recognize (as there is so much complexity to a human being, the majority of physicians lack the innate capacity to see things they weren’t taught to filter for or the willing to seriously consider the significance of things which do not make sense within their cognitive map of the world).

Because of this, physicians frequently fail to recognize a pharmaceutical injury is occurring or believe a patient who claims an injury was linked to a pharmaceutical (particularly since medical education conveniently does not train doctors to recognize these injuries and simultaneously trains them to believe anything patients report that is not backed by science is “anecdotal” and most likely a spontaneous coincidence). This in turn leads to the tragic phenomenon of “medical gaslighting” (discussed further here) something many patients understandably find infuriating.

This issue is particularly common with vaccines because:

•The meaningless slogan “safe and effective” has been used to market them for decades regardless of how much evidence of harm exists (e.g., I previously listed some fairly tragic examples that ultimately go back over a century). Because of this, the majority of doctors assume vaccines are 100% safe and that no possible issue can emerge from giving them ad-infinitum.

•To maintain the mythology of “safe and effective,” a massive embargo exists on publishing any information which is critical of vaccine safety. For example, here I presented numerous independently conducted studies which all show that vaccines cause between a 2-10 fold increase in numerous chronic diseases, which have “inexplicably” spiked throughout America at the same time the vaccine schedule proliferated throughout the society (due the manufacturers being granted complete immunity from the harms of their products as they were going out of business due to the cost of injury lawsuits).

•Much of the credibility of modern medicine arises from the mythology that it rescued us from the dark ages of infectious disease with vaccinations (when in reality that decline was entirely due to improved public sanitation). Because of this, attacking vaccination directly attacks a doctor’s identity and social status.

As a result, the medical profession will frequently go to extraordinary lengths to defend a bad vaccine they’ve endorsed—with the COVID-19 vaccines being one of the most absurd examples I’ve seen in my lifetime, but not by any means the first time this has happened.

Hospital Vaccine Injuries

Suzanne Humphries (and Roman Bystrianyk) did an incredible service to the vaccine safety movement by publishing Dissolving Illusions, a book which clearly demonstrated that the mythology we were sold about vaccines saving the world was hoax, and in reality they caused far more harm than they benefitted people (discussed further here).

Suzanne Humphries embarked on this project because, as a nephrologist, she kept on seeing patients enter kidney failure after a vaccine (or have their kidneys significantly worsen once they received a vaccine at a hospital).

Note: Nephrologists have a somewhat unique position in medicine as if they request for a drug to be discontinued because they suspect it is harming a patients kidneys, other doctors will listen and stop the drug (whereas if a non-nephrologist points out a drug injury to a colleague, they colleague often won’t discontinue it).

“One Monday after picking up the weekend service, a hospital inpatient with kidney failure got very grumpy with me. Seeing him in the middle of his dialysis treatment, I’d asked the usual questions, like “And how long have you been on dialysis?” and the man exploded. “I’ve never been on dialysis! I never had anything wrong, until they gave me that shot.” . . . Working up a lather he almost yelled . . . “I was fine until I had that vaccine!” Taken aback, I asked, “What vaccine did you get? When did you get it, and how do you know your kidneys were fine before?” Apparently he’d told his story to everyone, but had been blown off. Now, he was startled that anyone was even asking sensible questions. So he tumbled the whole story out. After a very thorough investigation and a fine-tooth-combed patient history analysis, which did indeed reveal that his kidney function was perfectly normal a month before, I decided that his words and beliefs had merit.”

“After the first man with kidney failure, I began asking other people, with unusual case presentations, whether or not they had been recently vaccinated. Some would become wide-eyed after the question, as if they too had never considered any connection, but in others, the light dawned and after picking up their jaws, they often replied, “YES, it was shortly after that!” Sure enough, the records would show the time relationship. Sometimes violent sickness began on the very day.”

“After three people came in with fulminant kidney failure, temporally related to vaccination, I thought it prudent to bring the cases to the attention of the hospital chief of medical staff. Upon passing him in the hallway, we stopped for the usual cordial robotic small talk: “Hello. How are you? How is the practice going? Are you happy here?” To which the answer for the previous seven years had been “Great. Great and yes!” But this time I had news! “We have a problem. I’ve seen three cases of kidney failure in adults shortly after they were vaccinated and two of the three told me they were fine until the vaccine. All of them had documented normal kidney function within two months of the vaccine. What do you think?”

After a short silence, I got to know a different side of this man. Perhaps he could also say he got to know a different side of me. His immediate response was, “It was not a vaccine reaction. They just got the flu and the vaccine didn’t have time to work.” The problem was that none of the three even had flu-like symptoms. Why did he automatically jump to that conclusion? It is true that even less than once in a blue moon, influenza infection all by itself can lead to interstitial nephritis and kidney shut down. I’d never treated a case of flu-related kidney failure in all my years of practice as a very busy nephrologist in large tertiary care centers.”

“Around this time, I admitted a patient of mine for a kidney biopsy. I came to write the admitting order 45 minutes after she arrived, and saw that she had been given a flu shot before I got there, with an order that had my name on it. I hadn’t ordered it, so I asked the nurse how this could be. Astonishingly she said that it was now policy for the pharmacist to put a doctor’s signature on the order if the patient gave consent. They were very efficient that day.

Usually it could take forever to get an IV infusion set up, yet suddenly vaccines were given immediately on arrival. While the first problem for me was that I didn’t order the vaccine, the second was that the policy extended to ALL admissions, even if they had sepsis or worsening cancer, or were having a heart attack or stroke. A third problem was that there was no realization that a vaccine, or two, might make it more difficult for a clinician to subsequently work out what the problems were caused by, and correctly diagnose and treat the patient. Plainly, there was no consideration as to the utility, benefit, or detriment of a flu shot, to any seriously, acutely ill patient.”

Note: a key reason why hospitals push vaccines is because Obamacare, in a mission to “improve” medicine changed their financial reimbursements to reward “quality health care” and made a key component of that metric that a hospital ensured vaccinating a high percentage of their staff and patients. (ER: There is an equal obsession to vaccinate in France, too, especially children and newborns. And especially with your family doctor.)

“As time went on, inpatient consults became quite revealing because we could track the kidney function from normal or slightly impaired, to failed after a vaccine was given on admission.”

“In the past when I was consulted on kidney failure cases and said, “Oh that was the statin/antibiotic/diuretic that did that!” instantly the drug would be stopped—no questions asked. Now, however, a new standard was applied to vaccines. It didn’t matter that the internist’s notes in the charts said, “No obvious etiology of kidney failure found after thorough evaluation.” It didn’t matter that I considered the vaccine a possible cause when all other potential culprits had been eliminated. It was never the vaccine. The collective mindset said with glazed-over eyes, “Vaccines? Not possible or likely.”

“When I was discussing the issue one day on a cardiology ward, a cardiologist who knew me well, approached me with wide eyes. He was horrified, thinking he was behind on the latest recommendation. He said “Wait! Are we not supposed to be giving flu shots? I have been brow-beating my patients into flu shots whenever possible!” I explained the situation I witnessed and he listened. He also had never considered a vaccine to be a potential danger in any way. Whether or not he has since changed his thinking, or his practice at all, I don’t know. What was telling to me, was that all he wanted to know was what he had missed. He was not interested in thinking it out on his own. He was far too busy for that. He just wanted to know if he missed anything of ‘importance’, so that he could be a good, correct doctor. Kind of like the student who only wants to know what will be on the exam, but not how to think about how that information might fit into the bigger picture.”

“Several months went by, and the medical executive committee met to discuss my concerns, without allowing me to be present at the meeting. I was informed in writing that the nursing staff were becoming confused by me discontinuing orders to vaccinate and that I should adhere to hospital policy. I thought this odd, given that nurses are not accustomed to giving the same treatment to every patient, and are fully capable of reading individualized orders.”

“The next time the medical chief of staff and I met in the corridor, an oncologist was present. At one point, I asked the chief, “Why doesn’t anyone else see the problem here? Why is it just me? How can you think all this is “okay? Why is it now considered normal to vaccinate very sick people on their first hospital day?” The oncologist gave an answer that surprised me. She said, “Medical religion!” and turned and walked away. That was a strange outburst from her because in the months that followed, I watched her continue marching down the aisle of medical religion—not only with her own health issues that she shared with me, but also with her cancer patients.”

I looked deeper into the poke, because I was forced to—but ONLY after I realized that what I thought I purchased with my medical education, was not complexity of thinking or even complete analysis of science, but rote training, and reactive responses.

A good doctor researches fact. My research turned up a mass of medical articles about kidney failure related to influenza and other vaccines, and reasons to suspect that vaccines could also be causing many of the other diseases commonly labeled as ‘idiopathic’. I was shocked at the potential scope of the damage I had previously brushed off because of lack of education. Like my colleagues, I had considered many vaccine reactions to be coincidences. Auto-immune diseases and kidney diseases requiring harsh immune-suppressive drugs are not unheard of, after vaccines. Nowhere in medical school, internship, residency, or fellowship, had kidney failure after vaccines been discussed. Why not?”

Note: many of my awake colleagues joke that idiopathic denotes individuals being too idiotic to recognize the obvious cause of a disease.

“I wrote all the cases out and put together a comprehensive brief for the hospital administration, but to no avail.”

“As time went on, it was interesting seeing the divide in the hospital staff. Nurses would bail me up in quiet corners and tell me stories that completely backed up what I was seeing. They would guardedly support me, when their superiors were out of eye- or ear-shot. A deeper respect was building between those who could see what I saw, while an icy wind roared from those on high.”

“I kept presenting the administration with facts they could not respond to, in the hope that they would get a blinding revelation of the obvious. Finally, they recruited the Northeast Healthcare Quality Foundation, the “quality improvement organization” for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, to get me off their backs. Dr. Lawrence D. Ramunno sent a letter invoking the fallacy of authority, which adamantly informed me that hospital vaccination against influenza virus would become a global measure for all admissions in 2010, and that my evidence of harm was not significant because 10 professional organizations endorse vaccination.

“Not satisfied with demanding that I practice automaton obedience to dictates from on high, they initiated a shadow observation, where everything I did and wrote in the hospital, from then on, was observed and scrutinized.

This unscientific and unprofessional harassment only served to reinforce my decision to leave no policy unquestioned, ever again.”

Suzanne Humphries in turn was inspired to write her book “Dissolving Illusions” because one of the most common counterarguments she received from her colleagues about flu shots causing kidney failure was that “vaccines saved us from smallpox and polio so there’s no possible way a vaccine could be bad.” This in turn inspired her to look into the data underlying that claim, at which point she realized most of it wasn’t publicly available, but when she unearthed records from the basements of medical libraries, she discovered that statement was a myth, after which point she published that evidence in her book.

In my own case, I’ve admitted quite a few patients to the hospital who I quickly realized were hospitalized because of a vaccine injury (e.g., including a kidney failure case like Suzanne Humphries described), and in each case, one of the biggest challenges I had was finding a way to present the case in such a way that the other doctors at the hospital would not get elgaged at me for it (e.g., I was successful in one case by attributing one injury to how the vaccine was administered rather than the vaccine itself).

Note: in this publication, I’ve emphasized the forgotten medical theory that many vaccine injuries are a product of them altering the zeta potential of the body, causing blood in the body to clump together and create microstrokes which damage critical parts of the body (e.g., I’ve seen numerous cases where this happened in the brain or kidneys).

Likewise, I believe one of the most common reasons why people are hospitalized is because the zeta potential of their body has weakened enough that they begin developing severe symptoms which meet the criteria for hospitalization. In turn, I’ve seen textbook zeta potential collapse cases from a vaccine that resulted in hospital admission and I also believe one of the most helpful things hospitals do for patients is give them IV saline (which is just done routinely because everyone is “dehydrated”) because IV saline marginally restores the physiologic zeta potential.

Alexis Lorenze

Alexis Lorenze came from a family that skipped many of their later vaccines (due to an injury she experienced) and had an unfortunate genetic disorder (PNH) that causes her immune system to destroy her blood cells because they lack a protein that prevents that attack. The conventional options for the condition aren’t great—a stem cell bone marrow transplant (which produces blood cells the body won’t attack) or a monoclonal antibody that causes $400,000.00 a year.

Because Alexis was desperate for an effective way to treat her condition, after months of struggling with it, she eventually came to UC Irvine for treatment, a facility which happens to be a premier adult stem cell transplant research center.

When stem cell bone marrow transplants are done, they essentially require first killing off the existing bone marrow and then replacing with new bone marrow (from a donor) which, unlike the old marrow, does not produce the problematic blood cells (e.g., this is a common treatment for blood cancers). Frequently when this occurs, the adaptive immunity from previous vaccinations is lost, and for this reason, many (but not all) groups recommended re-vaccinating after a bone marrow stem cell transplant, and they often space them out (e.g., consider what one of the countries “top” medical centers does). That said, given that most of the diseases they re-vaccinate against pose minimal risk, I do not completely agree with this rationale.

Note: one of the unusual characteristics of the COVID-19 vaccine was that it would accumulate in the bone marrow, and I came across cases of individuals with had a bone marrow stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma who then had their bone marrow transplant fail after the COVID vaccine. Likewise, since organ transplants are in short supply, transplant doctors prioritize people who are taking care of their health as they are the most likely to have a successful outcome with the organ. During COVID, this created the nightmarish situation where many were told they could not have a transplant unless they vaccinated, and I in turn came across numerous cases of individuals who had severe injuries, death, or failure of their transplant after the vaccination.

Steve Kirsch briefly outlines what happened to Alexis:

Tues, Sept 10: She has PNH and had terrible migraines for the last 2 weeks. Went in for help. Checked into UCI Hospital. ABNORMAL ECG – Sinus tachycardia Abnormal T, consider ischemia, anterior leads. Her HR is 131 bpm. Her hemoglobin was 3.1 (severely low). Her platelets were

Her Troponin I was high at check in which is an indicator of heart damage.

Her platelets (needed to prevent bleeding) were very low (28) at check in.

Fri, Sept 13: Given platelets by IV. Doesn’t seem to increase her counts. They did bone marrow biopsy and 2-3 transfusions.

Sat, Sept 14, 2pm: Hematologist (Zahra Pakbaz) tells Alexis they will not treat her any further unless she is up-to-date on her vaccines. They gave her tetanus, meningitis and pneumonia all at once. She has had ZERO V’s with the exception of when she was a baby. 2 V’s in her left arm and 1 V in her right. Within 10-minutes post vaccines, she couldn’t move her arms and was blind in both eyes.

Within 10 minutes of the 3 vaccines which were given all at the same time, Alexis went temporarily blind in both eyes, had a locked jaw, began vomiting and then things went horribly downhill from there.

At this point, the hospital did nothing except put her on pain meds and benadryl, and eventually she put out a plea for help on TikTok to save her from the hospital because she was worried she was going to die, that subsequently went viral (hence why I was contacted).

Without knowing anything beyond what was in that video, my immediate assessment was:

  1. This is most likely immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), a condition where the immune system attacks its own platelets. This condition is quite rare (every year 3-4 out of 100,000 people develop it) and unlike most vaccine injuries, significant literature exists linking it to vaccination (including for the COVID-19 vaccines), which I believe is in part due to ITP being fairly rare so acknowledging it doesn’t disrupt the “safe and effective” narrative.
  2. It might be a case of purpura fulminans (another rare low platelet disorder), an often fatal acute condition characterized by a more visible skin rash (from blood clots under the skin) that results from coagulation in the the small vessels (something I associate with impaired zeta potential). Additionally, this condition is linked to PNH.
  3. This might be a vaccine related kidney issue.
  4. This is some other unusual autoimmune disorder and she needs a comprehensive immunological blood work to identify it.

Given that ITP is a known complication of stem cell transplants, it is again very strange that the hospital (a premier stem cell transplant center) did not recognize an extreme case of the disorder.

Once her limited labs were obtained (which can be viewed here), it was clear she had ITP, and that at least at the time, there was not a significant issue with her kidneys (ruling out #3).

 


Note: in her medical records, there are also numerous correspondences indicating that a nurse reported this critical platelet lab value to the doctor.

Additionally, beyond it being apparent from looking at her, her lab work showed she was having a lot of clots breaking down in her body.

 

                                      September 10, prior to vaccine

 

                                      September 16, 2 days after vaccine

Note: other blood coagulation parameters were also abnormal (e.g., her PT was 15.6 and her INR was 1.36). Additionally, she was anemic (due to her PNH).

Based on all of this and how ITP is managed, I was very confused as to why nothing was done (besides giving her pain killers), so I went to look up the standard management of ITP to make sure I was not missing something.

 

UpToDate is one of the primary resources doctors use for clinical decisions.
 

Since that time, this story has gone viral, Steve Kirsch sent his team to the hospital to help her, and two subsequent interviews were conducted which showed how much Alexis is suffering. In the first interview (which you can view here), they shared a few key points:

•She came in hoping for a blood transfusion, but was told she could not have any more treatment unless she received the vaccines.

•The hospital has given conflicting messages about what vaccines she received (even though the nurse clearly told them which ones were being given).

Alexis’s entire body is covered with the same hematomas you can see on her face, and her body feels as though it is inflated. Additionally, she is in severe pain.

The doctors have not treated her well (she claims some laughed at her, while another one stated they had never seen anything like this before) and that when she’s hit the call button for basic things she needs, it’s taken hours for nurses to get to her.

The hospital is convinced this could not have been due to the vaccine, and instead was due to a Parvovirus infection (which a PCR test was positive for). Given that all or her symptoms started 10 minutes after the vaccines…that’s a bit of a stretch but no different from what Suzanne Humphries experienced.

•The tried to transport her out of the hospital but were unable to as she does not have the insurance to get care at another facility.

In the last few hours, they at last were able to get Alexis transferred to the ICU, either due to the political pressure being placed on the hospital from the story going viral on Twitter or because she had, Nurse Angela, a skilled advocate helping her (which is often what is needed to get proper care in these larger institutions).

Conclusion

I am very hesitant to ascribe motives to people when I can’t read their minds, but in this case, assuming the facts as presented are true, my best guess is that the hospital’s response to Alexis was a combination of fear (especially once she mentioned “malpractice”), uncertainty and paralysis over her situation (e.g., the hematologist who pushed the vaccines on her disappeared), and provides an excellent illustration of why, if you have the choice, smaller rural hospitals rather than academic ivory towers are often much better to go to.

One of the more telling aspects of this story was the hospital threatening to sue Steve Kirsch for publishing Alexis’s medical records (which legally they can’t do), which in turn illustrates that the hospital’s focus is on protecting itself rather than the patient.

In this case, I believe it sheds a light on four very crucial points.

First, as Suzanne Humphries showed, it is incredibly difficult for doctors to accept that vaccines could be harmful because it goes so against their deep seated beliefs. In turn, even when the COVID vaccines have killed and crippled large numbers of people (which has been enough to wake many doctors up), other doctors I know are still not willing to acknowledge the vaccine is dangerous (e.g., I know one doctor I think in many ways is a great physician who still supports vaccines even though two of the three members of his immediate family had severe and unambiguous reactions to them). My best guess is that the hematologist who pushed the vaccines on her could not conceive of the possibility they could be harmful (hence why he said to take all of them at once rather than one at a time) and then withdrew from the situation once something bad happened.

Second, in most cases, things like this get swept under the rug (which is a large part of why doctors are convinced serious vaccine reactions are “1 in a million”). Fortunately, due to the new media climate social media (particularly Twitter) has enabled, it’s getting much harder to do that. In turn, while what happened to Alexis is extremely unfortunately, unlike those before her, she was able to publicize it and get something done about her situation, and it is my hope this will bring greater awareness to the possibility vaccines are indeed quite real.

Third, one of the greatest challenges in getting people to believe vaccine injuries is that “evidence” for them doesn’t exist or it’s hard to appreciate the suffering the person is going through. What makes this case unique is that it is visually apparent something is wrong (which hence allowed it to go viral) and the temporal relationship is almost impossible to deny. What’s important to remember is that in almost all vaccine injuries, that is not the case (which again illustrates why they frequently get swept under the rug).

Fourth, if something does go awry with a vaccine, there is often minimal to no safety net available to you (e.g., you can’t sue anyone and the Federal compensation programs almost never pay out to the injured). Because of this, those injured are often forced to go to online fund raising platforms for their medical expenses (which often doesn’t works). In turn, one of the particularly cruel things that happened during the vaccine roll out is that Gofundme started deleting fundraisers for the COVID vaccine injuries because a lot of them went viral and they didn’t want to “spread vaccine hesitancy” by making people aware severe injuries were occurring.

Note: Alexis has a fundraiser on this (more ethical) platform.

Finally (since I am still having trouble wrapping my head around all of this), if any of you have familiarity with the UC hospital system (particularly UC Irvine), this midwestern doctor would appreciate your insights into the hospital culture there (and sincerely appreciates the help all of you have given me to help get critical messages like this out).

 Forced to get 3 vaccines, Alexis Lorenze is now fighting for her life

Source: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-happens-when-a-hospital-vaccine?