The following are news links to a tiny proportion of the deaths and injuries associated with the irrational and tyrannical Covid vaccine regime that has blighted the world since 2020:
De un total de 2.605 muertes
infantiles notificadas en VAERS (Sistema de Reportes de Efectos Adversos
de Vacunas de EE.UU.) entre 1990 y 2019, el 58% ocurrió dentro de los 3
días posteriores a la vacunación del calendario de vacunación y el 78%
ocurrió dentro de los 7 días posteriores a la vacunación.
En un nuevo artículo de investigación publicado
en la revista Toxicology Reports, el autor Neil Z. Miller informa sobre
la relación entre la muerte por síndrome de muerte súbita del lactante
(SMSL) y el momento de la vacunación, según el Centro para el Control y
la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) Base de datos del sistema de notificación de eventos (VAERS).
El SMSL se define como la muerte repentina e inesperada de un bebé
que permanece sin explicación después de una investigación
exhaustiva. Aunque no hay síntomas específicos asociados con el SMSL,
una autopsia a menudo revela congestión y edema de los pulmones y
cambios inflamatorios en el sistema respiratorio, según el Centro
Nacional de Estadísticas de Salud Estadísticas Vitales de los Estados
Unidos 1988, Volumen II, Mortalidad, Parte A, Servicio de Salud Pública,
1991.
Antes de los programas de vacunación contemporáneos, los pequeños
Estados insulares en desarrollo, a veces denominados “muerte en la
cuna”, eran tan poco frecuentes que no se mencionaban en las
estadísticas de mortalidad infantil.
Como señala Miller en su artículo, la categoría ICD para muerte
relacionada con la vacuna, o causa de muerte como “inoculación
profiláctica y vacunación”, se eliminó cuando se revisó la ICD en 1979, a
pesar de que esta información sería útil para intentar comprender la
relación entre vacunación y muerte.
Pero Miller, director del Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute ,
proporciona una ruta alternativa para establecer tal correlación, al
observar la relación temporal entre las vacunas y las muertes infantiles
informadas, incluidas las muertes por SMSL, en la base de datos VAERS
de los CDC.
Miller descubrió que de un total de 2.605 muertes infantiles
notificadas al VAERS desde 1990 hasta 2019, la mayoría se “agruparon” en
una proximidad temporal cercana a la vacunación: el 58% ocurrió dentro de los tres días de la vacunación y el 78% ocurrió dentro de los siete días de la vacunación. Miller encontró que el exceso de muertes dentro de estos rangos era estadísticamente significativo (p <0,00001)
El mismo tipo de agrupación estuvo presente en los 1.048 informes de
muertes infantiles (de un total de 2.605) informados al VAERS
específicamente como SIDS.
Según Miller, si no hubiera una correlación entre la vacunación y las
muertes infantiles, uno esperaría ver un espaciamiento uniforme de las
muertes dentro del rango de tiempo informado antes de la vacunación, no
un agrupamiento de muertes.
Miller incluyó una revisión exhaustiva de la literatura en su
artículo que refuta la afirmación “oficial” de que la epidemia de SMSL
se redujo al hacer que los bebés durmieran boca arriba, como lo
recomendó la campaña ” Back to Sleep” , iniciada en 1992 por la Academia Estadounidense de Pediatría.
La tasa subsiguiente de SMSL se redujo en un promedio anual del 8,6% entre 1992 y 2001. Sin embargo, la tasa de mortalidad neonatal por “asfixia en la cama” aumentó durante ese mismo tiempo a unatasa promedio anual del 11,2% .
Otras causas similares de muerte infantil también aumentaron
significativamente durante este período, según informó Miller. Además,
desde 1999 hasta 2015, la tasa de SIDS de EE. UU. Disminuyó un
35,8%. mientras que las muertes infantiles por asfixia accidental aumentaron un 183,8% .
Miller también afirma sus principales resultados del documento (es
decir, la agrupación temporal de muertes por SMSL con vacunación) a
través de la discusión de siete estudios adicionales revisados por
pares y dos informes confidenciales.
En promedio, estos autores encontraron que proporciones sustanciales
de muertes infantiles ocurrieron dentro de un día (media = 25%), tres
días (media = 49%) y siete días (media = 71%) después de la vacunación,
coincidiendo con los resultados de la presente estudiar.
Mecánicamente, el daño causado por la vacuna se ha relacionado con el SMSL en múltiples ocasiones. Matturri y col. (2014) examinaron
13 muertes por SMSL que ocurrieron dentro de los siete días de una
vacuna hexavalente. El análisis del tronco encefálico y el cerebelo de
los bebés fallecidos mostró edema cerebral y congestión en todas las
víctimas.
Los autores plantearon la hipótesis de que “varios compuestos y
adyuvantes de inmunopotenciación de la vacuna hexavalente podrían
traspasar fácilmente la barrera hematoencefálica, que en el primer año
de vida aún es inmadura y bastante permeable, induciendo alteraciones
moleculares neuronales en el ADN, ARN y proteínas. de las neuronas del
tronco encefálico que regulan las funciones vitales, con la consiguiente
desorganización fatal del control respiratorio en bebés particularmente
predispuestos “.
Scheibner y Karlsson (1991) monitorearon
la respiración del bebé durante el sueño antes y después de la vacuna
DPT, revelando un aumento en los episodios en los que la respiración
casi cesó o se detuvo por completo. Estos episodios, que continuaron
durante varias semanas después de la vacunación, no se observaron antes
de la vacunación.
A pesar de la insistencia oficial de que las muertes por SMSL no son
causadas por la vacunación, como señala Miller, la Compensación Nacional
por Lesiones por Vacunas (NVICP, por sus siglas en inglés) está
establecida para compensar a las familias de las personas que resultan heridas y / o mueren por la administración de la vacuna.
La muerte por vacunación se compensa con 250.000 dólares por “dolor y
sufrimiento” de los familiares de la víctima fallecida. Las condiciones
que generalmente conducen a la muerte y que se consideran “lesiones de
mesa” que deben ser compensadas según el NVICP incluyen anafilaxia y encefalopatía o encefalitis .
‘Los bebés sanos simplemente no mueren sin razón aparente’
Kari Bundy, quien perdió a su hijo después de sus cuatro meses de
vacunación, dijo que siempre se ha sentido “atónita” ante la negación de
la comunidad médica del vínculo entre el SMSL y las vacunas. “Para mí,
era demasiado obvio como para intentar ignorarlo”, dijo Bundy.
Bundy perdió a su tercer hijo, Mason, en 2011.
“Unos días después de sus vacunas de rutina de cuatro meses, mi
esposo y yo descubrimos su cadáver en medio de la noche, acostado de
costado, con el cuerpo todavía caliente”, dijo Bundy.
La autopsia de Mason resultó “sin complicaciones”, aparte de algunas petequias tímicas , que es el hallazgo macroscópico más común en los casos de SMSL en la autopsia.
“Me aseguraron una y otra vez que no se había asfixiado”, dijo Bundy.
De esas 94 muertes infantiles, 87 murieron por SMSL o por causas
“desconocidas”. De los casos de SMSL, 81, o el 93%, murieron dentro de
los siete días posteriores a las vacunas de rutina.
The Nuremberg Code (German: Nürnberger Kodex) is
part of a judicial ruling. The Kodex has not been officially accepted
as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any
association. In the US, when preparing a legal case, refer to the National Research Act, which is legislation from the US Congress. The National Research Act implements key provisions from the Nuremberg Code.
Following World War II, tribunals were held in Nuremberg, Germany.
Among those tried were the doctors in the Nazi concentration camps where
prisoners were forced to participate in medical experiments. The ten
points of the Nuremberg Code were given in the section of the judges’
verdict against Nazi doctors entitled “Permissible Medical
Experiments.” The following is a summary.
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the
good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and
not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of
animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the
disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will
justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason
to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps,
in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as
subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined
by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the
experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided
to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of
injury, disability, or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified
persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through
all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the
experiment.
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at
liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical
or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be
impossible.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be
prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably
cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and
careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment
is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental
subject.
For the detailed list, please see this article: Nuremberg Code
November 13, 1997. Evelyne Shuster. “Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code.” New England Journal of Medicine 337 (20): 1436–40. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006. Research Journal.
In June 2021,
the U.S. National Security Council released a new National Strategy for
Countering Domestic Terrorism document. While it’s being largely framed
as a tool to fight extremism, the definition of what constitutes a
“domestic terrorist” is incredibly vague and based on ideologies rather
than specific behaviors
This policy can
easily be used to silence political opposition simply by labeling
anyone who disagrees with the government as a domestic terrorist and
charging them with a hate crime, and we’re already seeing signs of this
Dr. Peter Hotez
recently published a paper in PLOS Biology, in which he suggests
criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci and other scientists ought to be labeled a
“hate crime”
Former
assistant secretary for Homeland Security Juliette Kayyem is urging the
U.S. government to put unvaccinated citizens on a no-fly list
The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board believes we ought to “make vaccination the price of admission to society”
In June 2021, the U.S. National Security Council released a new “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” document.1
While it’s being largely framed as a tool to fight White supremacy and
political extremism, the definition of what constitutes a “domestic
terrorist” is incredibly vague and based on ideologies rather than
specific behaviors.
It’s not difficult to imagine this policy being used to silence
political opposition simply by labeling anyone who disagrees with the
government as a domestic terrorist and charging them with a hate crime.
We’re already seeing signs suggesting that this is the path we’re on. July 28, 2021, Dr. Peter Hotez published a paper2
in PLOS Biology titled “Mounting Antiscience Aggression in the United
States,” in which he suggests criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci and other
scientists ought to be labeled a “hate crime.” Commenting on the paper,
Paul Joseph Watson at Summit News writes:3
“This is yet another transparent effort to dehumanize
anti-lockdown protesters and demonize people who merely want to
exercise bodily autonomy while elevating Fauci and his ilk to Pope-like
status. Science isn’t supposed to be a religious dogma that is set in
stone, it’s an ever-evolving knowledge base that changes and improves
thanks to dissent and skepticism.”
Science Depends on Questioning and Challenging Assumptions
Attorney Jonathan Turley also responded to Hotez’s paper in an August 4, 2021, blog post, saying:4
“’Religion is a culture of faith; science is a
culture of doubt.’ Feynman’s statement captures how science depends upon
constant questioning and challenging of assumptions …
[T]here remain
important debates over not just the underlying science relation to
Covid-19 but the implications for such science for public policies.
Criminalizing aspects of that debate would ratchet up the threats
against those with dissenting views, including some scientists. That
would harm not just free speech but science in the long run.”
Should We Have Protected Classes That Cannot Be Questioned?
Turley also points out how making scientists a protected class (and
one would assume only those with specific political leanings) is a
slippery slope that will likely have unwieldy ramifications:5
“The federal hate crime laws focus on basis of a
person’s characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality,
gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. We have seen calls for
adding professions like police officers, which I also opposed.
As with police officers, the inclusion of such
professions would have a direct and inimical impact on free speech in
our society. Indeed, it would create a slippery slope as other
professions demand inclusion from reporters to ministers to physicians.
Hate crimes would quickly apply to a wide array of people due to their
occupations.”
Will America Accept No-Fly List for Unvaccinated?
Writing for The Atlantic,6
former assistant secretary for Homeland Security Juliette Kayyem posits
that people who do not want to be part of the COVID injection
experiment “need to bear the burden” when it comes to preventing the
spread of SARS-CoV-2.
“The number of COVID-19 cases keeps growing, even though remarkably safe, effective vaccines are widely available,” Kayyem writes.7“Many public agencies are responding by reimposing masking rules on everyone.
But at this stage of the pandemic, tougher universal
restrictions are not the solution to continuing viral spread. While
flying, vaccinated people should no longer carry the burden for
unvaccinated people.
The White House has rejected a nationwide vaccine
mandate … but a no-fly list for unvaccinated adults is an obvious step
that the federal government should take.
It will help limit the risk of transmission at
destinations where unvaccinated people travel — and, by setting norms
that restrict certain privileges to vaccinated people, will also help
raise the stagnant vaccination rates that are keeping both the economy
and society from fully recovering.”
Travel Ban Identified as Effective Coercion Strategy
According to Kayyem, traveling in general and flying in particular is
not a human right, and putting unvaccinated individuals on a no-fly
list is a matter of national security, in the sense that the country
needs to protect itself from people capable of spreading this dangerous
virus.
She makes no mention of the scientifically confirmed fact that none
of the COVID shots actually prevent you from getting infected, and that
“vaccinated” individuals carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated,8,9
which means they’re just as infectious. The main difference is that
vaccinated individuals might not realize that they’re carriers, as the
primary effect when the injections do work is lessening symptoms of
infection.
Kayyem also cites a New York Times and Kaiser Family Foundation poll
in which 41% of unvaccinated respondents had said prohibition on airline
travel would sway their decision, including 11% of those “adamantly
opposed” to vaccination. In other words, where free doughnuts and
million-dollar lotteries have failed to coerce people to get the shot,
an airline travel ban might do the trick.
Despite her former position within government, she makes no mention
of laws forbidding coercion of medical volunteers, such as the U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A, the Belmont report),10 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treaty,11 the Declaration of Helsinki12 or the Nuremberg Code.13 Supreme court rulings have also clarified that Americans have the right to choose their own health care in general.14,15
Reframing to Confuse the Issue
Kayyem suggests circumventing such basic human rights by reframing the issue. She writes:16
“The public debate about making vaccination a
precondition for travel, employment, and other activities has described
this approach as vaccine mandates, a term that … suggests that
unvaccinated people are being ordered around arbitrarily.
What is actually going on, mostly, is that
institutions are shifting burdens to unvaccinated people ... rather than
imposing greater burdens on everyone.
Americans still have a choice to go unvaccinated, but
that means giving up on certain societal benefits. Nobody has a
constitutional right to attend The Lion King on Broadway or work at
Disney or Walmart … People who still want to wait and see about the
vaccines can continue doing so. They just can’t keep pushing all the
costs on everyone else.”
As pointed out by Swift Headline,17
the owner of Atlantic magazine, Laurene Powell Jobs, the billionaire
widow of Steve Jobs, owns two private jets herself, giving her the
freedom to fly around the world at will, regardless what vaccine
mandates might be in place. Many other ultra-rich individuals would also
be able to ignore the rules due to wealth alone, essentially turning
them into a protected class. Swift Headline points out this projection:18
“The Atlantic went on to say unvaccinated
people who are exercising their individual rights as free Americans ‘do
not deserve’ to be a ‘protected class’ …
Jobs’s wealth and class status is detailed in
Breitbart News’ Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow’s book, ‘Breaking the News:
Exposing the Establishment Media’s Hidden Deals and Secret Corruptions,’
which ‘exposes the hidden connections between the establishment media
and the activist left.’
As Marlow details, Jobs’s past is a privileged one
... Jobs ‘married well and inherited a lot of money, and her wealth is
tied up in some of world’s biggest companies,’ Marlow continues. ‘She is the establishment.’”
The Price of Admission to Society
August 2, 2021, the San Francisco Chronicle also published an opinion piece19
by the Chronicle editorial board, in which they suggested we ought to
“Make vaccination the price of admission to society.” One way to
evaluate the reasonableness of such a proposition is to replace COVID
“vaccination” with anything else. How about: “Make proof of
contraception use the price of admission to bars and nightclubs.”
“Make clear skin the price of admission to gyms and public swimming
pools.” “Make being taller than 5’ 9” the price of admission to theme
parks.” “Make having a BMI below 25 the price of admission to airline
flights.” “Make proof of not having an illness the price of admission to
in-hospital care.”
According to the Chronicle editorial board, “the unvaccinated account for over 95% of hospitalizations and deaths.”20 The board does not cite where it got that data from, so let’s review the source of that data.
In an August 5, 2021, video statement, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky noted that this statistic
was obtained by looking at hospitalization and mortality data from
January through June 2021 — a timeframe during which the vast majority
of the United States population were unvaccinated.
January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a
COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more
shots,21 and as of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.”22
The CDC has also pointed out that you are not considered “fully
vaccinated” until two weeks after your second dose (in the case of
Pfizer or Moderna), which is given six weeks after your first shot.23
This means that if you receive your first dose on June 1, you won’t be
“fully vaccinated” until eight weeks later, around August 1.
So, the narrative that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” was
created by using statistics from a time period when the U.S. as a whole
was largely unvaccinated. When you look at more recent data, the trend
is swinging in the opposite direction.
Vaccinated Now Comprise the Bulk of Hospitalizations
For example, August 1, 2021, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, director of
Israel’s Public Health Services, announced half of all COVID-19
infections were among the fully vaccinated.24
A few days later, August 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog
Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95%
of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that they
make up 85% to 90% of COVID related hospitalizations overall.25
In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of
those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early
July were vaccinated,26 and in Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021.27
A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County,
Massachusetts between July 6 through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those
who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were
among the fully vaccinated.28,29 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant.
“What the breakthrough cases appear to show is that
the delta variant of the coronavirus is more easily carried and
transmitted by vaccinated people than its predecessors,” the Chronicle editorial board writes.30
“In any case, the greater apparent transmissibility
of the variant makes it that much more important to protect as many
people as possible from severe COVID by increasing inoculation rates.”
What the board appears to be saying is that unvaccinated people must
be protected against severe infection, against their will, if need be,
and the best way to do that is to discriminate against them and treat
them like second-class citizens.
Again, a simple way to check the reasonableness of this argument is
to swap out the COVID reference for something else. How about, “It’s
important to protect as many people as possible from dying in car
accidents by raising car prices so fewer people can get behind the
wheel.”
Can ‘Big Brother’ Save You From a Virus?
As early as April 2020, The Times in the U.K. weighed in with similar
suggestions, stating “We need Big Brother to beat this virus.”31
Clare Foges, the author of the piece in question, went on to say,
“Don’t let the civil liberties lobby blind us to the fact that greater
state surveillance, including ID cards, is required.”
The argument that Big Brother can protect us from infection is
ludicrous on its face, because no amount of people surveillance can
prevent microscopic viruses from circulating.
The No. 1 place of viral spread is in institutions, such as nursing
homes and hospitals, yet the staff within them are among the most
well-trained in pathogenic control. If trained hospital staff can’t
prevent the spread of viruses, how can government officials do it?
Importantly, the argument that we need vaccine passports to prove
we’re “clean” enough to participate in society immediately falls apart
when you take into account the fact that the COVID shots do not provide
immunity. You can still be infected, carry the virus and spread it to
others.
We’ve already seen several examples of situations where 100% of
people were fully “vaccinated” against COVID-19 yet an outbreak
occurred. We’ve even seen over 100 fully COVID injected people die from
COVID in one state alone, Massachusetts,32 so it is likely there are now many thousands of fully “vaccinated” who have died from COVID.
Even a 100% Vaccination Rate Cannot Eliminate COVID
Most recently, Carnival cruise lines experienced an outbreak despite
every last person on that ship having proof of COVID “vaccination.”33
The cruise liner had even intentionally reduced capacity from 4,000 to
2,800 to provide ample social distancing capability. None of the
measures worked. People got sick anyway, which makes perfect sense if
you remember that the shot doesn’t provide immunity, only symptom
reduction.
Cases such as these clearly reveal that even if everyone gets the
shot, SARS-CoV-2 will mutate and continue to circulate, taking people
out here and there. To think that giving up basic rights and freedoms is
the answer simply isn’t logical. Taking responsibility for your own
health is, and that includes deciding if and how you want to protect
yourself from SARS-CoV-2.
Nebulized hydrogen peroxide can also be used for prevention and
treatment of COVID-19, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper34 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.”
And if there’s effective treatment, there’s little need to risk
permanent side effects from an experimental gene technology that can
only provide a narrow range of protection in the first place.
