Mandatory Vaccination for the EU Just Went Through Under the Radar

markskidmore
April 8, 2022

“WARNING”

After June 30 2022

• the European Council has amended resolution 2361 and no longer objects to compulsory vaccination.
• As of July 1 2022 the EU has announced the legislation for the mandatory EU COVID 19 Certificates that deprive you of all freedoms if you do not have a QR covid certificate. If there is a majority of member states signing the legislation, compulsory vaccination will be introduced.
• at the end of 2022/2023 there will be a digital currency.
• The EU will impose a digital ID on every EU citizen. (The Dutch already have this and are already referring to the EU version on the digld.nl website)
• All ATMs will be replaced by QR code ATMs in the near future, Belgium is already installing them full swing.
• If these QR code machines are integrated, cash can no longer be withdrawn from banks and/or elsewhere.
• The EU aims to make cash completely worthless within 18 months.
• The EU resolution permanently deprives every person of their physical integrity.

The actual document can be downloaded HERE. Even though it’s a foreign language for most, the words are lucky and you can tell what they are saying well enough to know this is for real.

Mandatory Vaccination for the EU Just Went Through Under the Radar – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

 

Source: https://mark-skidmore.com/2022/04/08/mandatory-vaccination-for-the-eu-just-went-through-under-the-radar/

What is a Virus?

 

Samantha A H Bailey

6 September 2021

In the past 18 months there have been an unprecedented number of news stories, press conferences, blogs, and social media posts relating to “COVID-19” and the reported single cause of this ethereal disease: the alleged virus “SARS-CoV-2”.¹ It’s not always clear that the meaning of the word virus is actually understood — certainly not by politicians and public health bureaucrats, but perhaps of greater concern not by many medical practitioners either. Early on in the corona crisis when I would ask questions about the proof of existence of SARS-CoV-2, my medical colleagues would send me a one sentence message saying, “proof is here” with a link to a site like GISAID.org² (which purports to show the viral “genomes”) or a paper claiming to demonstrate “virus isolation”.³ I spent some time going over the various papers they sent, read a couple of textbooks of virology, and was left wondering whether most of my colleagues were just reading the headlines.

Perhaps the problem starts early in a doctor’s training where despite most medical schools teaching significant amounts of microbiology, very little time is dedicated to virology, outside of the clinical syndromes that are alleged to have monocausal viral aetiologies. Additionally, the virological theories themselves are generally presented as established facts. By the time of graduation the majority of doctors could be forgiven for thinking that pathogenic viruses have been seen in nature, or found in diseased tissue, and that the typical “virus” looks like a bacteriophage (a type of virus that is usually claimed to parasitise a bacterium by “infecting” it.)

Electron micrograph of Lambda Bacteriophage
Source: https://i.imgur.com/RyGpIQZ.jpg

Bacteriophages (and “giant viruses”) are unique among viruses in that they can be seen and isolated in nature, often from sea water where they can be found in abundance. The number of bacteriophages on the planet is astounding: it has been estimated that there are more than 10³¹ bacteriophages, more than every other organism on earth combined.⁴ When scientists began researching bacteriophages they concluded that their appearance around bacterial cells in test tubes indicated that the bacteria were being “attacked” by the phages and they were gaining entry then replicating themselves inside the cell.

However as microbiologist Dr Stefan Lanka explains they were looking at the phenomenon in a backwards way: “It was only later discovered that merely the bacteria which had been highly inbred in the test tube could turn into phages themselves, by contact with phages, but this never applied to natural bacteria or bacteria which had just been isolated from their natural environment. In this process, it was discovered that these ‘bacterial viruses’ actually serve to provide other bacteria with important molecules and proteins, and that the bacteria themselves emerged from such structures.”⁵ So what has been viewed in a pathological light, actually appears to be nature propagating further life in response to environmental stressors. Unfortunately however, mainstream virologists subscribed to the pathological model as Dr Lanka goes on to explain: “Before it could be established that the ‘bacterial viruses’ cannot kill natural bacteria, but they are instead helping them to live and that bacteria themselves emerge from such structures, these ‘phages’ were already used as models for the alleged human and animal viruses. It was assumed that the human and animal viruses looked like the ‘phages’, were allegedly killing cells and thereby causing diseases, while at the same time producing new disease poisons and in this way transmitting the diseases. To date, many new or apparently new diseases have been attributed to viruses if their origin is unknown or not acknowledged.”⁵

The word virus derives from the Latin virus meaning poison or a potent juice. The meaning “agent that causes infectious disease” emerged by the late 1700s and the modern scientific use dates to the late 1800s.⁶ Russian Botanist Dmitri Ivanovsky is alleged to be the discover of viruses in 1892. He performed experiments with “infected” sap to show that tobacco mosaic disease could be transferred between plants.⁷ The “infected” sap was passed through Pasteur-Chamberland filters which were known to filter out bacteria so when the filtered sap caused other plants to become diseased, it was concluded that there was an even tinier infectious microorganism responsible. Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck used the term ‘virus’ for the postulated new type of microorganism in 1898.⁸

The invention of the electron microscope in 1931 allowed visualisation down to a tiny fraction of this size that had been permitted by light microscopy, so for the first time it was theoretically possible to see viral particles. Soon afterwards researchers began claiming that they had identified various viruses with this new technique “confirming” the theories of the earlier virologists. But are these nanoparticles viruses by the actual definition of the word?

                    Electron micrograph of “Human herpes virus-6”
             Source: https://visualsonline.cancer.gov/details.cfm?imageid=2257

In the modern era, the textbook of Molecular Cell Biology, 4th edition defines a virus as, “A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell”.⁹ This is where the definitions are crucial. Parasite implies that the organism harms the host in order to obtain its required nutrients and make more copies of itself. The textbook goes on to explain that, “once it infects a susceptible cell, however, a virus can direct the cell machinery to produce more viruses. Most viruses have either RNA or DNA as their genetic material.” From this we can conclude that in modern terminology it is implied that a virus is a tiny parasite consisting of genetic material (its “genome”) surrounded by a proteinaceous shell that infects susceptible host cells and harms them (creating disease).

In the 20th century there was more emphasis on trying to purify suspected viruses through techniques such as nano filtration and sucrose density gradient centrifugation with confirmatory electron microscopy.¹⁰ Purifying these particles is a vital first step so they may be formally characterised in terms of their structure and biochemical characteristics. In the 21st century the virologists appear to have given up on purification and thus true attempts at isolation of the alleged viruses. They claim that indirect techniques such as observing in vitro cytopathic effects, massive parallel sequencing of crude specimens with synthesis of in silico “genomes” and the PCR are sufficient to provide “evidence” of the supposed offenders. We outline the problems of drawing conclusions from these indirect techniques and the derailment of virology over the past century in Virus Mania.

Going back to the electron microscopy images — how can the nature of these observed nanoparticles be determined? As stated in an article that appeared in the journal Viruses in May 2020: “Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs [extracellular vesicles] and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.”¹¹ It is not clear how the authors would know what they are trying to separate: the nature of the particle (i.e. if it is infectious or pathogenic) cannot be established simply by observing it under the electron microscope as unfortunately they don’t come with any labels.

Identifying a nanoparticle that has some genetic material surrounded by a protein shell only partially fulfils the definition of a virus. In order to see if the particles are able to infect and cause disease in a host there needs to be another step in the process. This is in the form of clinical experiments where these purified particles alone would need to be shown to cause disease in an organism that has been exposed to them. After all we are told that “infections” such as influenza and COVID-19 are so highly contagious that viruses travelling on invisible droplets in the air are able to pass from host to host with the greatest of ease. Shouldn’t this be very easy to replicate with other “viruses” in an experiment? Simply aerosol the purified (as best they can) viral particles into a confined area such as an animal’s cage and they will quickly show signs of disease which they will then pass on to other animals. If anyone has seen such a study, I would love to see it!

Please note:
Papers such as “Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets” don’t even show the existence of a virus – they used mixed cultures with indirect techniques and no ferret showed any signs of disease until they injected the mix directly into the animals’ tracheas.
Papers such as “Newly discovered coronavirus as the primary cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome” do not, “fulfill the criteria required to prove that SARS-CoV is the primary cause of SARS,” as outlined in my video, “What Happened To SARS-1?”

References:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19
2. https://www.gisaid.org/phylodynamics/global/nextstrain/
3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32080990/
4. https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2017-04-25-novel-phage-therapy-saves-patient-with-multidrug-resistant-bacterial-infection.aspx
5. https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf
6. https://www.etymonline.com/word/virus
7.https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/apsnetfeatures/Documents/1998/ZaitlinDiscoveryCausalAgentTobaccoMosaicVirus.pdf
8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC241285/
9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21607/#A7862
10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC380491/pdf/applmicro00046-0194.pdf
11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291340/

 

The Yin & Yang of HIV - Part Three:

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. admits controversy over existence of SARS-CoV-2 — and of all viruses

 

              [See transcript of Eric's interchange with RFK, or hear audio] 

ERIC F. COPPOLINO
April 27th, 2022

GREENWICH, CT — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has acknowledged the controversy within his own community over whether SARS-CoV-2 physically exists, and whether any viruses exist, or make people sick. He made the comments at a fundraising event here earlier this week.

Kennedy said that the issue erupts regularly on the email discussion list of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the vaccine safety and education organization that he founded in 2016.

“On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments” about how viruses allegedly don’t exist, Kennedy said in his remarks. “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”

Kennedy, the son of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of Pres. John F. Kennedy, is considered one of the leading voices in the international movement against covid-related mandates, lockdowns and safety issues over covid injections. It is the first time he has publicly commented on the virus-existence issue.

What is Being Used to Prime the Covid Test?

The matter of whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus physically exists has dual significance. The obvious issue is that if there is not a virus, what then is making people sick? And what are they being vaccinated against?

Second, and less obvious: If the government cannot prove that it has a sample of natural SARS-CoV-2, then what is being used to prime the PCR test that is supposed to match and find the genetic code of an actual virus in a patient?

Scientists on all sides of the issue agree that viral particles have not been physically isolated (with purified samples) and then sequenced. Rather, hypothetical viruses are assembled from mixed biological samples, and these “in silico genomes” are then assumed to not only exist in nature but come from inside a pathogenic particle.

One virologist told me in July 2020 that SARS-C0V- 2 was being assembled “like pages from a book,” necessary because no natural virus particle was available to sequence. The problem is that nobody has demonstrated these pages actually belong to the proposed book.

Hypothetical Viruses and Metagenomics

These hypothetical sequences are developed using technology called metageonomics — without any reference to actual purified suspected viruses. This artificial-intelligence process assembles a hypothetical “virus” from information gathered either from a crude human body fluid sample, or by making a “cell culture” experiment by mixing the fluid with monkey cells, fetal calf serum, antibiotics and other poisons.

In all cases where covid is concerned, scientists have used the latter. Because there is no actual virus available, there is no way to verify if the proposed sequences are valid.

Said another way, in the absence of a real virus specimen, covid tests look for sequences attributed to the “virus” merely via computer models — but these “found” sequences almost always originate from somewhere else. And “positive” results can emerge from nearly anywhere, including the testing process itself). Yet if someone “tests positive” for one of these claimed viral sequences, they are said to be “infected” with SARS-CoV-2.

Previously, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that this type of test (technically called the RT-qPCR) has had a 100% false positive rate and has caused several various widely-documented “false epidemics.”

The claimed existence, transmissibility and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 were used to declare a global pandemic that by March 31, 2020 had 4.5 billion people around the world living under a stay-at-home order or house arrest.

Seeking Documents from Governments, Agencies and Institutions

At a Q-and-A session at a fundraising event here Sunday, April 24, I asked Kennedy about the work of Christine Massey in the Toronto area, a statistician who is coordinating the worldwide effort to officially query governments, agencies and institutions about whether they have a sample of the claimed virus taken from a human.

Here is what I asked him verbatim [see transcript or hear audio]:

“Christine Massey in Toronto has amassed 182 responses under various Freedom of Information Law requests from institutions, provincial state, and federal, national governments, which all say that no one has a sample of SARS CoV-2 taken from a human. Would you please comment on that?”

Kennedy replied: “On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments. And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence. I actually saw an exchange yesterday, where somebody made that exact statement and then 10 people jumped on him on with examples, of where that’s not true.”

The issue over the nature and existence of viruses represents the single biggest split in the covid-truth and anti-mandates movements. I first documented it in May of 2020.

‘I am Amused Reading These Exchanges’

He added: “I am kind of amused reading the exchanges, and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it all seems like viruses are real.”

But Kennedy answered a different question than the one I asked. I did not present him with an argument, or ask him whether he thought viruses were real. He admits that he uses a kind of mob rule to make up his mind over critical scientific issues when he says, “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”

Reading Kennedy’s response, Christine Massey said, “RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science? When did he declare incompetence with simple logic? And why is a man dedicated to protecting children from medical harm uninterested in one of the greatest medical frauds of all time?”

She also demanded the data from the 10 people on Kennedy’s list who claimed to prove that the virus had been isolated.

A Legal Issue — Not Scientific

Kennedy said he believed viruses exist, but I did not ask him about that.

Rather, I presented him with a legal issue, asking him to comment about how someone well-known and established in covid truth circles over the past two years has collected 182 responses from top-level government agencies and institutions, all saying they do not have a sample of SARS-CoV-2 extracted from a human host.

So far, no governments have produced a scientific paper saying that they or anyone have such a sample, despite the claim that a contagious virus has killed more than 5 million people worldwide.

I followed up and said to him, “The governments have said they don’t have a sample.”

Kennedy, an attorney, responded: “Freedom Information Laws do not require the government agency to do science, or to answer specific questions. What they do is, the Freedom of Information Laws make it obligatory for the government to give you existing documents. So if you are telling the government, ‘I want you to verify these, there are documents’, they say, listen there’s nothing to verify it. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’ve got nothing.”

‘Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests’

Massey responded in an email: “It appears that Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests. I didn’t ask governments to ‘do science’ or answer ‘specific questions’. All of my requests have been for studies/reports in the possession, custody or control of an institution.”

I asked Massey how she words her letters seeking documentation of a sample of the claimed virus from a human host. She provided this example of what she is seeking, and what so far all governments she has queried deny having:

“All studies and/or reports in the possession, custody or control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and/or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describing the purification of any “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”, including any alleged “variants” i.e. “B.1.1.7”, “B.1.351”, “P.1”) (for example: via filtration, ultracentrifugation and chromatography), directly from a sample taken from a diseased human where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka Vero cells; fetal bovine serum).”

And so far all have said no such records exist. This includes the U.S. CDC and the FDA, as well as Health Canada and the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. None of the 182 agencies and governments queried have replied in the affirmative.

‘No Records Exist’ is an Important Response

Getting a “no records exist” reply is common, and seeking such a reply is a common strategy for establishing that there has not actually been a regulatory process for a policy issue. It is one of the most important uses of open records laws.

In late 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYS-DOH) responded to an open records request saying it had no studies to prove that masks are safe or effective at preventing the spread of viruses or other diseases. For that same kind of “sorry no documents” FOIL reply, Kennedy was much more outspoken.

At the time, he wrote to his Instagram followers, “It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping mandates. This letter illustrates the hazard of abandoning due process.”

Previously, he had remained agnostic on the issue of masks and whether masks work. He finally took a position in response to New York State saying it had absolutely no data about whether masks are safe or effective.

‘Forget the Title. Read the Methodology’

Mike Wallach is the director of a new documentary called The Viral Delusion: The Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV-2.

“They did not isolate a virus,” Wallach said. “The reason it’s so confusing for people is that they claim to have done so in the titles of the key scientific papers, but if you read the methodology sections, it’s blatantly clear: they never isolated a virus. They never found anything. The evidence is overwhelming.”

He added: “I respect the importance of political leaders like RFK Jr. keeping an open tent, they have to. But at the same time, this is an issue that should be front and center for the world public, and nobody should be repeating this dogma about the existence of viruses.”

Mark Crispin Miller, professor of communication at New York University, said, “It’s a needlessly divisive issue, with people screaming, on both sides, as if it were the key to this whole thing — which it isn’t. What will make the whole narrative collapse is not the argument that there are no viruses, but the recognition that the authorities we’ve all been listening to — the medical establishment, Big Pharma, Academia, the media et al. — are malign, and intent on killing us.

“That’s it. Everything else is a distraction. Whether the ravages of COVID-19 have been exaggerated, or whether there’s no virus there at all, is ultimately beside the point. And since Bobby’s role is in large part political, as he attempts to keep this movement in one piece, his disinclination to take sides here ought to be respected.”

‘This was what happened with HIV’

Dr. Kevin Corbett did his doctoral work on diagnostic testing associated with HIV and AIDS, including research into the PCR. He said this week that the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and associated tests, “Are all based on in-silico modeled synthetic phenomena, which has never been scientifically proven as coming from an actual virus.

“This was what happened with ‘HIV’, which The Perth Group of scientists [in the 1990s] first proved was never isolated or purified. Those powerful voices like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who sadly ignore this issue, are badly misguided, because they fail to address this fundamental caveat in ‘covid science’.”

Corbett cautioned, “Their efforts will only act to further socially embed the popular hysteria of there being a contagion, and therefore will enable further public health mandates forcing masks, social distancing and the latest covid killshot.”

Eric F. Coppolino is the host of Planet Waves FM on the Pacifica Network, and author of the Comprehensive Covid Chronology

 

RFK Jr. Enters The Viral Existence Debate:  

Source: https://planetwaves.fm/rfk-admits-sars-cov-2-existence-controversy/

The NIH now knows that the COVID vaccines can cause death 1 year from the vaccination date

 

 

A 61-year-old man got 1 dose of a COVID vaccine and developed severe neuropathy within days. The neuropathy continued for a year until he died of a stroke and massive blood clots. The NIH knows.

 

Steve Kirsch

April 25

Just as a matter of public record, I wanted to point out that Dr. Avindra Nath, who was taking care of the vaccine injured at NIH, now knows of a vaccine-injured man who died a year after a single dose of COVID vaccine. The coroner confirmed the vaccine caused the death. This man was perfectly healthy before the vaccine and his health changed just days later with symptoms consistent with vaccine injured. The blood clots in the autopsy are unique to COVID vaccine recipients and not seen in prior years.

Will the NIH alert the public of this? Of course not. The NIH still hasn’t acknowledged that vaccine-injured people exist. Admitting that they know of a vaccine-injured man who died a year after a single shot would be a stretch for them.

But just because they won’t admit it, it doesn’t stop me from letting you know that they know.

The bottom line is this: the “death window” for the vaccine isn’t days or weeks; it’s at least a year and possibly more. So just because you got your vaccine and are still alive 3 months later, it does not mean that you’re out of the woods.

Does anyone know of anyone who died from the vaccine more than a year from vaccination?

 

There was an unexpected 40% increase in 'all cause deaths' in 2021: 

 

Source: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-nih-now-knows-that-the-covid?s=r

Are Covid vaccines accelerating the drop in new births?

 

  

Laurent Aventin
19 April 2022

Abortion accounts for 50 million deaths per year worldwide according to the United Nations (an institution that also promotes and finances it). This translates into 1 billion children every 20 years, and is therefore the leading cause of death in the world by far. This voluntary depopulation policy is being aggravated by Covid vaccination, of the mRNA variety in particular. However, according to the health authorities of Western countries, there is no contraindication in pregnant women getting vaccinated. This is the official position in France and elsewhere.

 

In the West, the “natural” rate of miscarriages, all other things being equal, is around 10 to 13% of pregnancies, which is already very high. On an American programme, The Ben Armstrong Show, Malcom Roberts from Queensland, Australia cited the statistics of a gynaecological clinic in which the miscarriage rate reached 50% in vaccinated pregnant women and up to 75% in those who were vaccinated during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Such results are worrying, yet in France, biased information had been disclosed by a doctor claiming that 50% of pregnant women vaccinated with Pfizer had a miscarriage, which is not justified on reading the results cited. AFP Factual – unusually for them – recalls that the ANSM's (Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé) weekly pharmacovigilance report of May 21, 2021, which specified that of "the 28 reports of adverse effects with the Comirnaty vaccine (Pfizer), 14 - i.e. 50 % – were miscarriages”. It remains worrying that half of the side effects reported with this vaccine happen to be miscarriages. Moreover, with the adverse event notification system being passive and voluntary, it underestimates the volume of real side effects in France (including miscarriages).

Information about miscarriages should have alerted health authorities

As of March 25, 2022, the ANSM indicates that "To date, no signal has been identified in pregnant and breastfeeding women relating to the Covid-19 vaccines available in France". The HAS recommends vaccination for pregnant women over the age of 35 in particular and for those who could be in contact with infected people.

But, information from the United States confirms the danger of Covid vaccines in pregnancy. Dr. Peterson Pierre presented statistics showing that the post-vax foetal death rate administered in the United States had increased massively, by about 2000% since the Covid vaccines became available.

He also clarified that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recorded 550 million Covid injections administered since the Covid vaccination campaign (end of 2020), with 3,725 foetal deaths reported. We therefore observe one foetal death for 147,651 injections. It indicates that there were four billion vaccine injections administered (other than Covid) from 2006 to 2019, with 1,368 foetal deaths, or one miscarriage per 3 million injections. So if you do the math you realise that since these injections became available, there has been a 1.925% increase in foetal deaths”.

And there the "Reuters" and other "AFP" - so quick to refute any argument against their sponsors - have no arguments because the method which consists in making a comparison of morbidity and mortality in Covid vaccination period with the average of the years preceding vaccination (before 2021) is unequivocal, whether in pregnant women or for any other category of vaccinated persons. The only bad faith and totally fallacious argument being regularly reported is that there is no causal link between vaccination and illness or death. There is also no desire to research them but on the contrary to prevent their publication in the press and in scientific journals where submissions of articles that question the effectiveness of vaccines are rejected by pairs.

But then what is the point of reporting the side effects of vaccination against Covid via pharmacovigilance systems such as VAERS (USA), ANSM (France) or Yellow Card (UK)? It is therefore understandable that whatever the number of adverse effects reported, the results would be of no use because a causal link would have to be demonstrated. The pharmacovigilance system in place is therefore only a gadget aimed at reassuring and controlling public opinion.

This is why public health agencies continue to claim that there are no significant adverse effects on pregnancies and continue to recommend vaccination to pregnant women. This is real denial, in service of a globally harmonised medical dogma.

The adverse effects of the Covid vaccination on pregnant women are the subject of collective denial

A Pfizer document acquired from the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021 under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) shows disturbing results on adverse effects experienced by pregnant women during Pfizer's clinical trial. This was in the framework of the Biological License Application, a procedure allowing the marketing of the vaccine to be validated.

On page 12 of this document, we can see the adverse events reported in post-injection pregnant or breastfeeding women over the period of December 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021. In a variety of countries (mainly the United States and the United Kingdom) and a variety of sources, including those of Pfizer itself, we see that 23 of 32 pregnant women who received a Pfizer Covid vaccine suffered miscarriages. This result, which proves nothing according to Reuters, is obviously alarming. Although it is not a question of making a proportion ratio from these results, they should have been enough to block authorisation for the vaccination of pregnant women. First of all, you do not given any product insufficiently tested beforehand to a pregnant woman. Pfizer's clinical trials (and those of other manufacturers) are both insufficient (by unrepresentative samples from this population) and without any hindsight on adverse effects upon the unborn child (the Pfizer clinical trial lasted only a few weeks).

If this wasn't enough, Dr. Peterson Pierre has reported a more than 50-fold increase in the number of ectopic pregnancies which also result in foetal death.

Pfizer is also perfectly aware of the risks but denigrates the precautionary principles that it itself established. According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer BioNTech trial protocol, women who are pregnant or may become pregnant should not take the mRNA injections. Section 10.4.1 also warns men taking the mRNA injections to “abstain from heterosexual intercourse” and not to donate semen.

These recommendations have been reduced to the maxim "out of sight, out of mind", and we continue to vaccinate pregnant women with the approval of the public health authorities who have abdicated their role as regulators. In France, institutional checks against power no longer function and parliamentary chambers are nothing more than a rubber stamp for a Leviathan in re-election phase.

                                                                         ***

Source: https://lecourrierdesstrateges.fr/2022/04/19/les-vaccins-covid-accroissent-ils-la-disparition-des-enfants-a-naitre/

Translation: David Montoute

Related: Birth rates plummet: half of Spanish provinces register their lowest natality in 80 years

29 times increase of stillborn babies in Waterloo, Ontario

Almost all Britons have plastic deep in their lungs

 

 

World Signals
April 24, 2022

Microplastic fibres were found deep in the lower lungs of living human beings in almost every person sampled in a recent UK study.

The study from Great Britain discovered microplastic particles — present in many COVID-19 masks — in the lung tissue of 11 out of 13 patients undergoing surgery.

Polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) were the most prevalent substances present in the lungs.

The microscopic plastic fragments and fibres were discovered by scientists at Hull York Medical School in the UK. Some of the filaments were two millimetres long in patients undergoing surgery whose lung tissue they sampled.

The plastic dust and microscopic debris comprises the same plastics used to manufacture the ubiquitous surgical masks worn by hundreds of millions of people around the world as mandated by governments in an attempt to halt the spread of COVID-19.

The material most commonly used to make these masks is PP — PP fabric is made from a “thermoplastic” polymer, meaning that it’s easy to work with and shape at high temperatures.

Blue surgical masks can also be made of polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or polyester, all of which are types of fabrics derived from thermoplastic polymers.

Disposable blue masks are to be found littering almost every city street in the developed world after two years of COVID-19 mandates ruled that masks should be worn in most indoor environments much of the time. Healthy adults, children, the immunocompromised, and the elderly have all been subject to mask mandates.

Microplastics were detected in human blood for the first time in March, showing the particles can travel around the human body and may become embedded in organs. The impact on health is still to be determined.

Researchers are concerned because microplastics cause damage to human cells in the laboratory and air pollution particles are already known to enter the body and cause millions of premature deaths each year.

 

“Airborne microplastics (MPs) have been sampled globally, and their concentration is known to increase in areas of high human population and activity, especially indoors. Respiratory symptoms and disease following exposure to occupational levels of MPs within industry settings have also been reported,” the UK study said. “In total, 39 MPs were identified within 11 of the 13 lung tissue samples… These results support inhalation as a route of exposure for environmental MPs, and this characterization of types and levels can now inform realistic conditions for laboratory exposure experiments, with the aim of determining health impacts.”

“We did not expect to find the highest number of particles in the lower regions of the lungs, or particles of the sizes we found,” said Laura Sadofsky, at Hull York Medical School in the UK, a senior author of the study. “It is surprising as the airways are smaller in the lower parts of the lungs and we would have expected particles of these sizes to be filtered out or trapped before getting this deep.”

“This data provides an important advance in the field of air pollution, microplastics, and human health,” she said.

The research used samples of healthy lung tissue from next to the lung region targeted for surgery. It analyzed particles as small as .003mm in size and used spectroscopy to identify plastic types.

It also used control samples to account for the level of background contamination. The study has been accepted for publication by the journal Science of the Total Environment.

An older study published in 2020 looked into the risks associated with mask-wearing and the inhalation of microplastics. The study concluded:

• Wearing masks poses microplastic inhalation risk, reusing masks increases the risk

• Wearing N95 masks poses lowest microplastic inhalation risks in the long term

• Wearing masks, except for N95, poses higher stripe type microplastic inhalation risk

• Wearing masks poses considerably lower spherical-type microplastic inhalation risk

• Wearing masks leads to lower gross microplastic inhalation risk in the long term

“Surgical, cotton, fashion, and activated carbon masks wearing pose higher fibre-like microplastic inhalation risk, while all masks generally reduced exposure when used under their supposed time (<4 h),” the study said.

Chris Schaefer is a respirator specialist and onsite training expert based in Edmonton, Alta. He has been teaching and conducting respirator fit testing for more than 20 years with his company, SafeCom Training Services Inc. His clients include government departments, Canada’s military, Alberta Health Services, educational institutions, and private industry. Schaefer is a published author and a recognized authority on the subject of respirators and masks.

The Western Standard asked Schaefer if he believed surgical masks of the type used by millions of Canadians, and people throughout the world, presented a significant risk of microplastic inhalation from the masks themselves. He began by clarifying that the face covering generally referred to as a ‘mask’ is not, in fact, a mask, at all.

Schaefer refers to COVID-19 face coverings as “breathing barriers.”

“What has been mandated in hospitals and through the general public through this whole COVID-19 agenda, are not masks. They don’t meet the legal definition [of a mask,] “Shaefer said. “A [proper] mask has engineered breathing openings in front of mouth and nose to ensure easy and effortless breathing. A breathing barrier is closed both over mouth and nose. And by doing that, it captures carbon dioxide that you exhale, forces you to re-inhale it, causing a reduction in your inhaled oxygen levels and causes excessive carbon dioxide. So they’re not safe to wear.”

Schaefer was emphatic when asked if he believed the surgical masks in general use were shedding inhaled microplastics.

“As far as whether it could cause somebody to inhale the polypropylene fibres that are used to make this and synthetic polymers that are used to make the filtration of these devices — absolutely. Take a pair of scissors and cut one open. You can see that in between the two main covers that are encapsulating, these loose fibres are breaking away. They’re becoming dislodged from the cover itself, just through normal wear and tear and the agitation of putting it on and taking it off,” Schaefer said.

“The heat and moisture that it captures will cause the degradation of those fibres to break down smaller. Absolutely, people are inhaling [microplastic particles]. I’ve written very extensively on the hazards of these breathing barriers the last two years, I’ve spoken to scientists [and other] people for the last two years about people inhaling the fibres. If you get the sensation that you’ve gotten a little bit of cat hair, or any type of irritation in the back of your throat after wearing them,” said Schrieffer. “That means you’re inhaling the fibres.”

Schaefer said we will have to wait to see the the long-term effects of the inhalation of microplastics from masks.

“So we know that people are inhaling the fibres. What the risks are going to be, what the effects are going to be — it could be anything — but it could definitely cause lung inflammation and could cause full-body inflammation. Absolutely,” Schaefer said.

“This is not normal. Anybody who would normally be exposed to any type of synthetic polymers or polypropylene fibres [in an occupational environment] would have to wear approved respiratory protection. These breathing barriers are not respirators. These fibres break down to between .2 mm, and the large ones are five mm. So they’re totally inhalable, they break down very small and and, well, what that’s going to do to people in the in the form of lung function — as well as toxicity overload in their body — I guess we’ll know in a few years.

Although the latter study assessed the masks’ abilities to filter incoming environmental microplastics, the study did not assess whether particles were shed from the construction of the mask fabric itself on its alternate side — particles that would enter the lungs of a wearer.

Amanda Brown is a reporter with the Western Standard
abrown@westernstandardonline.com
Twitter: @WS_JournoAmanda

Follow us in: Telegram

Source: https://world-signals.com/news/2022/04/24/almost-all-britons-have-plastic-deep-in-their-lungs/

Related: Over 25,000 tonnes of 'Covid plastic' is in our oceans, study says

The Silence at Funerals

 

Fernando López-Mirones

April 2022 

We have always said that the biggest problem with the globalist eugenics plan is the difficulty involved in hiding the dead. This is why an emphasis is placed on deceiving bereaved families so that they don't investigate, and also on deceiving the wider society, so that it pretends not to suspect.

And I say pretend because I don't believe that in their heart of hearts, they don't put this fundamental question to themselves after seeing the third or fourth friend fall to heart attacks and strokes.

For this reason, a circle of self-deception is created. If the victim survives she doesn't want to admit it because she got vaccinated voluntarily, and that would mean admitting that of all those people she's been denigrating were actually right. Paralysed by their complicity, the doctors help in this process and facilitate an alibi by assuring the injured that there is no relationship to the jab (something that they cannot know, and which therefore constitutes a blatant lie).

Then there are the friends of the deceased, almost all of them multi-jabbed, who are gripped by fear at the thought that they may be next. So they prefer to pretend that it was just a coincidence. They will go over their friend's biography until they find something that gives them comfort: he was fat, he drank too much, he didn't exercise, he smoked, he had stress, he had an arrhythmia 20 years ago... any idea will work when one wants to believe.

Later, the media also pitch in by flooding us with reports of increases in all of the diseases that are described as vaccine adverse events, rebranding them with terms such as climate-related mortality, due to our sinful human lifestyle.

All of these sectors together build up a completely false and unsustainable narrative, but it is one that makes them feel better. 

Deep inside, however, the covidian realises that two years of the pandemic took no one under 80, and yet for some time now he's going to funerals for people of his own age or younger almost every month. This is empirical epidemiological evidence that is difficult to ignore even for the most kneejerk types.

Tens of thousands of vaccinated people are dying from strange, sudden, unexpected and previously rare pathologies.

But it's not just the deaths. Millions are taking tests and consulting doctors because after being injected, something is going wrong inside them. Memory loss, severe aging typical of 10 years condensed into one, menstrual problems, depressive psychoses, irritable moods, headaches, lack of sleep, tremors, constant tingling, blindness or deterioration of sight and hearing, arrhythmias and palpitations, liver problems, blood tests showing everything off the charts, problems attaining erections, poor digestion, change in olfactory perception, high blood pressure, unbalanced glucose, the beginnings of diabetes, severe changes in the voice, constant respiratory infections ... Whether they are monitoring themselves constantly or hardly at all, they are preceivinh something whose provenance the doctor claims to know nothing about (the doctor knows its provenance perfectly well, but plays dumb).

Keep in mind that these people mostly don't tell even their best friends because they don't even want to openly voice what they suspect. They'll tell you they're fine, but that's not true.

In this way, a climate of fear is created, which I will discuss in a future article.

My intention in developing this topic is not to frighten you, but to help them to avoid the next dose, which may be the one that ends you. If I can shake just one person out of his absurd hypnosis, his self-delusion of "everything's fine", it'll be worth it.

Will you be the last wildebeest to cross a river full of crocodiles?

Millions of vaccinated people have sworn never again; They understand that they have been deceived. Even those who got vaccinated it to travel or enter bars now see that we unjabbed can do those same things. So not even that absurd reason for the jab was true.

At least the unjabbed, who of course can also get sick and die, know that whatever happened to us had to happen. We know that it was not the result of deciding to participate in an experiment in exchange for nothing, or out of fear or from not wanting to pay attention to the people trying to warn us.

That feeling really must be terrible.

Living in wait for the side effects to appear, seeing healthy athletes collapse, thinking that nothing can be done just because of that one wrong decision you made. That is, for having trusted the "lifelong" doctor or the friend, brother or acquaintance with a medical degree who did not tell us that in reality he was repeating something that he did not know. That person who certified his advice as if he had studied Pfizer's prospectuses carefully, as if his opinion were independent, as if they had not pressured him with procedures and threats, as if he hadn't seen colleagues expelled from medical schools for telling the truth. The doctor you trusted did not tell you any of this, but instead limited himself to repeating what he was told to say: get vaccinated. 

Are you going to say something back to him now? Probably not. Like him, you will subscribe to the disoriented collective hypnosis, to the prevailing ostrich position of not seeing in order not to suffer.

But your blood keeps generating spike proteins, It keeps getting thick. Your organs are working overtime to maintain their normal activity despite being weighed down by synthetic mRNA.

I beg you get out of this nightmare and not to take another dose. Break the spell of the news media, join free humanity and reject blackmail, QR codes and vax passports. Return to your condition as a pure human being without genetic contributions from companies with dark intentions.

Those who finance these companies and the institutions that help them have publicly declared their intention to reduce the world's population. Are you willing to be rendered to one of the "surplus" people? Are you seriously going to risk premature death in order to avoid the flu?

The vaccinated get sick and die much more than the unjabbed, and the complicitous authorities have stopped giving data on this. But you can go back to being a natural being if you stop gambling with your life every six months. Your innate biology is wise, so don't buy any more numbers in the lottery of death. If you don't gamble, you don't lose.

Whatever they come up with in the coming months and years will be a lie. So don't listen to them. They will once again use your favorite announcer, your most trusted journalist, your favorite singer... the people who won't be there when you are sitting scared to death in the specialist's waiting room. All of them advised you to participate in the experiment because they were paid to do so. It was just another advert. The same way that they advertise cars or shampoo, they promoted a gene injection. And you believed them then, but this belief cant last because you've seen that not only are you not immune but that you're sicker than before.

Make them pay for having cheated you when you were at your most vulnerable. And do not renew your trust in those who failed you.

They want to inoculate you 3 or 4 times a year between flu, covid and whatever else they make up. If you keep playing, it's only a matter of time before you win the Euro Thrombus. 

The silence of funerals is no longer just out of sorrow. It's out of fear of being next.

 

"I've had the vaccine and I'm fine". A logical response:

Source: https://t.me/elaullido

Translation: David Montoute