Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 377
August 23, 2023
Tens of Thousands of Mothers Sue Makers of Tylenol for Pregnancy Use that Led to Babies Born with Autism
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
Tens of thousands of mothers are suing the makers of Tylenol for using the popular over-the-counter pain reliever during pregnancy, which resulted in them giving birth to babies diagnosed with autism.
Tens of thousands of mothers are suing the makers of Tylenol in a class-action lawsuit that claims its use during pregnancy led babies to be born with autism.
A study from the NIH found that pregnancy exposure to acetaminophen, the main ingredient in Tylenol, may increase a child’s risk for autism and ADHD.
Karleen DeGroodt is among the mothers in the lawsuit and discussed her use of Tylenol during pregnancy and her son’s autism during an appearance on NewsNation’s “Prime.” (Full article.)
Last October, a federal judicial panel consolidated dozens of these lawsuits alleging that acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol and generic versions of the drug, can cause autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
TorHoerman Law is one of the law firms representing these mothers, and they have produced the following video explaining the lawsuit.
[The main defendant in the lawsuit is Kenvue, which is the former Johnson & Johnson’s consumer health unit that is now a “spin-off” of J&J. (Source)Co-defendants in the lawsuit are CVS Health, Rite Aid Corp, Safeway Inc, Target Corp and Walgreens Boots Alliance, which are being charged with failing to warn consumers about the risks of Tylenol.
Kenvue has suffered some setbacks in recent weeks in trying to get some of the lawsuits dismissed, with one of the reasons given to dismiss the lawsuits being that the FDA had approved the product and its labels.
Kenvue Inc cannot immediately appeal a federal judge’s order allowing lawsuits claiming that its popular over-the-counter painkiller Tylenol can cause autism in children of mothers who take it during pregnancy, the judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan on Thursday ruled that Kenvue, formerly Johnson & Johnson’s consumer health unit, had not shown any basis for allowing the unusual step of an appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before final judgment in the case.
In April, Cote denied Kenvue’s motion to dismiss one of the lawsuits on the grounds that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of Tylenol’s label preempted any state law claims. Had she ruled in the company’s favor, it would have ended the entire litigation. (Source.)
The amount of studies published in the medical journals linking Tylenol taken during pregnancy to babies born with autism is overwhelming.
Here are just a couple of the more recent studies published this year (2023).
Acetaminophen causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children: no valid rationale for controversyClinical and Experimental Pediatrics – June 14, 2023
Abstract
The use of acetaminophen in pregnancy: a double whammy
Despite worldwide acceptance of acetaminophen as a necessary medicine in the field of pediatrics, evidence that early life exposure to acetaminophen causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children has mounted for more than a decade.
Evidence is diverse, including extensive work with laboratory animals, otherwise unexplained associations, factors associated with the metabolism of acetaminophen, and some limited studies in humans. Although evidence has reached an overwhelming level and has been reviewed in detail recently, some controversy remains. In this narrative review, some of those controversies are evaluated.
Evidence from the prepartum and the postpartum period is considered, avoiding controversies raised by considering only the limited evidence pointing exclusively toward risks during the prepartum period. Among other issues, the associations through time between acetaminophen use and the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders are considered.
A systematic review reveals that the use of acetaminophen in the pediatric population was never tracked carefully, but historical events that affected use of the drug were documented and are sufficient to establish apparent correlations with changes in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders.
In addition, problems with exclusive reliance on results from meta-analyses of large datasets and from studies involving small time frames of drug exposure are reviewed. Further, evidence demonstrating why some children are susceptible to acetaminophen-induced neurodevelopmental injury is examined.
It is concluded that, at least among the factors considered, there is no valid rationale for controversy regarding the conclusion that early life exposure to acetaminophen causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and small children. (Source.)
Annals of Medicine and Surgery – March 14, 2023
Abstract
Acetaminophen is the most widely over the counter used analgesic in the world, and the World Health Organization advises using it as first-line treatment for pain issues (WHO).
However, various side effects have been documented with its use such as nausea, vomiting, constipation at low doses whereas in large doses, it might even result in hepatoxicity.
Recent literature suggests that the use of acetaminophen in pregnancy even in optimal doses could result infant being born with ADHD and autism, so in this short communication we talk about the prevalence of neurodevelopment disorders in infants as a result of its use, as well as shed light to the measures that should be adopted to minimize the adverse effects. (Source.)
We have been publishing articles exposing the dangers of Tylenol for over a decade now. A search on Health Impact News for this killer drug, which is available as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug that even minors can purchase in their local pharmacy or retail store will result in over 80 articles.
Pregnant women are the not the only ones who should immediately STOP using this killer drug. NOBODY should be using it.
Tylenol is a classic example of how corporate profits from the pharmaceutical drug companies are far more important than patient safety, as millions of lives are sacrificed to keep these drugs on the market.
It is also just another example of how the FDA works to protect pharmaceutical companies, and NOT consumers.
Tylenol has been on the market for 75 years bringing in annual revenues that exceed $300 million.
And the adverse effects from Tylenol have been widely published for over a decade now.
In 2013 ProPublica published one of the most comprehensive reviews of Tylenol’s toxic side effects:
About 150 Americans a year die by accidentally taking too much acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol. The toll does not have to be so high.
During the last decade, more than 1,500 Americans died after accidentally taking too much of a drug renowned for its safety: acetaminophen, one of the nation’s most popular pain relievers.
Acetaminophen – the active ingredient in Tylenol – is considered safe when taken at recommended doses. Tens of millions of people use it weekly with no ill effect. But in larger amounts, especially in combination with alcohol, the drug can damage or even destroy the liver.
Davy Baumle, a slender 12-year-old who loved to ride his dirt bike through the woods of southern Illinois, died from acetaminophen poisoning. So did tiny five-month-old Brianna Hutto. So did Marcus Trunk, a strapping 23-year-old construction worker from Philadelphia.
The toll does not have to be so high.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has long been aware of studies showing the risks of acetaminophen – in particular, that the margin between the amount that helps and the amount that can cause serious harm is smaller than for other pain relievers. So, too, has McNeil Consumer Healthcare, the unit of Johnson & Johnson that has built Tylenol into a billion-dollar brand and the leader in acetaminophen sales.
Yet federal regulators have delayed or failed to adopt measures designed to reduce deaths and injuries from acetaminophen overdose, which the agency calls a “persistent, important public health problem.”
The FDA has repeatedly deferred decisions on consumer protections even when they were endorsed by the agency’s own advisory committees, records show. (Full article.)
[…]
August 22, 2023
EPA Stymies 6-Year Effort to Limit Water Pollution From Factory Farms

Public health and environmental advocacy groups said that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chose to benefit the factory farming industry instead of protecting communities and drinking water on Aug. 15 when it denied an anti-pollution petition filed in 2017 by nearly three dozen groups.
Food & Water Watch (FWW), the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and North Carolina Environmental Justice Network were among the organizations that filed the petition six years ago and sued the agency last year due to its “unreasonable delay” in answering the request for stronger rules to prevent water pollution from hundreds of thousands of factory farms across the United States.
The EPA responded to the legal challenge on Aug. 15 by denying the original petition and announcing it would form a federal subcommittee to study the effects of pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and make recommendations to the agency.
The subcommittee is expected to convene in 2024 and its work could take 12-18 months, leaving open the possibility that — should President Joe Biden lose his reelection campaign next year — the question of regulating factory farm pollution could be left up to a Republican administration.
“Factory farms pose a significant and mounting threat to clean water, largely because EPA’s weak rules have left most of the industry entirely unregulated,” said Tarah Heinzen, legal director for FWW.
Heinzen continued:
“EPA’s deeply flawed response amounts to yet more delay, and completely misses the moment.”
Though the EPA pledged to study the effects of water pollution from factory farms, the petitioners noted that the impact has already been well-documented.
According to the Sierra Club, “water pollution is possible at virtually any point in a CAFO’s operation,” as waste from factory farms is generally not treated for disease-causing pathogens, chemicals, pharmaceuticals or heavy metals.
Animal waste spills and overflows can lead to contaminated runoff that ends up in waterways, stormwater can mix with manure and milkhouse waste that flows into drains, waste storage units can overflow or burst and catch basins can inadvertently drain waste into waterways.
CFS said in a statement that factory farms “operate like sewerless cities” and can contaminate “drinking water with cancer-causing nitrates” as well as flooding homes with waste during storms and leaving communities without safe places for water recreation.
Citing the EPA’s own data in a 2020 brief, FWW found that pollution from factory farms “threatens or impairs over 14,000 miles of rivers and streams and more than 90,000 acres of lakes and ponds nationwide.”
“We know that animal factories are a huge source of water pollution and that our freshwater is in crisis, and yet EPA has failed to uphold its duty to protect our environment from this industry,” said Amy van Saun, a senior attorney with CFS.
Saun continued:
“We have a right to clean and safe water and we cannot afford to wait any longer to stop the tide of pollution from animal factories.”
The 2017 petition called on the EPA to improve the CAFO permitting process, as fewer than one-third of the largest 21,000 factory farms have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, which regulate the point sources that discharge pollutants into waterways.
Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said that by denying the petition the EPA “chose to further a special exemption for factory farms that benefits global meat companies while undermining independent farmers raising animals in ways that protect our water.”
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/epa-water-pollution-factory-farms-cd/
FDA Shrugs Off Concerns About Premature Births, Approves Pfizer RSV Vaccine for Pregnant Women

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Monday approved Pfizer’s Abrysvo vaccine, a maternal vaccine meant to protect infants against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, through 6 months of age — despite safety concerns, including from the FDA’s own advisers.
The agency approved the vaccine despite concerns raised by members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) about premature births identified during Pfizer’s clinical trials.
VRBPAC panelist Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a frequently cited vaccine advocate, said he doesn’t believe there is enough data to indicate the safety of the vaccine is “reassuring.”
In its statement to investors, however, Pfizer was enthusiastic about the prospect of the vaccine.
“ABRYSVO’s approval as the first and only maternal immunization to help protect newborns immediately at birth through six months from RSV marks a significant milestone for the scientific community and for public health,” said Annaliesa Anderson, Ph.D., Pfizer’s senior vice president and chief scientific officer, Vaccine Research and Development.
RSV generally causes only mild, cold-like symptoms in infants and young children, most of whom get the illness by age 2 and typically don’t require medical attention. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates 58,0000-80,0000 children younger than age 5 are hospitalized and 100-300 children die from RSV overall in any given year.
Commenting on the vaccine after VRBPAC endorsed it in May, Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender:
“This product represents an unprecedented attempt to vaccinate mothers for no benefit to them and only theoretical efficacy in babies. In the trial, less than 2% of infants at any time point contracted RSV, which is easily treatable with nebulizers.”
Before the drug can be prescribed to pregnant women, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) must recommend the vaccine and CDC Director Mandy Cohen must accept the recommendation. She is widely expected to do so, STAT News reported.
The next ACIP meeting is scheduled for October, but STAT said a special meeting might be called in the coming days, given “last year’s early start to the RSV season.”
Earlier this month, the CDC recommended the first-ever monoclonal antibody — Sanofi and AstraZeneca’s Beyfortus — to protect all newborns against RSV after the FDA approved the drug.
It made that recommendation despite 12 infant deaths during the clinical trials and criticism from medical experts who said the move was unnecessary and not worth the known risks.
In late May, the FDA approved the same Pfizer Abrysvo vaccine approved Monday for pregnant women for use in adults over 60.
And earlier in May the agency approved GSK’s Arexvy, the first vaccine authorized for RSV, for adults over 60.
20% higher rate of premature birth among vaccinated mothers in clinical trials
According to the FDA, Abrysvo will be administered to pregnant women between 32 and 36 weeks of pregnancy as a single-dose injection into the muscle.
It said the “safety and effectiveness” of the shots were determined through “ongoing, randomized, placebo-controlled international clinical studies.”
Pfizer reported that in its Phase 3 clinical trial — MATISSE (MATernal Immunization Study for Safety and Efficacy), published in the New England Journal of Medicine — the shot was nearly 82% effective at preventing severe disease from RSV in newborns during the first 90 days of life. There were about 7,000 participants in the clinical trial.
The vaccine was also reported to be about 70% effective during the first six months of the baby’s life, CNBC reported.
But experts, including four members of the VRBPAC committee who voted against recommending the vaccine for pregnant women, said they had concerns about the study.
Tracy Høeg, M.D., Ph.D., reported there was a 20% higher rate of preterm birth in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.
“Most of VRBPAC shrugged off the signal as ‘non significant’ but study underpowered,” she tweeted — meaning there were not enough participants in the study to confirm whether the safety signal was statistically significant.
Hoeg shared more details on Twitter
Four VRBPAC members voted against recommending it due to safety concerns (including @DrPaulOffit & my favorite Hana El Sahly)
It will be extremely difficult if not impossible to determine if this signal is real with post marketing surveillance/studies in the US
— Tracy Høeg, MD, PhD (@TracyBethHoeg) August 21, 2023
Offit voted against approving the vaccine because of the safety signal.
‘Nauseating’ FDA VRBPAC Recommends Pfizer’s RSV Vaccine for Pregnant Women Despite Premature Birth Signals + Antigen Interference
Ten advisors voted yes, and four advisors voted no.
Chair of the Committee Dr. El-Sahly voted no and advocated for research into “vaccines that… pic.twitter.com/73VheO5EAU
— Children’s Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) May 18, 2023
The FDA, following Monday’s approval, said the available data “are insufficient to establish or exclude a causal relationship between preterm birth” and Pfizer’s vaccine, CNBC reported.
It also reported that Pfizer’s VP of Vaccine Research and Development Alejandra Gurtman said the difference in premature birth rates was “not statistically significant.”
Gurtman noted that most premature births occurred 30 days after vaccination, which she said means “a very close causal relationship between the vaccine and preterm birth couldn’t be identified.”
“We couldn’t find any reason why this really happened,” Gurtman said.
GSK stopped development of the same type of maternal RSV vaccine earlier this year when it detected a similar increase in the number of preterm births among pregnant mothers.
Other commonly reported side effects from Abrysvo included pain at the injection site, headache, muscle pain and nausea.
Pre-eclampsia also occurred in 1.8% of pregnant women who took the drug, relative to 1.4% of women in the placebo group.
The company said it will continue to examine risks in a post-marketing vaccine study, and as part of that, it will create a registry for adverse event reporting.
McCullough wrote on his Substack that this vaccine is more evidence that “Vaccine ideology or hubris appears everywhere! Never had we heard so much about vaccines in our day to day life as laypersons or as healthcare professionals.”
He added:
“Pfizer has aggressively advanced RCTs into the pregnant population with no assurances on long term outcomes. There is no direct benefit to the mothers.
“Furthermore, the sponsors moved the goalposts to make it easier to have a successful trial. We should demand long-term safety, high efficacy … and at least one year of durability, for such a rare and easy-to-treat condition in babies.”
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-pfizer-rsv-vaccine-pregnancy/
Court Documents Suggest Justice Department Under Four Presidents Covered Up Jeffrey Epstein’s Money Laundering at JPMorgan Chase
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens
Wall Street on Parade
:Remember all of that sensational social media buzz in 2016 about a politically-connected ring of pedophiles operating out of a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C.? The story was debunked by Snopes but not before it had gone viral.
While the pizza parlor was getting plenty of attention, an actual, highly sophisticated, child sex-trafficking ring had been operating with impunity for more than a decade out of the largest bank in the United States, JPMorgan Chase.
Based on astonishing internal documents from JPMorgan Chase obtained during discovery in a federal lawsuit and filed on the court docket last week, it now appears that the U.S. Department of Justice has turned a blind eye toward this bank’s facilitation of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking crimes for more than 16 years, during the administrations of four separate Presidents of the United States.
The heavy-lifting for what should have been a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice in this matter is now being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the U.S. Virgin Islands in a civil lawsuit, using the law firm, MotleyRice.
A new document filed last week with the federal court in Manhattan that is hearing the case shows that on September 6, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (part of the U.S. Department of Justice) followed up on a subpoena it had issued to Bear Stearns, demanding to receive “a list of accounts at other financial institutions that Bear Stearns has either transferred money to or received money from on behalf of Mr. Epstein….”
The peculiar thing about this letter is that a federal law enforcement agency is asking a private bank to help it locate Epstein’s other bank accounts when it has that information easily accessible at two federal databases: the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Federal Reserve System which handles the wiring of funds between banks and others.
In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice has a Financial Investigations Guide that specifically lists those two sources as key government databases to tap when conducting a financial investigation into money laundering or other criminal financial activity.
One reason that comes to mind as to why a federal prosecutor would ask a private bank like Bear Stearns to provide outside banking relationships for Jeffrey Epstein, instead of getting that information directly from reliable government databases, is that the prosecutor didn’t want to know or was instructed by higher ups to stand down.
This is the same U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida that had received a deeply investigated case from the Palm Beach County Police Department, documenting that Epstein had sexually assaulted dozens of schoolgirls at his Palm Beach home. Under a secret non-prosecution agreement, this same U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed not to prosecute Epstein or his accomplices for federal crimes. Epstein ended up with a lenient 18-month jail sentence in 2008, which morphed into 13 months, the bulk of which was a work release program where Epstein was driven by his limo driver to an office each day.
Because of that abysmal failure by the U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein was able to continue his sexual assaults of underage girls and arrange for his rich pals to do the same, from his release from jail in Palm Beach County in July of 2009 until the Justice Department was shamed by the Miami Herald’s “Perversion of Justice” newspaper series in November of 2018 into arresting Epstein on federal charges of sex trafficking of minors on July 8, 2019. (Epstein was found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial a little more than a month later, on August 10, 2019. His death came the day after an appellate court released 2,000 pages of previously sealed documents, including the names of politicians and other powerful men that a victim alleged were part of his sex ring. The New York City Medical Examiner ruled that Epstein’s death was a suicide.)
A federal appellate court that looked at the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein case and its failure to inform his victims’ about its non-prosecution agreement, called it “a national disgrace.”
Throughout this period, the largest taxpayer-backstopped, federally-insured bank in the United States, with media darling Jamie Dimon sitting at its helm, was somehow able to engage in more than 9,000 money transactions for Epstein, which “had a combined value of over $2.4 billion,” according to court evidence introduced by the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Those transactions included the following amounts of hard cash according to documents obtained by the U.S. Virgin Islands:
“In the year 2003, Epstein was able to withdraw highly suspicious amounts of cash totaling $175,311. In 2004, he withdrew $840,000. In 2005, he withdrew $904,337. In 2006, he withdrew $938,625. In 2007, he withdrew $526,000. In 2008, he withdrew $469,000. In 2009, he withdrew $165,011. In 2010, he withdrew $253,397. In 2011, he withdrew $260,000. In 2012, he withdrew $290,000. In 2013, he withdrew $197,152.”
So let this sink in for a moment. The Justice Department’s U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida was supposedly on a subpoena hunt in September of 2007 to learn the names of any other banks that might be laundering money for Epstein. But, somehow, despite government databases being readily available to provide the name of his most important bank, JPMorgan Chase, Epstein was able to withdraw millions of dollars in hard cash from that bank, unimpeded for years – when any cash withdrawal of $10,000 or more should have blown the whistle on Epstein and stopped his operation.
During the financial crisis in 2008, JPMorgan Chase bought the collapsing Bear Stearns and, apparently, obtained its records. The U.S. Virgin Islands was able to obtain during discovery the internal emails at JPMorgan Chase, where its anti-money-laundering personnel express curiosity as to why Bear Stearns got a subpoena in the Epstein case but it didn’t, despite being Epstein’s primary bank.
In a January 10, 2011 internal email at JPMorgan Chase, Maryanne Ryan, the Vice President of Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) Operations, emails William Langford, then Global Head of Compliance at the bank according to his LinkedIn profile (and a former executive at FinCEN who should have intimately understood the need to be filing Suspicious Activity Reports for Epstein’s massive cash withdrawals).
Ryan reveals the following: that JPMorgan Chase “never was served a subpoena,” which she admits that she finds “odd, since we were his #1 bank and actually Bear got one in 07.” Ryan also reveals in this email that “Steve Cutler” has approved Epstein to remain as a customer at JPMorgan Chase’s Private Bank. Steve (Stephen) Cutler was the former Director of Enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission prior to becoming General Counsel at JPMorgan Chase. According to the transcript of the deposition of Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of the bank, as part of the U.S. Virgin Islands’ lawsuit, Cutler worked in the office directly next door to Dimon and reported to Dimon.
Dimon also stated in his deposition that he had never heard of Epstein and didn’t know he had accounts at the bank until Epstein’s arrest in 2019. It raises much skepticism on Wall Street that Cutler, who reported to Dimon, would have failed to get permission from Dimon before deciding to keep this Level 3 registered sex offender at the bank and look the other way at hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash withdrawals year after year.
For example, another internal email filed with the court shows that on October 24, 2008 an employee writes that it is his understanding that JPMorgan Chase “requires top of the house ok for clients who are convicted felons.” He cites this chain of approval as follows: “PCS Legal [Private Client Services Legal] to Asset Mgt Legal to Cutler to Jaime Daimnon [Jamie Dimon].”
Other internal documents show that Epstein was catered to at the bank because he referred large accounts from ultra wealthy individuals, notwithstanding the fact that the anti-money-laundering personnel at the bank were regularly circulating media reports about Epstein’s scandalous history.
The head of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida at the time Epstein was let off the hook with the secret federal non-prosecution agreement was Alex Acosta. Donald Trump made Acosta the head of the U.S. Department of Labor – a key federal agency in preventing human trafficking. Acosta resigned in 2019 after news reports focused on the secret non-prosecution agreement Acosta has presided over for Epstein in the Palm Beach County case.
The U.S. Department of Justice has failed to bring charges against JPMorgan Chase despite what appears to be a mountain of evidence that it laundered money for Epstein through four different Presidents and their appointees at the U.S. Department of Justice: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.
[…]
Putin Calls on BRICS to Guarantee Food and Energy for the World
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 22, 2023. | Photo: X/ @LFCNewsMedia

The Russian president reiterated his willingness to send shipments of up to 50,000 tons of grain for free to six African countries.
On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for expanding cooperation among the BRICS countries, which is led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
“Russia is in favor of establishing closer cooperation within the BRICS framework for the reliable and uninterrupted supply of energy and food resources to world markets,” he said during his speech by videoconference at the Economic Leaders Forum, which is held as part of the 15th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg.
Moscow is increasing supplies of fuel, agricultural products and fertilizers to countries in the Global South, Putin said, stressing that this foreign policy seeks to contribute to the fight against poverty and hunger in the countries most in need.
The Russian leader also insisted that his country is capable of replacing Ukrainian grain in the world, either as a commercial product or as part of humanitarian aid endowments.
Key points from Vladimir Putin's statements at the international security conference:
NATO continues to build its potential, using military and non-military means of pressure.
The US is trying to reshape the system of interstate interaction in the Asia-Pacific region… pic.twitter.com/gCgBnK6QbG
— Zlatti71 (@djuric_zlatko) August 15, 2023
Reiterating the promise made at the St. Petersburg’s Russia-Africa summit, Putin indicated his willingness to send shipments of up to 50,000 tons of grain for free to six African countries.
“The talks with the partners are already concluding,” he said, noting that Russia has had “a magnificent harvest” this year.
The Russian leader once again insisted that the Kremlin is willing to return to the Black Sea Initiative on grain exports if all its conditions are met.
In this regard, Putin also recalled that the West has put obstacles to Russian grain and fertilizer supplies since the special military operation in Ukraine began 18 months ago.
[…]
Pakistan’s Long History of Military Coups
Benazir Bhutto
Episode 33 The New Pakistan
A History of India
Michael Fisher (2016)
Film Review
Zfikar Ali Bhutto
Following the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan, the populist socialist Zfikar Ali Butto became its first civilian martial law administrator after setting aside General Yahya Kahn (disgraced after losing one third of his army in Bangladesh – see East and West Pakistan Following Partition from India. Butto would set up his own paramilitary Federal Security Force to help keep the Army in check.
Calling his program Islamic Socialism, he nationalized numerous industries, utilities and hospitals and broke up large landed estates (except for his own family estates), clamped down on burgeoning trade unions and strengthened Pakistan’s alliance with Maoist China. He also launched Pakistan’s first nuclear weapons program.
After forming the Pakistan People’s Party, he organized Pakistan’s second national election in 1977. The PPP’s phenomenal electoral success (95% of the legislative seats) led to accusations of electoral fraud (including assassination of Bhutto’s opponents) and another military coup. The coup leader General Zia Mahajir had Bhutto arrested, tried for murder and other crimes and ultimately executed.
The Regime of General Zia Mahajir
The 1979 the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan significantly empowered Mahajir’s regime after the CIA involved him in recruiting the Muslim freedom fighters for the Mujhahadeen,* routing arms and supply shipments to the freedom fighters and starting Madrasa (strict Wahabi Islamic schools) to train future Islamic terrorist.**
Zia’s regime is also known for instituting a federal Shariat Court with the power to overrule un-Islamic laws and court rulings and for creating Islamic business banks following Islamic anti-usury principles.***
In 1979, Zia also adopted the Hudood Ordinances, establishing Sharia punishments, such as whipping, stoning for adultery and amputation of the right hand.
The Rise of Benazir Bhutto
Zfikar Ali Butto’s daughter Benazir Bhutto (who had been educated at Radcliffe and Oxford) was imprisoned along with her father prior her to her 1984 release to receive medical treatment in Britain.
After working at a distance for two years to revive the Pakistan Peoples Party, in 1986 she returned to Pakistan and was greeted by massive crowds wherever she went. In 1988 General Zia’s death in a suspicious plane crash led to a power vacuum, leading to Benazir’s election as prime minister later that year.
The Rise and Overthrow of Nawaz Shariff
In 1990, Pakistan president Ghulam Ishaq Khan invoked the 8th amendment removing her from office. Nawaz Shariff would replace her as prime minister until he himself was removed from office (via the 8th amendment) for incompetence and corruption. See Hidden History of the Coup Against Imran Khan.
Starting in 1993, Ghulam Ishaq Khan ran the country as president for four years, resigning favor o Sharrif in 1993. In 1999, Sharif was overthrown in a military coup led by army commander General Pervez Musharraf. In 2000, the latter had Sharrif tried on charges of murder, hijacking and terrorism (for refusing to allow Musharraf’s plane to land). Sentenced to life imprisonment, Sharif’s sentence was commuted after he agreed to leave Pakistan (for Saudi Arabia) for 10 years.
Musharraf’s Military Coup
In 1999, Musharraf launched his own military coup, receiving major US support after 9-11, as Pakistan once again became a major conduit for delivering arms and supplies to US troops in Afghanistan. In 2007 Musharraf declared a state of emergency and suspend the constitution. After head Supreme Court justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry proclaimed Musharraf’s actions illegal, the military leader alternatively suspended, restored and suspended him, resulting in massive lawyer protests across Pakistan.
Asif Ali Zadari and The Return of Navaz Shariff
At great risk to herself, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan the same year. Following multiple assassination attempts, was finally killed in December 2007. A wave a sympathy following her murder led to Musharraf’s impeachment and the election of her husband Asif Ali Zardari as president in 2008. After the Supreme Court ordered Zardari prosecuted, Shariff was given leave to stand for office and was re-elected prime minister in 2013.
*Many of the CIA-recruited Mujahadeen were Pakhtun Afghans who fled war-torn Afganistan for refugee camps in Pakistan.
**Employing textbooks printed in Pashto (with CIA funding) at University of Nebraska. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/29768089 and Afghan Freedom Fighter Cherish Old American Textbooks
***When an Islamic bank grants a loan, they acquire shares in the business rather than charging interest. LIkewise instead of interest, bank depositors receive shares in the bank. Islamic banking was never universally adopted in Pakistan.
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
, https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/366254/366235
August 21, 2023
After 10 years, CDC Still Hasn’t Done Vaccine Study

In 2013, the National Vaccine Program Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commissioned an update of earlier findings on the lack of evidence to support claims that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) infant/child vaccination schedule was safe.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee, charged with producing the update, found that “few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address in its statement of task.”
According to the IOM committee, “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”
The lack of information on the overall safety of the vaccination schedule was so compelling that the committee then recommended HHS incorporate the study of the safety of the overall childhood immunization schedule into its processes for setting priorities for research, “recognizing stakeholder concerns, and establishing the priorities on the basis of epidemiological evidence, biological plausibility, and feasibility.”
The IOM also recommended the CDC use its private database, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), to study the overall health effects of the vaccination schedule using retrospective analyses.
Ten years later, the CDC has yet to do such a comparison study, even though it is sitting on a vast repository of data in the VSD, which include comprehensive medical records for more than 10 million individuals and 2 million children.
The VSD also contains records for a significant number of unvaccinated children, yet the CDC refuses to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children.
The CDC also prohibits VSD outside researchers from accessing the VSD data so they can do the studies.
I was fortunate enough to be one of the researchers who had VSD access as I worked with Dr. Mark R. Geier and his son, David Geier, on a series of studies on thimerosal-containing vaccines in the early 2010s.
However, the CDC subsequently revoked the Geiers’ access because one of the health maintenance organizations (HMO) participating in the VSD project did not like the results the Geiers were obtaining, tying thimerosal exposure to a variety of childhood chronic disorders including autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), birth defects, acute ethylmercury poisoning, fetal/infant/childhood death, premature puberty, emotional disturbance, tic disorder and developmental delays.
In Chapter 2 of “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and I present the very few studies completed on the entire infant/child vaccination schedule, including the groundbreaking study, “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6- to 12-Year-Old U.S. Children,” by Anthony Mawson, doctor in public health.
Mawson and his co-authors studied fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated home-schooled children for both infectious and chronic disease incidence.
Not only were chronic diseases more prominent in fully and partially vaccinated children — where the incidence of these diseases ranged from 30 times higher for allergic rhinitis to 3.7 times for neurodevelopmental disorders — but there also was a higher prevalence of infectious diseases like pneumonia and ear infections in vaccinated children.
In a separate 2017 study, “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: a Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children,” Mawson et al. also found that the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among vaccinated children was compounded by low birth weight.
Low birth weight, vaccinated children were 14.5 times more likely to get a diagnosis compared to unvaccinated, normal birth weight children.
I also completed two studies with Neil Z. Miller on vaccinated versus unvaccinated children using medical records from six separate pediatric practices.
Our first study, “Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders,” published in 2020, focused on vaccines administered during the first year of life and specific diagnoses occurring after the first birthday.
Those children who received one or more vaccines during their first year of life were 2.2 times more likely to be diagnosed with a developmental delay, 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with asthma and 2.1 times more likely to suffer from ear infections when compared to unvaccinated children.
In our second study, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children, with Covariates for Breastfeeding Status and Type of Birth,” published in 2021, we compared fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated children for incidence of autism, ADHD, asthma, chronic ear infections, severe allergies and gastrointestinal disorders.
Most notably, fully vaccinated children were 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism, 17.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with asthma, 20.8 times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and 27.8 times more likely to be diagnosed with chronic ear infections compared to completely unvaccinated children.
In a separate analysis within this same study, we changed the statistical model to reflect breastfeeding status and type of birth (normal or Cesarean). Breastfed unvaccinated children fared much better than non-breastfed vaccinated children when comparing the incidence of autism, asthma, ADHD, gastrointestinal disorders, severe allergies and chronic ear infections.
We obtained similar results when investigating the type of birth and vaccination status.
James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., and Dr. Paul Thomas also published a study in 2021, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination,” investigating children in Thomas’ Portland, Oregon, pediatric practice.
This study compared the relative incidence of office visits for different disorders between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Lyons-Weiler and Thomas found significant increases in office visits among vaccinated children for fever, ear infections, conjunctivitis, asthma, breathing issues, anemia, eczema, behavioral issues, gastroenteritis, weight/eating disorders and respiratory infections.
Notably, there were no ADHD diagnoses among unvaccinated children, whereas the rate of diagnosis among vaccinated children was 5.3%.
Unfortunately, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health retracted the study on the basis of a lone, anonymous complaint. Lyons-Weiler and Thomas were not allowed to rebut the complainant’s concerns regarding the healthcare-seeking behavior of families of unvaccinated children.
However, Lyons-Weiler fired back with Dr. Russell Blaylock in their 2022 paper, “Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research — an article in which the authors definitively showed that unvaccinated children tended to visit their pediatrician more not less than vaccinated children, which affirmed their original analysis.
Chapter 2 of “Vax-Unvax” also highlights the 2022 study, “Association Between Aluminum Exposure From Vaccines Before Age 24 Months and Persistent Asthma at Age 24 to 59 Months,” by CDC scientists who used the VSD to calculate the level of aluminum exposure in infant vaccines administered up to 2 years of age.
The authors compared the health outcomes of children exposed to more than 3 milligrams of aluminum in their vaccines versus those exposed to less than 3 milligrams of aluminum.
Although this was not a true “vax-unvax” study as there was no unvaccinated control group (the CDC never includes one, unfortunately), Kennedy and I decided to include it in the book because of the study’s alarming findings.
The study authors found that children exposed to higher levels of aluminum were 1.36 times as likely to be diagnosed with persistent asthma prior to their 5th birthday.
Children diagnosed with eczema and exposed to the higher level of aluminum fared even worse and were 1.61 times as likely to be diagnosed with persistent asthma prior to their 5th birthday.
Each of these results was statistically significant, leading us to wonder what the risk of asthma would have been if the CDC had chosen to compare vaccinated children exposed to aluminum to an unvaccinated cohort of children.
“Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak” will be released Aug. 29 and is available for preorder on Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other online booksellers.
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vax-unvax-hhs-cdc-safety-childhood-vaccine-schedule/
New York Times: DOJ Planned to Let Hunter Off the Hook Until Whistleblowers Emerged

The Department of Justice (DOJ) planned to let Hunter Biden off the hook without charges until two whistleblowers came forward to expose political interference in the investigation, despite the claims of Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The New York Times exposed the inside dealings of Hunter Biden’s attorneys with senior officials at DOJ, who had constrained U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss even as Garland was testifying to Congress that Weiss had full authority to act in the case.
The Times reported that not only did the whistleblowers stop the cover-up, but that Hunter Biden’s lawyers now want them to be prosecuted for speaking out against his special treatment — a violation of President Biden’s promise to protect whistleblowers:
Now, the I.R.S. agents and their Republican allies say they believe the evidence they brought forward, at the precise time they did, played a role in influencing the outcome, a claim senior law enforcement officials dispute. While Mr. Biden’s legal team agrees that the I.R.S. agents affected the deal, his lawyers have contended to the Justice Department that by disclosing details about the investigation to Congress, they broke the law and should be prosecuted.
Earlier this year, The Times found, Mr. Weiss appeared willing to forgo any prosecution of Mr. Biden at all, and his office came close to agreeing to end the investigation without requiring a guilty plea on any charges. But the correspondence reveals that his position, relayed through his staff, changed in the spring, around the time a pair of I.R.S. officials on the case accused the Justice Department of hamstringing the investigation. Mr. Weiss suddenly demanded that Mr. Biden plead guilty to committing tax offenses.
[…]
As the testimony from the I.R.S. agents took hold, Mr. Biden’s legal team felt the ground shift beneath them. The U.S. attorney’s office suddenly went quiet.
Key figures that emerge from the Times narrative are Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf, who has been accused of interfering on Hunter Biden’s behalf; and Christopher J. Clark, a well-connected lawyer for Hunter Biden.
The whistleblowers, IRS Criminal Supervisory Special Agent Gary A. Shapley Jr. and IRS Special Agent Joseph Ziegler, told the House of Representatives that prosecutors would not let them pursue Hunter Biden’s tax crimes, and had sometimes tipped off the president’s son about impending searches or interviews.
The result was a “sweetheart” plea deal that would have prevented Hunter Biden from being investigated further — until federal judge Maryellen Noreika, a Donald Trump appointee, balked.
Earlier this month, Garland named Weiss a Special Counsel in the case, raising suspicions that his real purpose was to continue the cover-up. Charges were withdrawn from Noreika — ostensibly to be pursued elsewhere, but possibly to avoid her jurisdiction.
The Pandemic Planning Racket
Dr Mercola
Story at-a-glanceThe biosecurity crisis needs to continue indefinitely because it’s the primary justification behind The Great ResetIn the fall of 2022, mainstream media started warning of a potential “tripledemic,” with COVID, seasonal influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) being in circulation at the same time. The sudden focus on RSV just so happened to coincide with announcements that RSV vaccines were being fast-trackedThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first-ever RSV vaccines in the summer of 2023 for seniors 60 years and older — one by Pfizer (Abrysvo) and one by GlaxoSmithKline (Arexvy). Both vaccines are recombinant subunit vaccines, and both manufacturers have reported Guillain-Barré syndrome as a side effectAs we’re heading into the fall of 2023, the “tripledemic” of COVID, RSV and influenza is again making headlines. A Google search for the key words “triple pandemic 2023” garnered a staggering 41.1 million articles, and as we saw all through the COVID pandemic, news agencies are using he exact same headlines and talking points. This is unequivocal evidence that the tripledemic narrative is being coordinated by a central sourceFor this fall, U.S. health officials recommend a flu vaccine for everyone 6 months old and older, an updated mRNA COVID-19 booster targeting the Omicron XBB.1.5 strain (specifics on who should get the shot and when are still undetermined) and an RSV vaccine for seniors 60 years old and olderIn the fall of 2022, mainstream media started warning of a potential “tripledemic,” with COVID,1 seasonal influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)2 being in circulation at the same time. Fear sells, they say, and that’s certainly the adage used by Big Pharma when it comes to vaccines.
The sudden focus on RSV in particular, which has been around for decades, just so happened to coincide with announcements that RSV vaccines were being fast-tracked — a risky venture if there ever was one, considering vaccine makers have been trying to bring an RSV vaccine to market for about 60 years, and couldn’t due to safety issues.
Not surprisingly, Pfizer and Moderna are also working on combination mRNA jabs for COVID, RSV and the flu,3 currently expected to hit the market in 2024 and/or 2025.4 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first-ever RSV vaccines in the summer of 2023 for seniors 60 years and older — one by Pfizer (Abrysvo)5 and one by GlaxoSmithKline (Arexvy).6
Both vaccines are recombinant subunit vaccines, meaning certain viral proteins are used to trigger an immune response,7 and both manufacturers have reported Guillain-Barré syndrome as a side effect of their shots.8
Pfizer’s RSV vaccine will likely cost somewhere between $180 and $270, while GSK intends on charging $200 to $295.9 GSK had initially announced a price tag of $148 per dose, but decided to double the price due to newer data suggesting effectiveness may carry into a second season.
Tripledemic Propaganda ContinuesAs we’re heading into the fall of 2023, the “tripledemic” of COVID, RSV and influenza is again making headlines. A Google search for the key words “triple pandemic 2023”10 garnered a staggering 41.2 million articles as of mid-August 2023.
[…]
And, as we saw all through the COVID pandemic, news agencies are using the exact same headlines and talking points — unequivocal evidence that the tripledemic narrative is being coordinated by a central source.
[…]
Three Shots Recommended for This FallFor this fall, U.S. health officials recommend:
1. A flu vaccine for everyone 6 months old and older
2. An updated mRNA COVID-19 booster targeting the Omicron XBB.1.5 strain, even though this strain is already in the decline. Most of the COVID-19 cases in the U.S. and Canada are now caused by the Eris (EG.5)12 and BA.5 strains.13
In the U.S., specifics on who should get the shot and when are still undetermined as the FDA has yet to officially approve the updated booster. In Canada, the fall COVID booster is recommended for anyone aged 5 and older who got their last shot or had a COVID infection at least six months ago14
3. An RSV vaccine for seniors 60 years old and older
Not surprisingly, many are encouraging people to bundle all three injections into a single visit, even though there are no data whatsoever to support the claim that doing so is safe. Some doctors, though — such as Dr. William Schaffner in the CBS News report
No Need to Raise Alarm BellsAccording to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19 hospitalizations shot up by an average of 12.5% the week of July 23 through 29, 2023. Eighteen U.S. states saw COVID-related hospitalization rates rise by 20% or more.15
Approximately 54% of new cases in the U.S. are being attributed to a new Omicron subvariant called BA.5, while Eris (EG.5) accounts for an estimated 17.3%, an increase of 9.8% since early July.16 XBB.1.5, which the new COVID booster will target, makes up only 10.3% of cases.17
[…]
All of that said, hospitalization rates are nowhere near the peaks seen in previous years. For the week ending July 29, 2023, there were 9,056 new COVID-related hospitalizations nationwide, a far cry from the January 2022 peak of 150,000.
The biosecurity crisis needs to continue indefinitely because it’s the primary justification behind The Great Reset.“It is ticking up a little bit, but it’s not something that we need to raise any alarm bells over,” David Dowdy, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told Advisory.com.19
Fearmongering Is a Tool to Foster ObedienceIt’s important to realize that the “threats” posed by COVID, flu and RSV are being magnified for a reason. The biosecurity crisis needs to continue indefinitely because it’s the primary justification behind The Great Reset. At regular intervals, there must be another Chicken Little warning that the sky is still falling and that we must not let down our guard.
At some stage, you must realize that the more you give in and obey, the more you must give in and obey. There really is no end to what they can and will take from you, and holding on to the belief that your government would never [fill in the blank] is becoming more dangerous by the day.
It’s also important to realize that your government isn’t the ultimate power. Our government officials take orders too, from what is often referred to as the deep state. It’s not a government at all, but a global, hidden power structure that is accountable to no one, while influencing and manipulating everyone to bring about a new world order.
In years past, this shadowy cabal of power brokers were referred to under the term the New World Order. In 2020, the World Economic Forum came out on the public stage and announced The Great Reset, which is nothing but the NWO rebranded.
In the video above, investigative journalist Harry Vox talks about disease outbreaks, quarantines and curfews being essential tools in the ruling class’ toolkit, and how these tools were planned to be used to usher in the next phase of control.
The interview, which took place in 2014, sounds more than a little prophetic today, as these three indispensable tools for totalitarian control have been part of our reality since 2020. In it, Vox also refers to “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,”20 a document by the Rockefeller Foundation, in which they laid out a “Lockstep” scenario, which details the global response to a fictional pandemic.
They’ve Already Told You What the End Game IsWhile the name and origin of the virus differ, the scenario laid out in “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”21 closely matches what we’ve gone through in the era of COVID, especially its deadly effect on economies.
The scenario predicted international mobility coming to a screeching halt, debilitating industries, tourism and global supply chains. “Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers,” the document reads.
In the Rockefeller narrative, China is hailed for its rapid imposition of universal quarantines of all citizens which proved effective for curbing the spread of the virus. It’s important to note that universal quarantining — lockdowns of healthy people — has never ever been used in infectious disease control before, and there’s a reason for that. We already knew it wouldn’t work.
Many other nations where leaders “flexed their authority” and imposed severe restrictions on their citizens — “from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries of communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets” — also fared well, in this Rockefeller scenario.
Listen to the disbelief in the interviewer’s voice when he asks if Vox actually believes that such a thing could happen, that we would have to stand in line to get our temperature checked before entering a building.
Well, every single one of us has now had to do this, so we know it’s possible. And if that’s possible, why not the rest of the Lockstep plan, which tells us that: “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck, and even intensified.”
Don’t Get Fooled TwiceWe can no longer afford to disbelieve the lengths to which this globalist cabal can and will go to seize total control. They’ve already told us what the ultimate plan is — to use bioterrorism to take control of the world’s resources, wealth and people.
All we need to do is to believe it, and realize that the only thing giving them the power to impose their will is our fear. As long as we choose fear and demand our government keep us safe, they have every chance of winning.
Hopefully, a clear majority of people will have learned this lesson by now, and won’t fall for the same tricks again, even though they’ve upped the ante with a triple threat, rather than just one. Fear is a tool used to control you, but that only works if you buy into it, and by now it ought to be clear that the narrative around the need for vaccines is misleading at best.
[…]
Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/08/21/the-pandemic-planning-racket.aspx
What’s the REAL reason “Eris” cases are spiking?
Offguardian
Eris – the most recent “Covid variant” – is supposedly causing spikes in cases all over the world. The story goes that England, Ireland and US are all being hit hard, it’s reached Australia too.
In yet another blow to the “BRICS will save us” crowd, India and China are playing along.
“Scientists” are even clamoring for the return of masks.
We’ve already been over everything you need to know about “Eris” here. Long story short, “Covid” is just another made up name for the flu, and the “variants” are coats of paint they slap on the narrative to try and keep it looking fresh.
In that same article I theorised Eris’ existence was a need to keep Covid alive, and that is part of it…but I also missed something obvious: The next round of Covid “vaccines” hits the shelves next month.
For those who have lost count, I think we’re up to six or seven shots now.
This “updated vaccine” is nothing to do with Eris, of course, as much as the language in the headlines implies it’s been “adapted” for the latest variant, it hasn’t. It was in the works before Eris was even said to exist.
Moderna had the brass neck to claim that they did a “trial” showing their updated vaccine protects against Eris. Considering Eris first hit the headlines just a few weeks ago it looks like Moderna may have broken their own record in terms of speedy “trials”.
It’s just the same old slop it always was.
Hell, let’s be honest, it could be water. It could be ANYTHING.
The content of the syringe was never the important part. After all, what you were being injected with wasn’t the point, the point was that you got injected because they told you to.
It was about forcing obedience, setting the vaccine mandate precedent and seeing how effectively people could be gaslit into taking a shot that they’d already been told they don’t need and doesn’t work.
Well, that and governments handing over VAST amounts of cash to pharmaceutical companies, obviously.
But they already have the money, and most people (allegedly) took the vaccine…so why are they still going?
You have to appreciate the huge amount of effort that went into hypnotizing millions – maybe billions – of people into acting against their own best interests, it’s a spell that’s easier to maintain than restart. If they start letting people forget, then soon they’ll have to begin the ritual all over again.
And the magic is already wearing off.
Consider that, allegedly, over 200 million Americans took the first dose in 2021, and that by the time boosters were coming out in the fall of 2022 it was down to 50 million. That’s a 75% drop-off in only a year.
The power is slipping away, and as they scramble to get it back you can probably expect “Eris” to get a lot worse.
[…]
Via https://off-guardian.org/2023/08/18/is-this-the-real-reason-eris-cases-are-spiking/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
