sexta-feira, 30 de agosto de 2024

Vaccine passport to be introduced next week in Portugal

 


mpr21
28th August

From next week, Portugal will join four other European countries in a pilot test of the European Vaccine Passport. The document is a social control instrument that brings together everyone's vaccination data into a single medium.

The passport will be available in various formats, including printed cards, copies sent by mail and digital versions for mobile phones.

The Euvabeco project is already underway, which, for once, is not using Africa as a test field. The guinea pig this time is Portugal, along with Sweden, France, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg and Poland. But, for the purposes of the experiment, only Latvia, Greece, Belgium, Germany and Portugal are participating.

What was supposed be temporary is becoming permanent. What was exceptional is becoming normal. What used to be intimate is now visible to everyone (literally).

This method of storing and sharing data, rather than relying solely on public health systems, was made possible by the Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN), which was developed
for the European Union during the “covid” pandemic .

However, plans to create a vaccination passport, analogue or digital, were already underway before 2020, and even before the vaccines, as we explained in an entry published in 2021.

Now the GDHCN is in the hands of the World Health Organisation and therefore within reach of private companies and obscure foundations, although the situation is presented back-to-front. rather than a centralised database, it is described as a mere instrument for people to access their own data.

The trial in Europe is another step forward following the recent expansion of surveillance introduced by the of the IHR (International Health Regulations)
reform. The latter facilitates recurrent lockdowns to impose mandatory vaccination as a way of ensuring a stable market for the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the latest cutting edge vaccines.

One of Euvabeco’s plans is to impose a vaccine passport worldwide. These will appear in 2026 and extend the experiment beyond this pilot phase, thus reinforcing social control mechanisms under the pretext of public health.

In addition, Euvabeco plans to launch other innovative tools, including a clinical decision system that provides vaccination recommendations, a screening tool to identify “vulnerable populations,” an electronic product information leaflet (e-PIL) to allow the transfer of vaccines between countries without having to repackage them, and a modeling and forecasting tool to assess the impact of public health interventions.

 

Source: https://mpr21.info/los-pasaportes-de-vacunas-se-encargaron-antes-que-las-vacunas/

quinta-feira, 29 de agosto de 2024

As Prosecution's Case Crumbles, And Viviane Fischer Backtracks, They Nevertheless Make A Truly Crazy "Demand" For Reiner Fuellmich to Serve 3 Years


 

Why Isn't Covid Freedom Movement Speaking Out About Reiner? He Is A Sacrificial Scapegoat For All Covid Dissidents

 
August 28th

3rd part 31.7.24 trial day 22

Frank Großenbach was not allowed to justify his application for adhesion and is now sitting in the audience. His justification would have further exonerated Reiner. Viviane Fischer has realized that she should no longer be prosecuted. So now she wants to tell the truth. But the court doesn't want to hear that. Chr. Miseré then submitted this application as a separate application. Viviane, on the basis of whose statement the court wanted to convict Reiner, is now of the opinion that Reiner's behavior was not criminal.

From Elsa’s Substack, July 31

News broke this evening that the prosecution is Reiner Fuellmich’s trial “demanded” he serve 3 years and nine months in prison; He’s already served close to ten months. And for what?

This is the most psychedelic case most of us have ever seen or heard of.

Elsa covered the latest in this post.

I have been trying to make heads or tails of it, and was recently contacted by Fuellmich friend and colleague Joseph Molitorisz, whom I spoke with at length both yesterday and today.

I am going to now try to highlight a few bullet points as I understand them, even though they are incomprehensible:

If I make an error, please correct me. Some of these points are known, and have been reported, some are new:

1. Viviane Fischer (one of two names and identities—she was previously a successful fashion designer specializing in hats) has recently backed off her initial position. She had indicated, but not entirely gone on record legally, to say she no longer believes Reiner did anything illegal. It has been observed that she may have done this because she no longer feels she herself to be in danger of being sued by the “port lawyers,” also known as the “Berlin lawyers,” who are against Reiner and also against her, if I have understood it correctly. Here are some of Fischer’s flip flops.

  1. One of said lawyers, Marcel Templin, allegedly has the money that is being fought over. Reiner does not have it, and if I am not mistaken, never did. At the end of this clip, the journalist Claudia Jaworski, asks one of the prosecutors if Templin is not the real flight risk, since he has the money (700,000 Euros, I believe.) The lawyer runs away. Who can believe any of this?

    This clip above has several revealing interviews, including one with Viviane’s former lawyer who says he no longer represents her but rather, two un named “donors,” (whose identities may shock people.) The case needs to get out of its pure German context and become a story of international outrage.

  2. The basic direction appears to be that Reiner’s team and Viviane’s team are inching closer to one another, to make some kind of face-saving deal, with Viviane seemingly wishing to exonerate Reiner, and herself, one supposes, while the other team, Templin et al, are the darlings of the prosecution, though their case is disintegrating almost beyond belief. Who cares what they “demand?” Reiner will be freed, and soon.

  3. The prosecution, in desperation, has shifted to a new set of accusations, having been forced to abandon the old ones, like crumbling wood planks underfoot. The new ones have to do with some kind of “sham agreement” between Reiner and Viviane.

  4. A new, fourth layer has come on board, you can hear him speak in Jaworski’s clip. He speaks simply, and starkly, that Reiner should be released immediately, poses no flight risk, and has been vindicated by FOIA documents out of Germany proving that Covid was an attack in the people, rooted in fraud, terror and lies.

  5. A witness (Martin Schwab) has also been compelled to testify, who was central to the creation of the documents and agreement between Viviane and Reiner, and who, according to Molitorisz, supports the defense arguments that Reiner did nothing illegal. Molitorisz details some of this here.

  6. As far as I can see: The original accuser, Viviane, has now said Reiner is not guilty, as has the new witness who drew up their contacts! The evidence all points to the same conclusion. In spasms of an apparent cover up and colossal embarrassment for Germany, the court keeps collapsing, shutting down, and blocking the case from proper publicity/public exposure, which is unheard of in Germany since the end of the Nazi Reich in 1945. Molitorisz told me the judge is “very nervous.” He knows he has a dud on his hands. They all know—so they’re tossing the hot potato, re-inventing the case mid-stream.

  7. Reiner Fuellmich is an enemy of the German state—full stop, There’s nothing else to understand.

  8. Reiner wants Viviane questioned again. And he is calling desperately for international media attention. This whole thing is sickening, and I want to take a moment to rebuke Viviane Fischer: In war, you never, ever start a personal mud-fight, never mind one as pedantic and idiotic as this. By launching that initial attack video, in 2022, she not only helped the Deep Covid State capture and imprison Reiner, she also damaged the entirety of the health freedom movement—consisting of people whose lives are already at risk for speaking out against this deadly global Covid Reich. I also feel it is very sad and very upsetting that so few in the health freedom movement have said BOO about Reiner’s plight. Turns out people are cowards who don’t even defend their own friends and allies when sh%^t hits the fan. Some of them even helped the enemy, and attacked Reiner for all kinds of nonsense not worth describing. That is depressing. It is consistent with my own experience in this very long war. The enemy is one thing, but “our side” can hang your heart on a tundra tree and walk away. Please do all you can to inspire international media attention to the shameful, illegal capture and persecution of Reiner Fuellmich. 

     Courtroom Stunner In Reiner Fuellmich Case In Germany: New Witness Testimony Clears Him 

Source: https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/as-prosecutions-case-crumbles-and?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=257742&post_id=148243524&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=wm70y&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

segunda-feira, 26 de agosto de 2024

Pavel Durov’s Arrest: A Turning Point for Free Speech and Online Privacy

 



Geopolitics
August 26, 2024

In a shocking turn of events, Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of the popular messaging app Telegram, was arrested at Paris-Le Bourget Airport on a Saturday in 2024. This incident has sent ripples through the tech world and raised serious concerns about the future of online privacy and free speech.

The Arrest and Its Immediate Aftermath

Durov, a 39-year-old Russian-born entrepreneur, was detained immediately upon arrival from Azerbaijan. French authorities had reportedly issued an arrest warrant, citing insufficient content moderation on Telegram that allegedly allows criminals to flourish on the platform. The prosecutors in Paris plan to accuse Durov of complicity in drug trafficking, pedophilia offenses, and fraud.

The news of Durov’s arrest quickly spread, sparking outrage and concern across the globe. Supporters gathered near the French embassy in Moscow, covering nearby shrubs with paper airplanes symbolizing Telegram’s logo. This act of solidarity highlighted the significance of Durov’s work and the impact of his arrest on his followers.

International Reactions and Implications

The arrest has drawn attention from high-profile figures in the tech and political worlds. Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter), condemned the arrest and launched the hashtag #FreePavel. Musk’s satirical comment, “POV: It’s 2030 in Europe and you’re being executed for liking a meme,” underscores the perceived threat to freedom of expression.

American journalist Tucker Carlson described the arrest as “a living warning to any platform owner who refuses to censor the truth at the behest of governments and intel agencies.” Carlson’s statement reflects a growing concern about the balance between content moderation and free speech in the digital age.

The EU’s Campaign Against Telegram

Durov’s arrest is not an isolated incident but rather the culmination of a broader EU-wide campaign against Telegram. In recent years, EU officials and individual member states have targeted the platform with bans, regulations, and threats of legal action. The European Union has even considered bending its own laws to force censorship rules onto the platform.

This escalation raises questions about the future of privacy-focused messaging apps and the extent to which governments should have access to private communications. It also highlights the ongoing tension between national security concerns and individual privacy rights.

Durov’s Background and Telegram’s Growth

Pavel Durov, born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) in 1984, left Russia in the mid-2010s and has since mainly resided in the UAE. In 2021, he was granted French citizenship. Under his leadership, Telegram has grown to boast over 950 million active monthly users as of 2024.

Durov’s journey from Russia to the international stage is marked by his commitment to user privacy and resistance to government control. In a previous interview with Tucker Carlson, Durov revealed that he had faced pressure from both Russian and US authorities to compromise Telegram’s security features.

The Geopolitical Dimension

The arrest of Durov has also taken on a geopolitical dimension. Russian officials, including Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, have demanded consular access to Durov and called for explanations from French authorities. This situation has put a spotlight on the complex relationships between Russia, France, and the United States in matters of technology and freedom of expression.

Some observers, like US investor David Sacks, have suggested that Durov’s arrest might be influenced by US interests, potentially circumventing First Amendment protections by using allied countries. This perspective adds another layer of complexity to an already multifaceted issue.

The Future of Online Privacy and Free Speech

Durov’s arrest serves as a critical moment for reflection on the future of online privacy and free speech. As corporate governments worldwide grapple with the challenges posed by encrypted messaging platforms, the tension between “national security” concerns and individual rights continues to grow.

The outcome of Durov’s case could set a precedent for how privacy-focused platforms are treated globally. It may also influence the development and adoption of secure communication tools in the future.

Conclusion

The arrest of Pavel Durov is more than just a legal case against an individual; it represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate about digital rights, government surveillance, and the role of technology companies in moderating content. As the situation unfolds, it will undoubtedly continue to spark discussions about the delicate balance between “national security” and liberty in the digital age.

The world watches closely as this case develops, aware that its resolution could have far-reaching implications for how we communicate and share information online. The future of Telegram, and potentially other similar platforms, hangs in the balance, as does the broader concept of digital freedom in an increasingly connected world.

 


Source: https://geopolitics.co/2024/08/26/pavel-durovs-arrest-a-turning-point-for-free-speech-and-online-privacy/

sexta-feira, 23 de agosto de 2024

How (and why) they sell X as a “bastion of free speech”



Donald Trump is back on the app formerly known as Twitter. After almost four years in the “Truth Social” wilderness he sat down with Elon Musk for a 3-hour conversation.

On our side of the pond, Musk is taking every opportunity he can to troll Keir Starmer’s government, comparing the UK to something from 1984 (accurately, it must be said).

During the Olympics, he chimed in with criticism of controversial Algerian boxer Imane Khelif for being a “man beating up women”.

Wherever there is controversy, Musk (or the PR intern running his X account) appears to pour fuel on the fire.

That’s not to say everything Musk says is wrong. A lot of it is right, or at least defensible and rational, but I think that itself is an integral part of the construction. Sugar among the salt, aiding in the sale of the overriding narrative:

“Elon Musk – the world’s richest man, and Free Speech Champion”.

(subtext – there are some oligarchs you can really trust)

How did it come to this? And Why?

To give you my answer  to that, let’s go back in time a few years B.E. – Before Elon.

Under the ancien régime, Twitter purged the alt-news crowd, labelled provably real people as bots, and told dissenters “If you don’t like it, go and start your own platform”.

The trouble with that was…that’s exactly what they did. Newer smaller versions of Twitter began to appear –  Truth Social and Gab and so on and so on.

And when you’re an all-encompassing supranational corporate-governmental monster addicted to surveillance and control…that’s kinda counterproductive, because now you can’t hear what’s being said, and you can’t steer the conversation.

What is the point of spending billions creating a massive surveillance network if you keep banning all the people you want to surveil?

What good is it spending the budget of a medium-sized country on influencers, bots and shills, and then stopping people from seeing them?

No, banning doesn’t work, it just puts people outside your system of influence and control.

Outside the system is bad, they need everyone inside. They don’t care if you’re praising or criticising, loving or hating, defending its existence or denying it – everything is acceptable, as long as you do it where they can see you.

They needed to invite those banished souls back inside, and the most efficient way of doing that was to adapt the Red/Blue fake dichotomy model of elections to the world of social media.

In short, to bring the banned people back and patch over the hole they’d made, they needed to rehabilitate Twitter.

Enter Elon Musk, and “X”.

It’s all about creating a controlled opposition.

The contrived binary between the “good” social media platforms –  whose CEOs attend congressional hearings and simper about “social responsibility”  vs the “bad” social media platforms – whose CEOs post rude memes.

The “safe space” vs the “free-for-all” (or at least, the pretence of a free-for-all – but we’ll get to that).

From the moment Musk acquired Twitter, the rebrand was on.

Alternate media journalists were invited to inspect Twitter’s “top secret files” and came away with some “shocking” revelations, including:

  • Twitter engaged in “visibility filtering” (aka shadow banning) and algorithmic censorship of anti-establishment people and opinions!
  • Twitter enabled the Pentagon to operate sock puppet accounts for running psyops!
  • National governments used to ask Twitter to remove stuff, and sometimes they did!

Phew! Who knew, right?

It always amazes me how much traction they get by simply telling people an incredibly watered-down version of what we already know. I guess because we are all so pathetically grateful to hear even a small amount of semi-truth coming from ‘official sources’.

But the Twitter files were just the start, further displays of overt ‘pro-free speech’ behaviour followed. Most recently including unbanning Trump and announcing the closure of X’s Brazil office rather than complying with government censorship.

All of this has contributed to the birth of a cult of personality around Elon as the supposed “champion of free expression”, with X itself labelled the “last bastion of free speech”.

In the wake of the so-called assassination attempt on Donald Trump, the rallying cry of the Musk worshippers was “thank God for X, or we’d never have known the truth”.

So you get memes like this…



The branding is clear: Musk is the people’s billionaire, the “pick me” mogul who’s “not like the other oligarchs”.

You don’t need me to explain how useful this dynamic is in controlling mass opinion. It’s creating organised religion for the atheist generation. Tenets of faith no different in purpose and far tackier in presentation.

Importantly we should ask: Has Twitter even really improved now that it’s “X”?

No it hasn’t. The “left-wing” Musk critics are right about that.

Maybe there is an increased amount of overt racism and race-baiting, or maybe now it’s just promoted. Either way, there’s no ignoring it.

What equally can’t be ignored is the massive proliferation of ads and porn bots and the same gifs and videos clogging every discussion. Monetisation has led to an avalanche of accounts farming engagement with blatant clickbait, ragebait, cutebait….just, all the bait.

All the while, these newly unpleasant facets of X are being brandished by the pro-censorship “left”, and used to discredit the very idea of free speech in general.

“See, absolute freedom of speech just means racism and porn”, they get to say, “We need more regulation!”

Now, there’s an argument that all the bait could be considered “the acceptable price of free speech”…

…if free speech was what we actually got.

But it’s not.

For some reason, since the “Twitter files” released and in combination with Musk’s unearned reputation as a “free speech absolutist”, people have assumed that Twitter – now X – no longer allows shadowbans, psy-ops or cooperates with government-backed censorship.

But they do. They very obviously do.

Case in point: OffG. We have a Twitter/X account with almost 61,000 followers.

Back when Twitter was Still Twitter  any link to our website was subject to an auto-warning that it might be potential spam. We were also intermittently shadowbanned, which had a very obvious effect on our reach, though our tweets could still get thousands of retweets and likes.

When Twitter became X the auto-warning was removed.

But our reach diminished –  massively.  We are now told all the time that people haven’t seen our tweets or links in years. A successful tweet of ours gets maybe 200 likes, most remain in double figures.

So, for our account at least, “uncensored” X is no kind of improvement.

CJ Hopkins (who has written about this psyop himself) was temporarily labelled a distributor of “adult content”, and hidden behind warnings, while dozens of OnlyFans girls can be found in almost any reply chain shilling their “wares”.

This is quite obvious “visibility filtering” in action, and all the truly anti-establishment thinkers are subject to it.

It’s all about “speech not reach”, ensuring all independent thought is quarantined off in its own little virtual “free speech cages”.

Instead of banning the voices they don’t want to speak, they lock them up in soundproof rooms where they can scream their lungs out, and only the FBI agents set to monitor them can hear, and only bots designed to control them will respond.

Now, clearly that’s preferable to going to prison for posting anti-immigrant memes, but should free speech really be graded on that curve?

Nevertheless, that’s the situation in which we find ourselves.

So, what we’re left with is two versions of “free speech” to choose from…neither of which is actual free speech.

The battle lines are drawn up and either you’re with the government or you’re with Elon Musk. An entirely fake a war between overt censorship and covert censorship.

They won’t allow a third way. Like everything else these days.


Source: https://off-guardian.org/2024/08/22/how-and-why-they-sell-x-as-a-bastion-of-free-speech/

quinta-feira, 22 de agosto de 2024

Declassified document proves Pfizer vaccine production began in May 2019




Le Point Critique
July 28, 2023

Internal documents relating to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines show that their production began before the date claimed by the laboratories. The cross-referencing of two documents, from two different legal requests, allows us to more precisely date the start of the Pfizer vaccine development program. It must have actually started on May 27, 2019.

The declassification of data submitted by Pfizer to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of the BNT162b2 vaccine for ages 16 and up was ordered on February 2, 2022 by Judge Mark P. Pittman (Texas), after an interminable legal battle initiated by a group of scientists and medical researchers (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency — PHMTP), represented by attorney Aron Siri. 

Declassification of Pfizer vaccine approval data: review of an extraordinary case

The
FDA and Pfizer's joint request for a stay was therefore rejected by the judge after three months of proceedings during which all stops were pulled out in an effort to prevent citizens and their families from knowing the basis for the "safe and effective" vaccine declaration. While the agency initially demanded a period of 75 years (20,000 days) to deliver the more than 390,000 pages of data that it had nevertheless complied in 108 days, i.e. the period between the request for approval sent by Pfizer to the regulator (May 7, 2021) and the date of authorisation granted in return by the FDA.

Judge Mark T. Pittman (Dallas, Texas Court of Appeals) has just done it again on May 9, 2023, by requiring the delivery of all data concerning the Pfizer pediatric vaccine and the Moderna adult vaccine, including 4.8 million pages, within 2 years vs. the 23.5 requested by the FDA. The laboratories have until June 31, 2025 to comply.

The publication of this data was also punctuated by a series of reports concerning the origin of the virus, which scientists have become convinced comes from gain-of-function research clandestinely funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci.
[FW comment: so-called "gain-of-function" research serves as a red herring to uphold the concept of a virus ] Fauci, of course, is the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and former White House medical advisor during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also now known that vaccine manufacturing began before the official date communicated to the public, with Moderna’s CEO acknowledging in an interview that his company had already produced 100,000 doses of Covid-19 vaccine in 2019.

A confidentiality agreement shows potential coronavirus vaccine candidates were transferred from Moderna to the University of North Carolina in 2019, nineteen days prior to the emergence of the alleged Covid-19 causing virus in Wuhan, China. (The Expose). 

According to BioNTech CEO, Pfizer vaccine development began no later than January 2020

Regarding the vaccine marketed by Pfizer, two articles from the Brownstone Institute published on January 18 and 30, 2023, had already demonstrated that the production schedule of the BNT162b2 vaccine is not the one reported by BioNTech founders Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türeci in their book The Vaccine. The January 18, 2023 article cites two documents obtained as part of the Pfizer data declassification: the BioNTech R&D Study Report No. R-20-0072 and the nonclinical study, which was submitted to the FDA for approval, and which cites this document, with reference FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0013936, on page 8

This study concerns preclinical tests carried out on animals prior to the evaluation of the vaccine on human guinea pigs, and which the founders of BioNTech claim began on January 27, 2020.

As the Brownstone Institute article explains, the purpose of study R-20-0072, summarised on pg. 6 of the document, aimed to test the performance of BioNTech's modified mRNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles produced by the Canadian firm Acuitas ahead of preclinical trials. Page 8 of the report shows that this study actually began on January 14, 2020, two weeks before the date publicly claimed by BioNTech, that is to say, the day after the publication of the complete genome of the virus and barely two weeks after the reporting of case zero in Wuhan.

However, this point is not problematic in itself since the BioNTech teams declared to the FDA that they had tested the vaccine with a so-called "proxy" antigen (in this case luciferase) while waiting to be able to do so with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

However, the founders of BioNTech date the first tests of the luciferase-based vaccine platform in their book to February 3, 2020. The author of the January 18, 2023 article (“FOIA doc shows BioNTech founders postdated start of C19 vaccine project”), journalist Robert Kogon (pseudonym), questions the reasons for this lie, which he attributes to the shocking nature of disclosing the date the vaccine project actually began:

Why did Sahin and Türeci postdate the launch of their Covid-19 vaccine project in their book? Well, undoubtedly because the actual start date – and we do not know when exactly the actual start date was – would have seemed far too soon. Based on the above considerations, it must have been at the latest just days after the first December 31, 2019 report of Covid-19 cases in Wuhan.”
Kogon R. FOIA doc shows BioNTech founders postdated start of C19 vax project. Brownstone Institute. 18/01/2023
In the second part of this investigation (“It started before the outbreak: A BioNTech-“Pfizer” vax project Timeline”), Robert Kogon rewinds the thread from the technical information provided in the book The Vaccine and comes to the conclusion that the mRNA vaccine was probably ready by January 2, 2020, only two days after the first report of COVID-19 cases in Wuhan on December 31, 2019, which raises the following question: was the epidemic aimed at spreading a pre-existing vaccine or did it start before the first case was announced, and if so, with what risks to the health of the populations? [FW comment: The work of Denis Rancourt & many others has put the lie to the notion there was ever a pandemic]

“But before it could be manufactured, needless to say, the formulation to be tested had first to be conceived and designed; and contact had to be made with Polymun and Acuitas to obtain the required permissions and arrange for the required collaboration. All of this takes time.

There is no avoiding the conclusion that BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine project must in fact have started before any Covid-19 cases had even been reported! The obvious question is: How is this possible?”

Kogon R. It started before the outbreak: A BioNTech-“Pfizer” vax project Timeline. Brownstone Institute. 01/30/2023


A new document shows that production of the Pfizer vaccine actually began in… May 2019

A whistleblower is now pointing to new information, contained in another document, also declassified following a FOIA request, which helps answer this question, at least technically. The document in question is the non-clinical evaluation report produced by the Australian regulator (Therapeutic Goods Administration — TGA). Page 40 of the report shows that the company Acuitas formulated the mRNA coding for luciferase transmitted by BioNTech and referenced (ARN-EH190611-01c) in report R-20-0072, into three types of nanoparticles: LNP12 (DODMA:DOPE formulation), LNP5 and LNP8.

 

TGA. Nonclinical Evaluation Report BNT162b2 [mRNA] COVID-19 vaccine (COMIRNATYTM). Jan 2021. p. 40

However, page 29 of the BioNTech report shows that the formulation of the nanoparticles intended for the vaccine (LNP8, as mentioned on page 12 of the same report) was carried out on December 9, 2019, three weeks before the disclosure of case zero in Wuhan. Since the formulation indications are strictly identical between the two documents, this concordance leaves no doubt that the certificate of analysis contained in the BioNTech report concerns the nanoparticles used in the Australian study:

Product reference: RNA-EH190611-01c;
Batch number: FM-1074-D;
Encapsulation rate: 90%;
RNA concentration: 1.0 mg/ml;
Diameter: 71 nm;
Yield: 90%;
Polydispersity: 0.053:
Storage temperature: – 80 °C.

BioNTech R&D Study Report No. R-20-0072 declassified, p. 29
BioNTech. R&D Study Report No. R-20-0072. 27 Nov 2020, p. 29

But page 31 of the report states that the order was placed not in December, but in… May 2019. May 27, 2019 at the latest. Who had heard of COVID by that date?
BioNTech R&D Study Report No. R-20-0072 Declassified, p. 31
BioNTech. R&D Study Report No. R-20-0072. Nov 27, 2020, p. 31

                     BioNTech. R&D study report no. R-20-0072. 27 Nov 2020, p. 29

But page 31 of the report states that the order was placed not in December, but in… May 2019. May 27, 2019 at the latest. Who had heard of COVID at that date?

                       BioNTech. R&D study report no. R-20-0072. 27 Nov 2020, p. 31

 

Does this information demand any further comment?  

                                                           ***

Malice aforethought: China mass buying PCR tests in May 2019:

 

Related:  Off script: AMLO reveals that there was a plan for the 'pandemic' in 2020 

Source: https://lepointcritique.fr/2023/07/28/document-declassifie-prouve-production-vaccin-pfizer-a-commence-mai-2019/

quarta-feira, 21 de agosto de 2024

French government fines TV news for allowing a skeptic to speak without being challenged



Jo Nova
joannenova.com.au
Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:57 UTC
 

We know what secrets they fear the most, by how they overreact

In France, the second largest news network let an economist go on air and declare he thought global warming was a lie and a scam used to justify State intervention. He even went on to say it is a form of totalitarianism. Shockingly (to the regulators Arcom), the CNEWS TV hosts did not contest this, and nor did anyone else in the studio. For this, 11 months later, the TV channel is being fined €20,000.

Too close to the truth then?

A popular French rolling news channel has been fined for broadcasting climate scepticism unchallenged

By Saskia O'Donoghue, EuroNews

During the programme, prominent economist Philippe Herlin shared personal climate scepticism - but was not contradicted by anybody else in the TV studio, including the hosts.

"Anthropogenic global warming is a lie, a scam... Explaining to us that it is because of Man, no, that is a conspiracy, and why does that have so much weight?", Herlin said. "Because it justifies the intervention of the State in our lives, and it absolves the State from having to reduce its public spending... It is a form of totalitarianism."
Apparently, the real crime here is not that he said the unthinkable, but that the TV crew didn't correct him:
After investigation, Arcom found that CNews' lack of reaction was a "failure" to meet the obligations of the channel ...
Perhaps if they'd laughed at him, called him petty names, and treated him like a leper it would have been OK? (No, seriously, there is a razor point here. There are bound to be past examples where the only response to a skeptic was to call them a climate denier, and Arcom was apparently happy with that, since they've never used this fine before.) Does Arcom approve of namecalling or social approbation as a "balanced response"? Oh. Yes. They. Do.

The regulators go on to explain that the channel:
"...is required to ensure an honest presentation of controversial issues, in particular by ensuring the expression of different points of view".
Which must be a new requirement since French TV has relentlessly hammered the establishment line in a one sided way for thirty years without needing any balance at all. And Arcom didn't fine them for shamelessly promoting government propaganda. Perhaps a French skeptic could ask Arcon if controversial government opinions need to be balanced "in an honest presentation" or whether it's only critics of the government who need to be held to account?
Arcom found that the views shared "contradicted or minimised" the scientific consensus on climate change "through a treatment lacking rigour and without contradiction".
Since when was it the job of journalists to promote government approved "science"?

The regulator is going out on a limb and sawing off the branch...

Officially, the regulators are trying to pretend they are not punishing the TV channel for putting on a skeptic, which would be a free speech issue, but it's clearly what they are doing. So they dress this up as a lack of balance, which accidentally exposes that they've never cared a jot about balancing opinions before. Immediately, this opens up all kinds of interesting doors: for one, skeptics can start asking where the balance is on controversial government propositions? In most countries about half the population doesn't agree that mankind is solely responsible for "climate change". Where is their voice? The government is suggesting that solar panels can stop storms, and EV's will control floods, why isn't this a failure of the obligations of a news channel?

Secondly, skeptics can ask when this rule started and why the regulator missed so many past examples. Why aren't breaches the other way being fined too?

The overreaction IS the news story

Ponder how afraid the believers must be if the mere opinion of an economist is so dangerous. This man is a not a scientist and every person in France has heard the evidence is overwhelming, climate change is real, and 130% of all scientists who ever lived know that CO2 threatens life on Earth. For three decades children have been trained to say that skeptics are funded by Big Oil, and motivated by money, and yet here is one guy who used the word "totalitarian" and they all go off their rocker.

Why, perhaps because it suggests that believers are motivated by a bigger pot of money and power than skeptics ever could be.
BACKGROUND

Arcon stands for the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication

CNews is controlled by billionaire business magnate Vincent Bolloré and has been compared to FOX in the US. 

The Great Global Warming Swindle:


Source: joannenova via sign of the times

VACUNAS: Hidra de siete cabezas. Lo que debes saber

 


¿Por qué callar?
2 de febrero de 2024

La Hidra de Lerna (Λερναῖα Ὕδρα / Lernaīa Hýdra) era un antiguo y despiadado monstruo acuático con forma de serpiente policéfala. El mito habla de la lucha entre el hombre y los secretos del inframundo. Hoy veremos siete de sus cabezas, una alegoría de lo que debes saber sobre las vacunas.

«Mi médico dice que me la ponga»; «El pediatra de mi hijo dice que son eficaces y seguras»; «Lo dicen en la tele»; «¡Belén Esteban lo dice!». Y los datos: ¿Sabes qué dicen? ¿Y sabes por qué no lo sabes?

Cuando conoces los fenómenos de poder, ya sabes más que muchos expertos atrapados en la red del engaño. El argumento de autoridad o magister dixit se da si alguien pregunta «por qué» y se responde: «el maestro lo ha dicho» (en latín, magister dixit). Una falacia muy recurrente al hablar de vacunas. Veamos la cara menos visible de esta historia.

VACUNAS: TODO LO QUE TIENES QUE SABER

CABEZA 1 “¿Cómo un médico recomendaría una vacuna ineficaz, tóxica o peligrosa?”.

Una pregunta constante con una respuesta que nadie quiere escuchar.

Los hijos que hemos sido vacunados y que como padres hemos vacunado a los nuestros, desearíamos que nunca jamás llegara el momento de lamentarnos, con la carga que ello supone. Debería ser obligatorio informarnos y ser informados antes de decidir. Investigar sobre las vacunas no es ningún capricho conspiratorio, sino una dura realidad que lo cambia todo para siempre. Y créanme que es mejor llegar tarde a no llegar.

La mayoría nunca nos informamos más allá de lo que el pediatra manda, ni el pediatra más allá de lo que le dicen en la Universidad. Pregunta a cualquier médico honesto cuánto tiempo y qué le enseñaron sobre vacunas. Existe un quién, un por y un para qué.

VÍDEO. El Dr. Neides se disculpa entre lágrimas por haber promovido las vacunas sin informarse

El Dr. Daniel Neides, director de operaciones del Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute, es uno de los muchos ejemplos —fuertemente censurados y castigados— que reconocen que en el ámbito vacunal los médicos se basan en lo poco que se les dice, que en esencia no va más allá de aprender el calendario correspondiente. Al cuestionarlo, fue despedido de su trabajo, en 2017. En el vídeo se disculpa entre lágrimas por haber promovido algo en lo que puso su confianza, tras descubrir que la historia no es así como nos cuentan.

Dr. Dan Neides - Se disculpa por haber promovido las vacunas sin informarse:

 

CABEZA 2: «Siempre han existido las vacunas, nuestros abuelos ya las llevaban«.


Nada tienen que ver las vacunas que puedan llevar las personas de principios del siglo XX con las de mediados, ni estas con las de finales de siglo. Por no hablar del calendario vacunal del siglo XXI, el “calendario para toda la vida”. Hemos elaborado esta gráfica para ilustrar la diferencia. Entonces, no podemos basarnos en ello.

CABEZA 3: «Se conoce perfectamente cómo actúan las vacunas».

Las primeras vacunas de virus atenuados —cuya idea de crear anticuerpos parece ser magnífica—, poco tiene que ver con lo que se está inoculando desde hace tiempo. Para reducir costes, pasaron de usar tubos de ensayo, a usar líneas celulares de animales y, más tarde, líneas de órganos de fetos abortados expresamente para ello. Se añadieron así problemas importantes como la contaminación, relacionada con enfermedades autoinmunes entre otras. Posteriormente, con la tecnología de ARNm que se usa en las últimas inoculaciones modificadas genéticamente, multiplicamos los problemas existentes. Hay mucha literatura para profundizar en ello.

¿Qué sucede entonces? Que todos estos cambios son ampliamente desconocidos por la mayoría de médicos que deberían actualizar sus conocimientos constantemente, algo que no suele suceder. Cada uno tiene su vida, su jornada de trabajo, unos protocolos a los que debe ceñirse. Como mucho, recibe uno de esos cursos que las farmacéuticas (parte interesada) pueda ofrecerles. Allí no les hablan de los tóxicos, como los adyuvantes que se usan y otros problemas.

Tampoco existen estudios de administrar tantos antígenos en un solo día, pero ya hay evidencias de los problemas causados.

CABEZA 4: «Las vacunas han erradicado enfermedades y disminuido la mortalidad».

Suzanne Humphries y Roman Bystrianyk en su libro de investigación «Desvaneciendo ilusiones. Las enfermedades, las vacunas y la historia olvidada», muestran como al introducir las vacunas, ya había disminuido la mortalidad por enfermedades infecciosas en ese momento —por ejemplo la viruela en un 98% antes de la primera vacuna y la tos ferina un 90%—. ¿Lo sabías? Hay partes de la historia de las que no nos hablan y tienen un papel fundamental.

La disminución se debe, entre otros factores, a la mejora de condiciones sociales, higiénicas y nutricionales. Así se reconoce cuando se habla de enfermedades cuya mortalidad disminuyó sin vacunas disponibles. Cuando hay vacuna, se le adjudica sí o sí el mérito y aquí empieza el mito.

Para corroborar los datos que los autores ofrecen de EE.UU., acudimos a la siguiente gráfica del Ministerio de Sanidad de España que refleja la disminución de mortalidad para enfermedades con y sin vacuna disponible:

 

 

O estas gráficas, en las que se muestra claramente la tendencia antes de la introducción de la vacuna. Cualquiera lo puede comprobar.

 


CABEZA 5: «Son seguras y siguen procesos muy estrictos».

Este es otro tema ampliamente documentado en un libro imprescindible de investigación científica, «Tortugas hasta el fondo». También lo ha denunciado en los tribunales de EE.UU. Robert Kennedy (vídeo aquí) —y lo menciona el Dr. Daniel Neides en el vídeo anterior—, hablamos del hecho de que ¡¡¡NINGUNA VACUNA INFANTIL SE TESTA CON UN VERDADERO PLACEBO INOCUO!!! Es decir, inyectan la vacuna experimental a un grupo y al otro grupo le inyectan u otra vacuna, o la misma sin antígeno con todos los tóxicos,… luego comparan los grupos para definir su seguridad. ¡Uno de los mayores fraudes sanitarios que nunca deberían tolerar!

Por ejemplo, la vacuna que todos los niños llevan contra la Difteria, Tétanos, Polio, Tos ferina, Hepatitis B y Hib, fue testada con otras vacunas en el grupo control (que debería llevar placebo para poder comparar con los que recibían la vacuna a prueba). Otro ejemplo, la vacuna de Hepatitis A se probó con la de la Hepatitis B. ¿Por qué nadie habla de este GRAVE ERROR de seguridad? Por no llamarlo de otra manera…

 


Y así, al buscar en que se basa la seguridad, uno descubre que cada una de las vacunas se basa en otra, que a su vez se basa en otra, que a su vez…

Por si fuera poco, algunas fichas técnicas como el ejemplo que os mostramos de la vacuna INFANRIX, reconocen no tener estudios suficientes sobre sus efectos adversos. Algo también admitido por La Academia Nacional de Medicina de Estados Unidos, más conocida como Institute of Medicine (IOM).


CABEZA 6: «Me la puse y no me pasó nada».

Como siempre dice la Dra. Karina Acevedo W., no somos ecuaciones matemáticas. Las vacunas son una lotería, no hay más que hablar con asociaciones como la plataforma de Afectados por las Vacunas o visualizar algunos registros de efectos adversos, para ver unas secuelas de las que poco se habla. Muchos de los efectos secundarios que pueden derivar de las vacunas, especificados en los prospectos (¡hay que leerlos!), siempre intentan buscar otros culpables antes que girar la vista hacia estas últimas. Se incluye hasta la muerte, por lo tanto, ¡NO SON SEGURAS! Desde desarrollar piel atópica, diabetes, autismo o cáncer, pasando por cientos de enfermedades e incapacidades.

Datos (infravalorados históricamente) del VAERS (registro de eventos adversos a vacunas de los CDC de USA). Otros registros pueden ser del Eudravigilance (registro de eventos adversos a vacunas oficial de la Unión Europea) o del sistema Yellow Card (registro oficial de eventos adversos a vacunas del Reino Unido).


 

¿Realmente los beneficios superan los costes? Investiga y decide.

La Dra. y Pediatra Isabel Bellostas, tras un efecto secundario en uno de sus hijos, empezó a investigar las vacunas. Sus trabajos son reveladores, pone sobre la mesa informaciones ampliamente documentadas en su libro “Relación Vacunación Temprana anti Hepatitis B-Bronquiolitis: Una aproximación basada en la observación y la búsqueda en fuentes bibliográficas sobre la etiología de la bronquiolitis”, como la vacuna anti Hepatitis B causaría bronquiolitis en los niños. Y es solo un ejemplo de los miles de estudios ya publicados que relacionan las vacunas con enfermedades, léase el libro de Robert Kennedy Vax-Unvax. Let the Science Speak (Children’s Health Defense). Por no hablar de los BROTES de enfermedades causados por vacunas, véase el caso reciente de la POLIO.

Otros trabajos vinculan la triple vírica o las líneas celulares de fetos abortados con el aumento impresionante de tasas de autismo que coinciden en tiempo y espacio con la introducción de estas vacunas. Inmaculada Fernández, investigadora independiente, defensora de las vacunas —hasta el punto de llevar a uno de sus hijos a un ensayo clínico— finalmente escribió “El libro negro de las vacunas”, tras otra reacción adversa en uno de sus hijos. Emprendió así una investigación muy minuciosa que le hizo cambiar radicalmente de parecer.

Sería fácil acabar con esta polémica realizando estudios de vacunados versus no vacunados, algo que no se lleva a cabo por autoridades oficiales por algún misterioso motivo. Sería la mejor forma de acallar voces discordantes.

CABEZA 7: «Hay que creer en la ciencia».

Hay muchos otros ejemplos de médicos o científicos que en un momento dado se hacen preguntas y pagan un alto precio por ello. Hacer públicas esas conclusiones probablemente les suponga ser apartados de su práctica en medicina en el mejor de los casos o profundamente desprestigiados, arruinados, o asesinados en el peor de ellos.

La historia corrupta de las farmacéuticas es de los mayores crímenes silenciosos del último siglo, por no decir el mayor. Solo si se desconoce la historia uno podrá creer que esta afirmación es exagerada. Mueven los hilos del poder en un monopolio mundial que se ha apoderado de todos los recursos, empresas, medios de comunicación, instituciones y universidades.

La historia de la Dra. Judy Mikovits, excepcionalmente relatada en su libro «Plaga de corrupción científica» pone el vello de punta. Una de las científicas más brillantes de las últimas décadas, perseguida y desprestigiada por alzar la voz en contra de esta red corrupta. Es conocida por destapar alguno de los mayores escándalos censurados de la historia reciente. «El encubrimiento de cien millones de personas con un virus contagioso que causa cáncer … Mire las cifras explosivas de cáncer. Mire las tasas disparadas de autismo, síndrome de fatiga crónica, enfermedades similares al SIDA, enfermedades autoinmunes. Todo esto proviene de virus que se adquieren de forma NO natural, sino a través de terapias biológicas (vacunas)».

Gracias a todos esos valientes que luchan día a día contra la bestia. Dice el mito de la Hidra de Lerna, que Hércules tomó su espada y comenzó a cortarle las cabezas al monstruo. Sin embargo, cada vez que le cercenaba una, aparecían otras dos. Finalmente, tras una ardua batalla, logró vencerlo enterrando la última cabeza. 

Así funcionan las farmacéuticas, atacan doble al verse acorraladas, creando más y más miedo, enfermedad y ofreciendo soluciones envenenadas. Por ello, hay que seguir sembrando semillas. Cuando se arroja luz sobre una trampa, es menos probable que otros caigan en ella. Darse cuenta de las cosas se llama despertar, ¡y cuando la humanidad se despierta, no se vuelve a dormir!

*Recomendamos entrar en los enlaces del artículo que amplían información. ¿Nos ayudas a compartir?

¡Nos vemos en la contienda!

Seguimos…


Fuente: https://porquecallar.es/vacunas-hidra-de-siete-cabezas-lo-que-debes-saber/