fourth world: Brazil: 22 thousand dead after 1st vaccine dose (an alternate hypothesis)

David Montoute

02/09/2021

Recent data from Brazil reveals that 22,000 people have died and 65,000 have been hospitalised after taking a single Covid vaccine dose, with a further 28,000 being hospitalised after a second dose.

According to research by Info Tracker, a pandemic monitoring platform of the state universities USP and Unesp, at least 9,878 Brazilians who died "from covid-19" had already taken two doses of the vaccine or a single application of Janssen's formula. The survey used data from the Ministry of Health and analysed cases that occurred between February 28th and July 27th. Of these, 711 were people who died in Brazil's captial district after taking the first dose. The country's smallest state, has so far vaccinated over one million citizens with one dose, that is, some 38.31% of the area's population. Among those who were "fully immunised" with both doses, 263 deaths were recorded.

The figures were presented by the Health Secretary of the Federal District, Osnei Okumoto, at a press conference on July 21st at the district government headquarters in Brasília. The data is sobering for vaccine advocates, all the more so if we take on board critical, independent observersations about a potentially greater, hidden toll. If the true numbers are higher, it is because, akin to the VAERS system in the United States, many cases of injury and death are never officially recorded in the system.

The national tally of 22,000 deaths following vaccination was naturally chalked up to "Covid-19", as per standard practice across the world. In Brazil, as elsewhere, there is no public recognition of the inability of PCR or antigen tests to determine the presence of a specific virus, and since elderly people over 70 still constitute the principal "Covid" fatalities in the country, there seems little chance of truly ascertaining who has died of what.

A simple example can be given with the death of the Agnaldo Timóteo in April of this year. The 84-year old singer was given two doses of Coronavac, one month apart. Only two days after the second dose, he was interned in an intensive care unit in Rio de Janeiro. Initially in a "serious but stable" condition, Timóteo was eventually intubated and less than a week later, he was declared dead. The doctors at the unit said that they "believed" the singer had contracted the Coronavirus between the first and second doses of the vaccine. Even more absurdly, media reports claimed that "[t]he short interval between the second dose of Coronavac and Timóteo's hospitalisation indicates that the singer's infection must have occurred before his vaccination." The clarification, of course, only exists so that the reader does not make any association between the vaccine and the hospitalisation.

We see in this incident a fairly obvious case of iatrogenic death that is dressed up in multiple ways to make it look like anything other than what it is. How many other post-vaccine deaths fit this profile? Is anyone even looking?

In apparent good health before the jab, Agnaldo Timóteo.

As a country with a traditionally high vaccine uptake, scientific critiques of the Covid testing regime have not gained much traction in Brazil's public discourse. But if the pandemic's causation seems off-limits to critical analysis, suspicion that the battery of experimental 'vaccines' may themselves be amongst the causes of excess death must be even more deeply suppressed. Instead, this scandalous post-vaccine death toll is either hidden as "Covid fatalities" or else it is offset against the much larger number of deaths already attributed to the elusive virus. Beneath the facade of official declarations, however, popular faith in the Coronavirus vaccines is beginning to erode. In April of this year, the Ministry of Health announced that 1.5 million people failed to show up to for their second dose, whilst social media activity indicates a growing rejection to the jabs after the widespread experience of negative effects.

Abroad, the corporate media regularly invokes Brazil as one of the countries most affected by the "pandemic", and always in the context of critiquing the government's approach to it. Brazil has officially recorded more than 580,000 "Covid" deaths, trailing only the United States in total numbers, but 9th highest in terms of global proportionality. But one other parallel must also be drawn between the respecitive powerhouses of North and South America. Worldwide, Brazil is second only to the U.S. in its use of synthetic pesticides. But it is number one in its use of the Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs), those whose active ingredients have extremely acute toxicity. The explosive growth in Brazil's agricultural exports have made it a primary market for pesticides banned or phased out in richer nations for their impacts on health and environmental. At least four major foreign pesticide makers (U.S.-based FMC Corp., Denmark’s Cheminova A/S, Helm AG of Germany and Swiss agribusiness Syngenta AG) sell products in the country that are no longer allowed in their domestic markets, including the infamous paraquat.

To crown this already impressive toxic burden, the most popular agricultural chemical in Brazil is glyphosate, which represents 62% of the total herbicides used there. As the the world’s largest exporter of GMO soybeans, Brazil relies heavily on glyphosate, and Monsanto's star product, a known carcinogen, is associated with hundreds of infants deaths in the country each year. Most significantly for current context, over-exposure to glyphosate has been shown to lead to haemodynamic disturbances, including platelet aggregation and intravascular disseminated coagulation. A 2014 study by Cincinatti-based scientists showed that aerosolised glyphosate exposure can cause airway inflammation and severely affect the lungs. The researchers concluded:

"Collectively, our results showed that mice continuously exposed to glyphosate developed elevated levels of eosinophils, neutrophils, and asthma-related cytokines (IL-5, IL-10, IL-13, IL-33, TSLP) compared to control groups. Exposure to glyphosate results in airway barrier damage."

If all of this sounds familiar, it is because there are the characteristics of the famous “cytokine storm” described widely in the condition(s) that we have dubbed "Covid-19", with the lungs destroyed by the body’s own hyperreactive immune response, and the process terminating either in asphyxiation through hypoxia, or widespread clot formations in the vasculature, followed by sepsis and organ failure. Although "Covid-19" in practice has been used as a catch-all term for all manner of conditions (to maximise case and death numbers and sustain the narrative of a viral pandemic) it is nevertheless clear that in some specific areas of the world, such as New York and Lombardy, the inflammatory cytokine storm, coupled with hypoxia, was an early recurring feature of the severe cases that resulted in hospitalisation. So, could glyphosate have been an underlying cause in these high-mortality pockets?

Last year, eminent MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff proposed this very linkage, and argued that glyphosate was an important co-factor in the pandemic. Since the herbicide in question is predicted to deplete the supply of both nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), and flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD), two enzyme cofactors that are essential for maintaining a low level of deuterium in the mitochondria. Seneff reasons that failure to maintain production of the all-important ATP widespread (but uneven) exposure to the chemical could be responsible for the much worse clinical outcomes of "Covid-19".

Seneff looked at the distribution of "Covid-19" hotspots and asked why these specific foci existed. Her hypothesis is that the biofuels industry was inadvertently introducing glyphosate into the fuels that power our cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, and ships. The expansion of this biofuels industry over the past decade would have led to a qualitative change in the toxicity of the fumes. Specifically, aerosolised glyphosate might be causing damage to the lungs that turns what would otherwise be a mild cold into a serious health crisis. Some 90 percent of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified, and most of that crop is used for animal feed or for ethanol. This corn, destined to become ethanol, is overwhelmingly a glyphosate-treated crop.

And this is where the herbicide's relevance to Brazil enters the picture. Brazil is the world's second largest producer of bioethanol. Starting in the 1970s, Brazil's government,sought to reduce its dependency on oil imports and made it mandatory to blend anhydrous ethanol with gasoline. As a result, there are today virtually no light vehicles in the country that run purely on gasoline. Brazilian ethanol is made from sugarcane, not corn, but sugarcane too requires intensive use of glyphosate. Consequently, new forms of glyphosate-resistant GMO sugarcane have been approved for commercial cultivation, and are now being rolled out. Unknowingly, the biofuels industry has introduced a qualitative change in air pollution, a change that is generating entirly new disease profiles. In support of the strong connections between glyphosate and respiratory disease, the economist and entrepeneur Gunter Pauli wrote:

"The correlation between the alarming rise of a series of chronic diseases and the use of glyphosate was confirmed through scientific research with a stunning p-value of less than 0.00001. This indicates that the match between illness and presence of glyphosate is no coincidence at all. An analysis of those who suffered and passed away in Lombardy due to the COVID-19 revealed that 99% of them had a chronic disease, and nearly half suffered from three or more illnesses that correlate with chronic diseases associated with glyphosate. Perhaps we should not insist on social distancing, rather Governments should finally enforce a dramatic reduction of the citizens’ exposure to glyphosate."

After the success of biofuel for cars, the aviation industry also began to blend vegetable-based oils into kerosene. The airline flight paths have thus become "airborne glyphosate corridors". Pauli asks whether a correlation can be established between the intensity of biofuel use (as exemplified in Brazil, the United States and areas of Western European) and the incidence of severe Covid-19. Equally significant, he suggests, are the negative correlations of Covid with those parts of the world using exclusively organic agriculture, such as Bhutan and Sikkim in the Himalayas. These places reported zero Coronavirus deaths early on, and have since continued to enjoy the lowest global "Covid" fatality rates.

Naturally, the condition that is referred to as "Covid-19" cannot be simply reduced to glyphosate exposure, because the condition itself is one of vague definition. Under the guidance of the WHO, national health bodies have gathered together and reclassified a broad spectrum of ailments under a new heading of "Covid". Testing procedures are largely arbitrary, varying from one country to another, one region to another, employing different protocols (e.g. different PCR threshold cycles). Even the specific inflammatory response described above can be produced by a broad number of agents, and is, in any case, frequently not present at all in the alleged Covid syndrome,

Still, in spite of these solid grounds for reconsidering the fundamental aetiology of "Covid-19", the vaccination bandwagon rolls on. Late last year, the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled that anyone refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 could have certain rights revoked, whether welfare payments, public school enrolment or access to public places and services. São Paulo's governor João Doria, a multimillionaire businessman who announced his intentions for mandatory jabs long before any vaccine was even available, has repeatedly promised to implement these provisions. A vaccination passport system has already been put into place in SP for large venues and various public facilities, a move which has been roundly denounced by President Jair Bolsonaro for its violation of article 5. of the Constitution ("all persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever"). The governor, in turn, has shot back at Bolsonaro and denounced the President's embrace of hydroxychloroquine, saying “In São Paulo, we are going to vaccinate. This is not the land of chloroquine. This is the land of vaccines.”

Doria is not new to foisting the intake of unknown ingredients upon his citizens. In 2017, he launched a scheme to feed poor residents with pellets from reprocessed leftover foods, a variable mash-up that he described as “a complete food”. In fact, the safety and even the specific composition of the ultra-processed farinata is not known, but is suspected by nutritionists of compounding Brazil's chronic obesity problem. The Coronavirus measures, of course, represent a significant step above and beyond the distrbution of junk food, and facilitate the most intimate and direct type of violation a state can devise.

Raising the spectre of a domino effect from São Paulo, recent surveys revealed that more than 2,000 municipal town halls in Brazil (87% of those polled) express a desire for mandatory vaccination. If this figure is anywhere close to being accurate, governors of the other states will undoubtedly follow Doria, thus instituting a medical totalitarianism in a large part of the country. Even the Attorney General of the Republic, originally nominated for his position by Bolsonaro, has defended such mandates in Brazil's federal system. Such a ruling has somehow been deemed legal if the Ministry of Health "fails to act". The Attorney General further argues that mandatory vaccination will not lead to citizens being forcibly immunised, and his declaration provided us with one of those black-is-white headlines that have become so familiar in the lockdown era: "Mandatory vaccination does not mean coercion"

But even questioning these measures has now effectively been rendered illegal, since the approval of Senate bill PL 5.555/2020 makes it a crime to refuse or oppose mandatory vaccination, to spread "fake news" about the vaccine's efficacy or to discourage adherence to the vaccination program. A cross-Parliamentary Inquiry Commission of Inquiry will also have the power to investigate anyone said to be disseminating supposedly false news about the vaccines or touting the existence of alternative treatments.

Meanwhile, media powerhouse TV Globo, the second-largest commercial TV network in the world, plans to fire employees who refuse to receive the Covid-19 vaccine. Globo assured its employees that the decision is "in line with what is practiced in several companies".

São Paulo: "Mandatory vaccine only up the backside of dictators"

Confined to the margins of this fanatical vaccine push is the President himself. Bolsonaro is amongst the country's vaccine sceptics and has declared that he will not personally receive the shot, trusting instead in his own immune system. Only his pet dog, Bolsonaro joked, could be vaccinated without consent. He has also promised to veto the “vaccine passport” bill that is still being discussed in the Brazilian Congress. From the very beginning of the Covid event, the President opposed all lockdowns, all shutting of businesses, social distancing and isolation measures. In June of 2020, in response to the media's breathless claims of São Paulo's hospitals being on the edge of collapse, Bolsonaro encouraged parliamentarians to go to Brazil's most populous state and directly verify the situation for themselves. When one a multi-party group did exactly that, the group found overwhelmingly empty field hospitals and, in the process, revealed the scandal of a local healthcare system that was receiving funds for non-existent patients.

Whilst some of these conflicts are intertwined with petty political rivalries and election strategies, the vaccine dispute between the central government and the government of São Paulo is deep and very real. President Bolsonaro’s initial contempt towards the alleged pandemic set him into conflict not only with governor Doria but also with the larger part of the Brazilian media, which went on to wage a hysterical campaign of demonisation against the head-of-state. The campaign was widely echoed abroad, with the President's positions drawing the ire of some of the world's leading tech companies. In July, YouTube deleted 15 videos from Bolsonaro’s channel over claims of COVID "misinformation", including discussion of the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment modality, as championed by his Secretary of Labor and Education, Mayra Pinheiro (known in the media as "Captain Chloroquine").

Brazil's also has perhaps the only government in the world that specifically rejected Pfizer's requirements for exemption from prosecution in the event of deaths and injuries. The Indian news source (WION) reported in February on the company's attempts to strong arm the South American nations awaiting vaccines. The demands included Brazil waiving the sovereignty of its assets abroad in favour of Pfizer, the national laws of the land not being applied to Pfizer, Brazil accepting any potential delays in delivery, Pfizer not being penalised for those delays, and most crucially of course, that in case of any side effects, the company being exempt from all civil liability.

The Brazilian Health Ministry's response was to break their confidentiality clause and publish online the contract signed with Pfizer, allowing the world to see the company's outrageous demands. Nevertheless, the negotiations continued, and in August, Pfizer and BioNtech finally announced the terms of a new agreement with the Brazilian firm Eurofarma. Under the new deal a local, Brazilian production of the vaccine will begin, with doses to be distributed across Latin America, beginning in 2022. The production is expected to exceed 100 million doses. Most importantly, the contract also provides Pfizer with the immunity it demanded, stipulating that "[i]n no event shall Pfizer be liable to purchaser for any direct damages..."

Bolsonaro's government, then, is clearly not "anti-vaccine" (except, perhaps, in the new, modified version of this term) but, unlike his adversary in São Paulo (whom he dubs a "mini-dictator") the President does defend bodily autonomy and rejects the totalitarian medical impositions so enthusiastically embraced by the Senate and the country's media empire. He has been categorical in his rejection of mandatory jabs:"they won't happen", he says, "and that is final".

But as the post-vaccine body count continues its vertiginous rise, it is an open question whether Bolsonaro can maintain his stance on individual autonomy, or even avail himself of enough independent data and analysis to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling and chart for the country a change of course.

While this possibilty does exist, it does not seem at all likely. Brazil's government is trapped inside its own web of contradictions: wishing to appeal to an electorate battered with waves of virus/vaccine propaganda but not wishing to directly confront that propaganda; ignoring Brazil's high death rates but without attempting explain those high deaths rates (for this might touch uncomfortably on the pesticide question).

Further, the government's pro-big-business agricultural policies not only generate more pesticide use, illegal deforestation, illegal gold excavation and criminal land seizures, but they also foment the expansion of bioethanol production, and with it, the worsening of Brazil's glyphosate predicament. Virtually the opening move in Bolsonaro's presidency was the revocation of the decree that limited sugarcane cultivation in the Amazon and Pantanal biomes. And this left sugarcane industry effectively free to expand as it likes into the indigenous reserves. Sugarcane crop production will require an expansion of up to 5 million hectares by 2030 to meet rising ethanol demand.

These policies also set up the conditions for encroachments on indigenous lands and threaten a return to the wave of killings of Kaiowá and Guarani people that took place in the first decade of the 21st century. Bolsonaro, unfortunately, views the indigenous tribes as outsiders to society, obstacles to agribusiness, and in need of being assimilated as "Brazilians". Ironically, the President's one positive contribution to indigenous welfare has been accidental. His vaccine scepticism is reported have to stimulated similar scepticism amongst relatively isolated indigenous communities as they gain greater access to technology and social media.

Bolsonaro's committment to an unsustainable energy-intensive agribusiness simultaneously generates the environmental conditions that drive Brazil's disastrous "Covid" fatality rate. It is a production model that ruins ecosystems and whose effects simultaneously help to facilitate an emerging global biosecurity "health" dictatorship. In this process, both the urban populations and the indigenous "outsiders" are victims of this same hyper-developmentalist model that has sucked all countries into a universal and unilinear system of development. But the unwillingness or inability to confront the problems inherent in this system has left the ground open to a coterie of unscrupulous billionaires that claim to have the answers.

The utopian rhetoric of World Economic Forum and its Great Reset draws its strength precisely from the unsustainability of the capitalist system its members once championed. The "solutions" it proposes include an "end to globalisation", a radical restructuring of the production-consumption cycle and a shift toward a new and fully-digital transaction system that will be pegged to the consumption of natural resources (as, for example, with "carbon credits"). This new system, heavily dependent on AI and automation, will also leave most of the world's population literally redudant, just "useless eaters" in a context of shrinking natural resources. Although not publicly declared, this vision has revived the "repugnant conclusion", a utilitarian "dilemma" that is resolved through a covert depopulation programme mediated by vaccines and disguised by the spectre of a viral pandemic.

The groundwork for this approach was laid in earlier "epidemics", such as polio, AIDS or the phenomenon of Zika. In all cases, human biological integrity was eroded by the twin poles of micronutrient deficiencies and an ever-increasing wave of mitochondrial poisons in countless commerical applications. And in all of these cases, the true reasons for the modern plagues of chronic, multi-system illnesses were thoroughly suppressed, with causality instead assigned to little RNA fragments supposedly passing between us, whether through poop (polio), sexual fluids (AIDS) or now the very air we breathe with "Covid-19". These medical contagion hypotheses, which became dogma by virtue of their commercial profitability, have taught us all to fear nature and each other whilst allowing the true culprits to escape scrutiny. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry recyles its medical mirage whilst using its political puppets to mandate "prophylactics" that are far worse than the (misdiagnosed) diseases themselves.

As Brazil's Independence Day celebrations approach, the country's President has called for mass mobilisations around the country in support of civic freedoms. If he also took this opportunity to explain the true nature of the "pandemic", awareness of the billionaires' media-generated Covid hoax would go viral and the Brazilian people would have a realistic chance of stopping the impending medical martial law.

This may be far too great an of expectation, but the vaccine mandates are forcing an irreconciliable conflict out into the open.

“Nobody can force anybody to take the vaccine,” Bolsonaro said at an event in Bahia last year.

"We’re dealing with lives...where is our freedom?”