BMJ Study Links Excess Deaths and Covid Vaccines – Telegraph Makes it Front Page News

 
Will Jones
4 June 2024

A study that links excess deaths since 2021 and the Covid vaccines has been published in BMJ Public Health and the Telegraph‘s Sarah Knapton has written it up for the newspaper. Here’s how Sarah’s report starts.

Covid vaccines could be partly to blame for the rise in excess deaths since the pandemic, scientists have suggested.

Researchers from The Netherlands analysed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020, with the trend continuing despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures.

They said the “unprecedented” figures “raised serious concerns” and called on governments to fully investigate the underlying causes, including possible vaccine harms.

Writing in the BMJ Public Health, the authors from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, said: “Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well.

“Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”

They added: “During the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”

The study found that across Europe, the U.S. and Australia there had been more than one million excess deaths in 2020, at the height of the pandemic, but also 1.2 million in 2021 and 800,000 and 2022 after measures were implemented.

Researchers said the figure included deaths from COVID-19, but also the “indirect effects of the health strategies to address the virus spread and infection”.

They warned that side effects linked to the Covid vaccine had included ischaemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome and brain haemorrhage, cardiovascular diseases, coagulation, haemorrhages, gastrointestinal events and blood clotting.

German researchers have pointed out that the onset of excess mortality in early 2021 in the country coincided with the rollout of vaccines, which the team said “warranted further investigation”.

However, more recent data regarding side-effects have not been made available to the public, with countries keeping their own individual databases of harms, which rely on self-reporting by the public and doctors, the experts warned.

Kudos to Sarah for keeping writing about this important story and the Telegraph for giving it some prominence. It’s up there today in the ‘Headlines’ section of the website and is even featured on the front page of the print edition. Is this a sign of people waking up to what went on during the Covid years?

 

 

The discussion section of the study is particularly damning for both the vaccines and ‘containment’ measures, noting that deaths were highest when these were both in operation. It is a crisp summary of the current state of knowledge on post-pandemic excess deaths and is worth reading in full. An extended excerpt follows:

This study explored the excess all-cause mortality in 47 countries of the Western World from 2020 until 2022. The overall number of excess deaths was 3,098,456. Excess mortality was registered in 87% of countries in 2020, in 89% of countries in 2021 and in 91% of countries in 2022. During 2020, which was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and the onset of mitigation measures, 1,033,122 excess deaths (P-score 11.4%) were to be regretted. A recent analysis of seroprevalence studies in this prevaccination era illustrates that the Infection Fatality Rate estimates in non-elderly populations were even lower than prior calculations suggested. At a global level, the prevaccination Infection Fatality Rate was 0.03% for people aged <60 years and 0.07% for people aged <70 years. For children aged 0-19 years, the Infection Fatality Rate was set at 0.0003%. This implies that children are rarely harmed by the COVID-19 virus. During 2021, when not only containment measures but also COVID-19 vaccines were used to tackle virus spread and infection, the highest number of excess deaths was recorded: 1,256,942 excess deaths (P-score 13.8%). Scientific consensus regarding the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions in reducing viral transmission is currently lacking. During 2022, when most mitigation measures were negated and COVID-19 vaccines were sustained, preliminary available data count 808,392 excess deaths (P-score 8.8%). The percentage difference between the documented and projected number of deaths was highest in 28% of countries during 2020, in 46% of countries during 2021, and in 26% of countries during 2022.

This insight into the overall all-cause excess mortality since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic is an important first step for future health crisis policy decision-making. The next step concerns distinguishing between the various potential contributors to excess mortality, including COVID-19 infection, indirect effects of containment measures and COVID-19 vaccination programmes. Differentiating between the various causes is challenging. National mortality registries not only vary in quality and thoroughness but may also not accurately document the cause of death. The usage of different models to investigate cause-specific excess mortality within certain countries or subregions during variable phases of the pandemic complicates elaborate cross-country comparative analysis. Not all countries provide mortality reports categorised per age group. Also testing policies for COVID-19 infection differ between countries. Interpretation of a positive COVID-19 test can be intricate. Consensus is lacking in the medical community regarding when a deceased infected with COVID-19 should be registered as a COVID-19 death. Indirect effects of containment measures have likely altered the scale and nature of disease burden for numerous causes of death since the pandemic. However, deaths caused by restricted healthcare utilisation and socioeconomic turmoil are difficult to prove. A study assessing excess mortality in the USA observed a substantial increase in excess mortality attributed to non-Covid causes during the first two years of the pandemic. The highest number of excess deaths was caused by heart disease, 6% above baseline during both years. Diabetes mortality was 17% over baseline during the first year and 13% above it during the second year. Alzheimer’s disease mortality was 19% higher in year 1 and 15% higher in year 2. In terms of percentage, large increases were recorded for alcohol-related fatalities (28% over baseline during the first year and 33% during the second year) and drug-related fatalities (33% above baseline in year 1 and 54% in year 2).

Previous research confirmed profound under-reporting of adverse events, including deaths, after immunisation. Consensus is also lacking in the medical community regarding concerns that mRNA vaccines might cause more harm than initially forecasted. French studies suggest that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products requiring long-term stringent adverse events monitoring. Although the desired immunisation through vaccination occurs in immune cells, some studies report a broad biodistribution and persistence of mRNA in many organs for weeks. Batch-dependent heterogeneity in the toxicity of mRNA vaccines was found in Denmark. Simultaneous onset of excess mortality and COVID-19 vaccination in Germany provides a safety signal warranting further investigation. Despite these concerns, clinical trial data required to further investigate these associations are not shared with the public. Autopsies to confirm actual death causes are seldom done. Governments may be unable to release their death data with detailed stratification by cause, although this information could help indicate whether COVID-19 infection, indirect effects of containment measures, COVID-19 vaccines or other overlooked factors play an underpinning role. This absence of detailed cause-of-death data for certain Western nations derives from the time-consuming procedure involved, which entails assembling death certificates, coding diagnoses and adjudicating the underlying origin of death. Consequently, some nations with restricted resources assigned to this procedure may encounter delays in rendering prompt and punctual cause-of-death data. This situation existed even prior to the outbreak of the pandemic.

A critical challenge in excess mortality research is choosing an appropriate statistical method for calculating the projected baseline of expected deaths to which the observed deaths are compared. Although the analyses and estimates in general are similar, the method can vary, for instance, per length of the investigated period, nature of available data, scale of geographic area, inclusion or exclusion of past influenza outbreaks, accounting for changes in population ageing and size and modelling trend over years or not. Our analysis of excess mortality using the linear regression model of Karlinsky and Kobak varies thus to some extent from previous attempts to estimate excess deaths… [discussion of some studies on excess deaths] … Although all the above-mentioned studies used more elaborate statistical approaches for estimating baseline mortality, Karlinsky and Kobak argue that their method is a trade-off between suppleness and chasteness. It is the simplest method to captivate seasonal fluctuation and annual trends and more transparent than extensive approaches. …

In conclusion, excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years, despite the implementation of COVID-19 containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. This is unprecedented and raises serious concerns. During the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply. Every death needs to be acknowledged and accounted for, irrespective of its origin. Transparency towards potential lethal drivers is warranted. Cause-specific mortality data therefore need to be made available to allow more detailed, direct and robust analyses to determine the underlying contributors. Postmortem examinations need to be facilitated to allot the exact reason for death. Government leaders and policymakers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality and evaluate their health crisis policies.

 

Source: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/04/bmj-study-links-excess-deaths-and-covid-vaccines-telegraph-makes-it-front-page-news/

“HIV Inserts”, Lies & “Lab Leaks”

Mark J. Bailey
2nd of June, 2024

A commentary on the origins of the COVID-19 “lab leak” and ‘HIV insert’ narratives and why they continue to serve multiple pandemic industries. An examination of gp120, a protein first described in 1984 and attributed to ‘HIV’, unravels the propagation of virological fraud into the present era.

                                                          ***

 On the 31st of January, 2020, Pradhan et al. uploaded a paper titled “Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag” onto the preprint site bioRxiv.¹ (“Bio-archive”) It was removed just two days later with the explanation that, “this paper has been withdrawn by its authors. They intend to revise it in response to comments received from the research community on their technical approach and their interpretation of the results.”² Despite its brief appearance, as of May 2024, the website metrics indicate that the article has been picked up by 116 news outlets, is mentioned in seven Wikipedia entries, and the online PDF version has been accessed over 480,000 times.³

On the 2^nd of February, 2020, ZeroHedge promoted the Pradhan et al. preprint paper in an article titled “Coronavirus Contains ‘HIV Insertions’, Stoking Fears Over Artificially Created Bioweapon” which received almost 1.7 million views.⁴ This followed on from ZeroHedge’s 29th of January,4 2020, article “Is This The Man Behind The Global Coronavirus Pandemic?” which received over 1.1 million views.⁵ The author(s)*⁶ implied that Peng Zhou from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the likely culprit behind the “coronavirus pandemic” as it was stated that:

Something tells us, if anyone wants to find out what really caused the coronavirus pandemic that has infected thousands of people in China and around the globe, they should probably pay Dr. Peng a visit. Or at least start with an email: Dr Peng can be reached at peng.zhou@wh.iov.cn, and his phone# is 87197311.⁷

This was six weeks before the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) even declared that ‘COVID-19’ was a “pandemic”.⁸ One of my colleagues did contact Peng Zhou’s team following their online publication of “A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin” in Nature on the 3^rd of February, 2020.⁹ This was one of the first papers from China claiming to demonstrate the existence of 2019-nCoV, later called ‘SARS-CoV-2’.*¹⁰ An extraordinary scientific fraud regarding their “virus” isolation claim was exposed by my colleague and documented in “The Disclosures Of Peng Zhou et al.” in A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition).¹¹ Aside from the usual failure to physically isolate any particle that met the description of a virus, the team admitted to doubling the amount of antibiotics in the experimental cell lines.

On the 7th of February, 2020, the website FactCheck.org jumped onto the “HIV inserts” story with an article titled “Baseless Conspiracy Theories Claim New Coronavirus Was Bioengineered”.¹² In line with all the stories that had preceded it, there was no question as to whether there was a new “coronavirus” - that was presented as a given - the only question being posed to the public was the
origin of the alleged virus. The summary provided in the FactCheck.org piece stated:

Several online stories inaccurately claim that the new coronavirus contains HIV “insertions” and shows signs of being created in a lab. But there is no evidence that the new virus was bioengineered, and every indication it came from an animal.¹³

The “lab-leak theory” then featured in various mainstream news platforms for four years, whether supporting the story or not, and perhaps not surprisingly, by 2023 it was reported in The Washington Post that over 60% of Americans believed that the “virus” originated in a laboratory.¹⁴ Despite this fact, organisations such as Children’s Health Defense (CHD) have asserted that the public are being kept in the dark over such matters. On the 5th of December, 2023, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CHD published the book The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race¹⁵ cementing their position that SARS-CoV-2 not only exists as a disease-causing particle but was created in a laboratory and caused a novel disease. The present author notes that many in the ‘health freedom’ community continue to adhere to CHD’s central claims, including the “cover up” aspect.*¹⁶

Several points are clear though: (1) the “lab leak” claim was well-developed and appeared at the start of the “pandemic”, (2) the Wuhan Institute of Virology was publicised by the Chinese government*¹⁷ and in mainstream platforms, and (3) the so-called “cover up” is known about by the majority of Americans. In this regard, it is also of note that online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has a very large “COVID-19 lab leak theory” entry.¹⁸ It even suggests to the reader that the question may simply boil down to how the laboratory virus went on to cause a pandemic:

Historian of science Naomi Oreskes says that she does not know of any credible scientists who support the view that the virus was released deliberately, while the version proposing the virus may have escaped accidentally is more plausible.¹⁹

From the author’s perspective it would currently venture into speculation as to why in January 2020 a financial and political blog site such as ZeroHedge*²⁰ started penning articles about, “whether the coronavirus epidemic isn't a weaponized virus that just happened to escape the lab.”²¹ We have addressed the baseless virological claims behind such “gain of function” and “bio-weapon” stories by dismantling the relevant scientific documents on which they rely.²² In our estimation the stories are most often promulgated by those who have been misled by the virologists’ claims or those who are gaslighting (or being gaslit) in order to maintain acceptance of “viruses” and contagion. On the 2nd of May, 2024, ZeroHedge continued to advance the engineered virus story for the fifth consecutive year in their article “Watch Live: Peter Daszak²³ Testifies Days After Whistleblower Documents Expose More About Dangerous Wuhan Research”:

Meanwhile on Monday, journalist Paul Thacker revealed a new set of documents which raise further questions into the work done by Daszak, as well as statements made by the National Institutes of Health regarding papers showing they funded risky virus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to create dangerous chimeric viruses.²⁴

There was no mention of the “HIV gp120 insertions” or other “suspicious” sequences that caught the interest of Pradhan et al. as well as outspoken individuals such as Dr Richard Fleming.²⁵ The latest ZeroHedge article referred to congressional testimonies, National Institutes of Health grants and the activities of Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. All of this continued to uphold the key tenets that: (1) COVID-19 was a pandemic, (2) it was caused by SARS-CoV-2, and (3) laboratory experiments involving “coronaviruses” are taking place. Indeed, during the congressional hearing video that featured in the ZeroHedge article, congressman Dr Raul Ruis²⁶ stated that, “whether the virus came from a lab or from nature is still unknown. Two federal agencies still assess with low and moderate confidence that the virus originated in a lab and four government agencies still assess with low confidence that the virus emerged from nature.”²⁷

In 2020 we earnestly believed that exposing the fraud concerning the lack of evidence for SARS-CoV-2, the inappropriate use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) as a claimed human diagnostic test and the WHO’s non-sensical case definition would result in the COVID-19 “pandemic” fizzling out before the end of that year. In retrospect, we were naïve at that time as to how crucial the virus model is to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and genomics industries as well as the development of the “biosecurity” surveillance state.

It is apparent that “alternative” theories are permitted and even promoted by the state and allied platforms on the proviso that they uphold the virus model. Which brings us back to the January 2020 Pradhan et al. paper that acted as one of the original triggers for the narrative that SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered virus. The narrative was unlikely to be of any concern to virus model and pandemic industry beneficiaries because the fraud of the new “virus” helped propagate the fraud of an old “virus”. In this case it related to the claimed properties of gp120 - primarily that the protein and its corresponding genetic sequences belong to ‘HIV’.²⁸ 

However, where does the evidence for gp120 belonging to any virus actually stand? In 1997, Bess et al. published “Microvesicles Are a Source of Contaminating Cellular Proteins Found in Purified HIV-1 Preparations,” in which they stated, “although HIV-1 particles are known to contain some cellular proteins, microvesicles from HIV-1 infected H9 cells appeared to contain little or no HIV-1 gp120^SU [SU = ‘surface envelope’].”²⁹ According to the described methodology, “HIV-1(MN)/H929 was purified from six liters of cell culture supernatant by continuous flow ultracentrifugation in a sucrose density gradient.” The paper included electron microcopy images of what they claimed were “purified HIV-1” preparations. It caught the attention of the Perth Group’s Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos because as she stated in August 1997:

…until March 1997, for unknown reasons, neither [Luc Montagnier’s or Robert Gallo’s] groups nor anyone else had ever published an electron micrograph of the banded (purified) material to show which if any of the many different variety of particles seen in gross cell cultures are present at 1.16 gm/ml.³⁰

 Bess et al. presented SDS–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis³¹ results from H9 cell lines³², the first (A) said not to be infected by ‘HIV’, the next two (B & C) said to be infected by ‘HIV”. The Perth Group provided a detailed commentary on this paper in 2011 and summarised the implications of the gel electrophoresis data as follows: 

Anyone can see the electrophoretic patterns in all three gels are virtually identical. [Brent] Leung has drawn a line just below the 42.7kDa marker protein and above this33 line the gels are identical. Below the line there are some differences in the staining intensity in gels B and C compared to gel A…The same proteins are present in all three gels with some variation in the amounts of some proteins…Since the same proteins are present in gels A, B and C one has to conclude there are no “extra” proteins in B and C. That is, there are no HIV proteins in the “purified virus”. 

No HIV proteins = no HIV. Why then, in gels B and C, did Bess label p6/p7, p17 and p24 as HIV proteins?^{34, *35} 

 

 

Fig 1. Bess et al., Virology 1997 gel electrophoresis data as
commented on by the Perth Group in 2011: A = uninfected; B, C =
“infected”.

Relevant to the present essay and the claim that gp120 is specific to HIV, it is instructive to go back to the Bess et al. 1997 gel electrophoresis and examine the bands at 120kDa. As Figure 2 clearly shows, all of the three gels whether from uninfected (A) or “infected” (B & C) cells demonstrated banding around 120kDa. In other words, according to their experiment there is no evidence that gp120 (or a protein of this size) is specific to ‘HIV’ - it can only be said to be a cellular protein.

The Bess et al. gel electrophoresis refuted their own claim that they were detecting proteins that were specific to HIV. The authors offered no explanation for the result and instead analysed relative concentrations of proteins by a radioimmunoassay technique from which they concluded, “there was some evidence that a little gp120SU may have been associated with microvesicles that banded at a slightly higher density than HIV-1 particles.”³⁶  [my emphasis] While this comment raises another problem for “HIV specificity” it was a distraction from the overriding fatal flaw that, even by their own methodologies,*³⁷ the protein claimed to be part of the “HIV envelope” can be found in cells that are not “infected” with the imagined “virus”. 

 

Fig 2. Bess et al., Virology 1997 gel electrophoresis data focussed above the
116.3kDa marker protein: A = uninfected; B, C = “infected”

The claim that ‘SARS-CoV-2’ contains “HIV inserts” is emblematic of the propagation of decades of virological pseudoscience. Peng Zhou’s team could not engineer a virus as there was no evidence of a virus to begin with,³⁸ just as there is no evidence of ‘HIV’.³⁹ The debate over the origin of the COVID-19 “pandemic” has been presented as a false dichotomy where the uninitiated are asked to pick between: (1) ‘zoonotic spillover’ (wet market/bat cave, etc) or (2) ’lab leak’ (accident vs deliberate). The overall story is not disrupted by those throwing ‘HIV’ into option 2, in fact, it helps maintain the virus model on multiple fronts. 

As it stands, over 60% of Americans believe that the COVID-19 event was the result of an engineered “virus” - by all accounts it is a mainstream theme permitted by governments and the globalist media. The maintenance of the virus model primarily serves corporate and sociopolitical ends rather than health or scientific advancement. It is dressed up as the latter but as we witnessed during the COVID era, aspects of it apparently now require enforcement through the state’s compulsory monopoly on coercion and violence. Those promulgating narratives involving “lab leak” and “gain of function” claims are implored to examine the foundational scientific evidence on which everything relies to avoid providing a disservice to both science and humanity. 

“It might appear that we’re encountering a new challenge. How to avoid lockdown and takeover by model- (or idol-) worshipping science cults?”—Asa Boxer, 2024⁴⁰

^{References & Notes at https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/HIV-Inserts-Lies-Lab-Leaks.pdf}
 

On the bogus culture wars

 

Juan Manuel de Prada
July 14th

The phenomenon of the so-called 'culture wars', promoted by ideological sectors that eco-progressives call 'far-right', is very illustrative of the degree of confusion (and perversion) that invades our political life. In reality, such 'culture wars' are a complete deception, since their champions always share the assumptions of their opponents, and in such a way that they only manage to create screechy antagonisms and confuse their followers. Said followers naively believe they are participating in a cosmic democracy to decide the destiny of Humanity, when in reality, the only thing being decided is the mode of imposition of the ideas they're supposedly fighting. It could even be said that the promoters of the so-called 'culture wars' are actually assisting in the imposition of those ideas, since they prevent them from being imposed despotically (which always makes their social acceptance difficult), and instead allow them to be imposed under the appearance of a debate. In this way, the promoters of the 'culture wars', in addition to fueling a democracy that weakens the people, allow their opponent to present their victories to their parish as epic conquests...whilst the opposing parish is portrayed as fanatical and unbalanced.

And, in some ways, it really is. Because there is a flagrant imbalance, a painful cognitive distortion, in those who try to combat people they consider wrong by upholding the same principles, but pretending that such principles have consequences other than what their own nature presupposes. If you buy a car but then try to travel in it using animal traction, you will naturally be branded a dimwit. If you accept the concepts of negative freedom and individual autonomy that are so typical of liberalism but then attempt to fight against –let's say–abortion, all the measures proposed will inevitably turn out to be odious extortions that try to constrain a woman's 'right to choose'. And, furthermore, your speech will always be unbalanced and vociferous. Because pretending that ideas do not have logical consequences requires contortions of thought that cannot be expressed in a balanced way. You cannot buy a car for a mule to pull. In the same way, you cannot accept liberal concepts of freedom, or nation, or many others, and then try to avoid the consequences that derive from them. And any attempt to avoid them will end in a frantic but ultimately inane tantrum, and the strengthening of the ideas you are trying to combat.

In the end, all these 'culture wars' that are fallaciously presented as cosmic battles against progressivism end up generating frustration, except for the cranks and the profiteers who have made a career out of generating shrill antagonisms. They don't care if they are called 'far-right', because in the meantime they are lining their own pockets; and triumphant progressivism is interested in generously funding these 'far-rightists', in exchange for using them as clownish punching bags. Furthermore, as these 'far-rightists' guide potential dissidents into the deception of the 'culture wars', the dissidents are incapable of defending other, more balanced assumptions. Instead of a true alternative vision of man and the world, they adhere to the principles of 'progressivism' and exhaust themselves in the ridiculously attempt to avoid its inevitable consequences. 

In short, the promoters of the 'culture wars' are nothing more than minions of the system, tasked with maintaining the brutal antagonisms that bolster 'democracy' and which prevent people from removing the blindfold and creating a new and truly alternative vision, where human freedom conforms to the nature of things. This new vision only comes from traditional thought and the development of a new, balanced man that, in Gustave Thibon's words, would be like “a mountain whose balance implies the existence of two slopes. And the strength of his foundations allows him, like the mountain whose summit boldly disappears into the sky, to commit himself thoroughly, to despise half-measures and precautions. He can go very far and very high without endangering his inner grounding. He is strong and rich enough to be healthily excessive”. In contrast to the equilibrium of the traditional man, the 'culture wars' only generate unbalanced men, as vociferous as they are inane, and who assist in the triumph of the very ideas they claim to fight. 

                                                           ***

Why 'Anti-Wokesters' NEVER PROTEST US Foreign Policy

 
Translation: David Montoute
Source: https://noticiasholisticas.com.ar/falsos-batalladores-culturales-por-juan-manuel-de-prada/

Haaretz: IDF Targeted Own Soldiers & Civilians Using Hannibal Directive

 

 

James North

July 10, 2024

Three days ago, Israel’s leading newspaper, Haaretz, published the results of its thorough, comprehensive investigation into what actually happened when Hamas attacked on October 7. So far, the U.S. mainstream media has not said a word about the shocking results of that investigation. Critics sometimes use the expression “media malpractice” to describe the American mainstream’s failure to report accurately about Israel/Palestine. This time, though, what’s happening is even worse; it has to be deliberate self-censorship, designed to hide the truth from the U.S. audience.

Haaretz’s long report found that Israel’s army had employed the “Hannibal Directive” on October 7. The Directive is an Israeli policy that instructs the military to open fire on its own soldiers to prevent them from being taken captive. Of course, this site, alongside other alternative media sources, was one of the first to point out the possible role of the Hannibal Directive in Israeli deaths on October 7. But the Haaretz report was significant in the number of military sources it interviewed who confirmed that there were direct orders to implement the Directive.

Haaretz explained that the policy has “the intent of foiling kidnapping even at the expense of the lives of the kidnapped.” At first, the army started deploying “Ziks,” unmanned assault drones. Later, the army fired mortars, and then artillery shells. Haaretz also confirmed that the military did know that Israeli civilians had also been taken hostage, but, nonetheless, at 11:22 a.m. the order came down: “Not a single vehicle can return to Gaza.”

The Haaretz report is cautious, but it still concludes: “[The 11:22 a.m. message] was understood by everyone. . .  At this point, the IDF was not aware of the extent of kidnapping along the Gaza border, but it did know that many people were involved. Thus, it was entirely clear what the message meant, and what the fate of some of the kidnapped people would be.” 

In other words, some — possibly many —  of the Israeli deaths that day, including civilians, were deliberately caused by Israel’s own military. How this is not news is incomprehensible. But, three days later, in the New York Times: not a word. The Washington Post: nothing. CNN: nothing. National Public Radio: nada.  

Instead, if you plug “Hannibal” into the search engines at these media sites, the results only mention “Hannibal Lecter,” the fictional serial killer who was the subject of a book and popular film.

But there’s nothing new about the Israeli military’s Hannibal Directive. (The doctrine is probably named for the Carthaginian general who fought Rome in 200 B.C., who said he would swallow poison instead of surrendering. Some Israeli sources claimed that the name was randomly generated, an assertion that prompts skepticism.) 

Way back on October 22, this site reported :

“A growing number of reports indicate Israeli forces responsible for Israeli civilian and military deaths following October 7 attack.”

Then, last March, the estimable Jonathan Ofir also posted here that an actual Israeli soldier, Captain Bar Zonshein, had admitted to “firing tank shells on vehicles carrying Israeli civilians.”  

The even more comprehensive Haaretz investigation should have prompted a reaction from the mainstream U.S. reporters who are stationed in Israel. American journalists should have been cultivating their own sources since October 7, and been ready to at least match the Haaretz article. Instead, the only response so far has been a panel hosted by Piers Morgan, and a Mehdi Hasan/Bassem Youssef podcast. 

I’ve followed the U.S. media coverage of Israel/Palestine closely for more than a decade now. Continuing to hide Israel’s deployment of the Hannibal Directive on October 7 is one of the most offensive examples of self-censorship that I can recall. The mainstream’s dishonesty is just one more example of why alternative websites are indispensable. 

 

Source: https://mondoweiss.net/2024/07/israels-leading-paper-says-its-own-army-deliberately-killed-israelis-on-october-7-but-in-the-u-s-media-silence/

The Trump 'Assassination Attempt'

 

Jon Rappoport
Jul 14, 2024

(This is Part-1 in a series; for Part-2, click here.)

1:12AM Eastern Time, Sunday.

ONE: The glaring insanity, of course, is how did the shooter get access to the rooftop? 150 yards from the podium. There were multiple ways to cover it. The best: SS shooters THERE on that roof. Otherwise, drones. Helicopters circulating.

A total failure. Total.

I’m not buying the excuse that the SS was undermanned. They were, but that building should have been an A-1 priority. (And yes, Trump’s people have been turned down in their requests for more SS protection. Is the head of the SS more focused on bringing DEI through the door? (Seems like it.)

A convincing rally attendee told the press he and other people saw the shooter climbing up to the roof with a gun and shouted to cops and SS agents nearby, warning them, and got no response. Stunning.

The people who want to make a case the assassination was a planned inside job have ammunition from that attendee’s testimony.

TWO: SS agents kept Trump down on the floor behind the podium for close to a minute. Why? The podium was made out of thick steel? If the shooter was still active, he could have just pumped a lot of rounds at the lower part of the podium. Makes no sense.

The SS agents should have put bodies around Trump on all sides and carried him off the platform and into the secure van right away. Relentlessly. No stop allowed for a fist pump from Trump.

Another total failure.

And there was only one of those secure vans parked right there at the side of the platform? I would have expected at least 6. With agents.

THREE: As of now, I see NO statement from the number one law-enforcement agent in the US. Attorney General Merrick Garland. He’s quiet as a mouse. Not taking the lead.

FOUR: To reiterate, the rooftop—the shot from there was easy. Didn’t require an expert. From what I’ve seen, there was a direct line of sight to the podium. All the more reason to put 2 SS agents there from the beginning.

FIVE: Did anyone see agents go to the rooftop and remove the dead body of the shooter? I’ve heard nothing about that. You would think, in all the press coverage, somebody would have said they saw that. You’d think there would be video footage of that. But nothing.

Instead we’re told SS counter-snipers were aiming their weapons at the shooter BEFORE (?) he actually fired at Trump. What the hell is that all about?

SIX: Something else: the few people in the crowd who were injured or killed…were they supposed to be obstructing the line of sight of the shooter? Because I don’t see how that’s possible. The shooter was on a roof. So he had a clear line to the podium. Also, in the same vein, was anybody in the group behind Trump hit by a shot? Because you’d think so, if the shooter got off 7-10 rapid rounds. Near-misses would have hit THOSE people. Yet I hear nothing about anyone behind Trump being injured. Instead, it seems the people in the crowd injured or killed were at some distance from Trump. Does this indicate another shooter? And does it shed doubt on the rooftop assassin actually being the one who fired at Trump? Something doesn’t add up here. And none of the experts on TV—former FBI, former counter-sniper—are bringing these issues up.

Update: A delegate to the RNC convention, who was sitting behind Trump and to his right, tells FOX a man behind him was killed by a round. Still, I would expect more injuries and/or deaths in the people behind Trump.

And an emergency room doctor talked to the press about trying to save a man’s life and failing. It seems clear that man who died was not behind Trump. So that’s 2 people killed by fire among the attendees. The press so far is reporting one.

Yes, there are several GROUND-LEVEL reasons, apart from obvious political reasons, to think this was an inside job/deception of some kind.

As I learned a long time ago with my investigation of the 1995 OKC bombing, start with the initial facts on the ground. Explore as many of them as possible—including those omitted in press coverage. The political motives are vital, of course. But don’t get so wrapped up in them that you ignore the anomalies right in front of your nose that don’t make sense. They don’t make sense because they’re covering up unreported facts.

Developing…

-- Jon Rappoport

 

Source: https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/the-trump-assassination-attempt

Anti-vaxxers pose a serious challenge to the WHO's plans

 

mpr21
June 6th, 2024

If anti-vaxxers were as crazy as we're told they are, there would be no reason to fear them. But this is not the case. The pandemic has given wings to a movement that, until that time, was almost insignificant, outside of some very small circles.

Now the director of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has returned to the fray, declaring that “it is time to be more aggressive to push back against anti-vaxxers”. He doesn't seem worried personally, but his mentors in the pharmaceutical industry certainly are.

During a conference titled “Celebrating 50 years of progress in immunisation,” Ghebreyesus said: “You know the serious challenge that anti-vaxxers pose, and I think we need to develop a strategy to push them back.”

Therefore, it is not to be taken lightly: anti-vaxxers pose a “serious” challenge, even for the WHO. “I think it's time to be more aggressive in pushing back on anti-vaxxers,” he said. “I think they use Covid as an opportunity and, you know all the havoc they are creating...” he said.

The WHO has always attacked people who oppose vaccines, whether in whole or in part. Criticism has reached the point of equating them with the “extreme right”, an increasingly popular topic that lately is used for everything.

Desperation has skyrocketed because adversity abounds for the WHO circus and its supporters. The latest came from former Japanese Interior Minister Kazuhiro Haraguchi, who has apologised for the deaths and injuries caused by “Covid” vaccines in his country.

Furthermore, in his talk, Ghebreyesus did not hide that the plan consists of vaccinating more and earlier, especially children from birth. They want to convince the world of the achievements of vaccines in general, and of childhood vaccination in particular.

“More than 14 million children in 2022 did not receive a single dose of vaccine. Working together with partners such as Gavi [the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization] and Unicef, we aim to half that number by 2030,” said the WHO chief.

Ghebreyesus praised Gavi's role “in supporting access to vaccines around the world” and called for benefactors, such as Bill Gates, to continue donating to the program.

 

 

Source: https://mpr21.info/los-antivacunas-suponen-un-serio-desafio-para-los-planes-de-la-oms/

Big Pharma admits it lied over MMR vaccine

 

Sally Beck
May 30th, 2024

THE pharmaceutical giant which threatened to ‘destroy’ doctors expressing concerns about one of its drugs is in court again for allegedly lying about the efficacy of its measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.

Merck ranks third on the list of most-fined drug manufacturers with $10.7bn fines to date, and by 2009, had paid over £2billion compensation to 44,000 US citizens because its arthritis drug Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks. Now, in a shocking case brought under the False Claims Act, a 200-year-old law introduced to protect the US government from fraud, it admits falsifying data relating to the mumps component of its measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination.

Merck*, which annually sells $100million (£78million) MMR doses in the US, told the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the US public health body who purchase it, and the Food and Drug Administration, (FDA) who licensed it, that it provided children with 95 per cent protection against mumps. That figure could be as low as 50 per cent or even zero.

From 2000, increasing mumps outbreaks amongst the fully vaccinated and boosted prompted the FDA to instruct Merck to prove the 95 per cent protection claim, otherwise they would lose their licence. Merck re-ran the numbers and fell way short. They designed a test to measure effectiveness – Protocol 7 – that included rabbit’s blood in the hope it would falsely enhance the sensitivity of it. They also swapped the wild measles virus for the weakened vaccine strain in the test. Nothing improved the figures enough and they stood to lose millions in revenue. Investigating the alleged fraud, Dr Andy Wakefield said: ‘At that stage they simply decided to cross out the numbers and change them for numbers that gave them the result they wanted.’

Despite overwhelming evidence, first highlighted in 2010 by Merck whistleblowers, virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, last July Judge Chad F Kenney ruled in favour of the drugs giant who claimed that doctoring the data did not matter because the US government knew and continued to buy their MMR jab anyway. The government’s defence was that they had no choice as they had to protect children against measles. Merck hold the US monopoly for MMR, and measles was targeted for global eradication using the vaccine. An appeal is expected to be heard next month.

The convoluted case is the subject of an award-winning feature film Protocol 7, being premiered today. It follows the story of a mother and lawyer, played by Rachel Whittle, who discovers the fraud while trying to find reasons for her adopted son’s autism. Actors Matthew Marsden and Eric Roberts (Julia Roberts’s brother) also star.

It is directed by Andy Wakefield, the much-maligned British doctor struck off after he raised concerns about the MMR vaccine’s links to bowel disease and autism. Dr Wakefield, who has read thousands of pages from court documents relating to the mumps scandal, said: ‘The judge did not rule in favour of Merck on the basis of fraud. Merck have not effectively denied the efficacy problems.

‘Merck’s lawyers argued that the government went on purchasing the vaccine and if the evidence about the mumps component was valid, they would have stopped. Lawyers for the whistleblowers said number one, the CDC as the purchaser of the vaccine was defrauded, and they did not know what Merck had been up to. Number two, because it is a triple vaccine, they had to go on providing children with immunisation against measles and rubella. There was no choice.

‘You would think they were pretty sound arguments, but the judge still ruled that because the government went on purchasing it that the issue of materiality won the day.’ (The legal term ‘materiality’ means important or significant.)

Protocol 7’s legal adviser Jim Moody said: ‘There are many studies that show the mumps component doesn’t work at all to around 50 per cent of the time. It’s a plain vanilla false claims case like if you’re selling a defective piece of hardware to the military.’

The terrible irony is that the US did not want the mumps component, developed by American vaccinologist Maurice Hilleman in the 1960s.

Dr Wakefield said: ‘Somehow it got on to the market. Merck combined it with measles and rubella because they own mumps and put all their measles competitors out of business.

‘Measles was the market because it was targeted for global eradication using the vaccine. That’s where the money was. Suddenly Merck owned the monopoly in the US on MMR and measles.’

Millions of children have potentially been harmed because of the alleged fraud. Dr Wakefield said: ‘Mumps as a child is trivial. Mumps as a teenager and beyond puberty is not trivial; there’s a much higher rate of testicular inflammation and sterility, ovarian inflammation and meningitis. So, a vaccine that does not work makes a trivial disease a more serious disease. That’s why safety and efficacy are inextricably linked with the mumps vaccine. The vaccine failed or wore off and children became susceptible when they were far more vulnerable to permanent damage. Merck knew this, they knew they were dealing with a potential timebomb.’

The MMR was introduced in the US in 1971 (1988 in the UK) but most infectious disease had declined by 98 per cent before any vaccinations were introduced. Mumps cases rose again in 2006, most of them in vaccinated children or adults. The CDC admitted that as many as 94 per cent of those who contracted the illness had been vaccinated. They failed to recall the jab, patients were not warned, and Merck failed to mention that although they claimed their product had a 24-month shelf life, the mumps component only lasted only 12 months.

Merck are known to play rough, and their dirty tricks first came to light in 2009. During the Australian Vioxx trial, emails showed they had made a ‘hit list’ of doctors criticising them and their drug Vioxx. Their communications used words such as ‘neutralise’ and ‘discredit’ next to the names of various doctors. One particularly shocking memo said: ‘We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live.’

Dr Wakefield’s career was destroyed for questioning the MMR. A senior lecturer, liver transplant surgeon, and paediatric gastroenterologist at the Royal Free Hospital in north London, his case study series, published in the Lancet in 1998, looked at 12 children with bowel disease and autism, eight of whom developed both issues after receiving the MMR, their parents said. The study concluded they needed further investigation to prove the link. This never happened as the following furore saw Dr Wakefield struck off the medical register by the General Medical Council (GMC) in 2010.

He was immediately cancelled by the British media, which served as a warning to all doctors and scientists questioning vaccines. He said: ‘It’s a very different world now, everybody understands cancel culture, but then there was just me. I don’t mean that to sound poor old Andy Wakefield, it’s just a historical fact of life. We didn’t have the systems in place to take people down: the prototype was developed through my experience.’

Covid vaccines and the resulting deaths and injuries have changed many doctors’ opinions of him, as Dr Ahmad Malik’s podcast discusses. The public’s experience of covid vaccines, capable of causing permanent disability and death, have made them wonder if childhood vaccines can also cause considerable harm.

Dr Wakefield agrees. He said: ‘The whole covid saga will turn out to be one of the greatest mistakes that science and experts and carpetbaggers and the pharmaceutical industry have ever made. It has led to almost a complete loss of trust in public health and the pharmaceutical industry.

‘This is why these films are so important. You can provide a series of facts that make people think. There is a silver lining.’

Merck, the CDC, the FDA and GlaxoSmithKline were all contacted for comment. None has been received.

NOTE: If the whistleblowers’ appeal is successful the likelihood is that Merck will settle out of court, not with any children or adults damaged by their product but with the US government. Mr Moody said: ‘These kinds of cases always settle because the damages are too big, three times the size of the purchase. They’ll probably end up settling for $100million or more. Merck will never risk a jury.’

*NOTE: GlaxoSmithKline sell the MMR jab in the UK.

Interested in hosting a screening? Please contact Protocol 7.

Source: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/big-pharma-admits-it-lied-over-mumps-vaccine/