Nicolas Hulscher offers this disturbing data (some of it from Ed Dowd), but US Corporate media apparently hasn't been given permission to dig into this data:
None of the following "news" outlets have even mentioned Ed Dowd's work ever: NYT, WaPo, NPR, MSNBC and CNN.
Alex Berensen, commenting on a new Yale study finding the COVID spike protein in the blood of people who received mRNA shots up to two years after they received the jabs.:
It now appears that a significant number of mRNA-vaccinated people have Covid spike protein in their bodies, or extremely high anti-spike protein antibodies, or both, years after vaccination. We need to know what’s happening, and why.
This cannot be seen as a political issue, or a risk for vaccine advocates. It’s a medical problem. And we need to answer it.
Some vaccine-skeptical researchers have previously suggested the potential for the genetic material in the shots to integrate with human genes. But the new findings are crucial, not just because they make the possibility more likely but because the head of the Yale team is a renowned scientist who had strongly advocated for the Covid jabs.
I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I listened to Russell Brand interviewing trial lawyer Aaron Siri. Oh, and by the way . . . good luck finding the interview (on Rumble) using Google, but that's another story for another day.
Here's and excerpt with some of the referenced documents:
Aaron Siri 17:20 So here we go. So actually, I had the opportunity to testify before Congress, actually, on this exact topic. It was specifically about COVID vaccines. But in doing that, we submitted a report. Can you see my screen? And here we go. Pharmaceutical companies, I think, do not like that this is on formal US Congress website, but there it is. And to this day, it remains uncontested. Never gotten anybody to challenge or say anything in this document is false. With that said, it's all cited to the government sources. Well, let's take a let's just zoom in on this one chart right here. Okay, if you look at this chart, yes, zoom right in.
These are the top five selling drugs that Pfizer has sold as of 2020 as of 2019 I believe, according to Money Inc. I'm assuming it's correct. And when you look at this list of the top five selling drugs, four of them are drugs. One of them is a vaccine. And which we're looking at is a summary of the clinical trial relied upon to license each of these products before they went to market. So when you look at Enbrel, it had a safety follow up in its clinical trial before it went to market of 6.6 years against a placebo control group. Elliquis, Lipitor, Lyrica had multi year placebo control trials. Essentially what that means is you're comparing a group that got this product when it was experimental before it was licensed, with a group that gets a placebo over a multi year period. And then you're comparing.Are there any neurological differences, immunological differences, cardiovascular issues? What is the difference in the in the safety profile between the placebo group and the vaccinated group? That how they determine safety and Pfizer wants to know that safety file before these products go to market, because they don't want to end up upside down.
But then look at the one vaccine on this list, Prevnar, six months of safety review. Far, far less. A product given a two, four and six months of age, by the way, and then at 12 months. Now, what was the control? It was a different vaccine, Prevnar 7. Now, you might say, hey, hey, maybe Prevnar 7 was properly licensed in a long term placebo controlled trial, but that's not the case. It wasn't and we'll go through that in a minute.
I'll zoom out now, and we'll take a look now at the childhood vaccines. And these are the vaccines given in the first six months the United States, three times each. And what you're looking at now is the safety follow. Period that safety was reviewed after inject to these products in the clinical trial and the control that was used. Now I the first time I saw this, or if I saw this, I'd say, No way. It cannot be one. How could the companies do this before you're giving a product, you're injecting into a baby? Again, each product is injected three times each in the US schedule by six months of age. Okay, so you would imagine these would be the most robustly studied products on safety. You could imagine healthy babies, millions of them. You want to make sure you're not going to break society, right? But yet, this is what you see. And you might say, Well, what? What is driving this difference? Why would Pfizer or these other companies do long-term versus short-term? I think I've beaten the answer that question to death. It's economic interest. Pfizer is going to do the absolute minimum and Merck and snow feed to get their products to market so they can make money from them. Now why the FDA will let them get away with this? That's a different story. We could talk about that later, if you'd like. But, but really. Does it really matter? That's the reality of it. And, you know, but seeing is believing... imagine it like this, Russell, I came to and I said, Hey, Russell, I got business idea for you. And you're like, Oh, really? Well, look, I got this great idea. We're going to sell this injection. What's the injection? Well, it doesn't matter. Don't worry. Well, don't have to worry about safety. No, the government said we can't be sued for it. Okay? He said, well, well, who's going to take that product? You say, Don't worry, the government's going to mandate that millions of children take it every year. Well, but who's going to promote it? Don't worry, the government's going to take our money and promote it for you to get a guaranteed market, guaranteed immunity, government promotion. I think you just summed it up as well, which is absolutely your vaccine, portfolio [inaudible] and it's and it's only growing because They they understand they can sell this product risk free, with a guaranteed market, and they push for mandates. It's the best possible. It's the best of all worlds for them.
So a sensible piece of legislation might be to end that immunity.
Yes, that would be extraordinarily sensible. Which is just let these products operate in the same exact environment as every other product out there. Okay?
Coleman Hughes has written a personal account of the excruciating death of his mother. What follows is an excerpt from "My Mom—and the Case for Assisted Death: My dying mother chose to end terrible suffering. I want others to have that choice, too."
Instead of a slippery slope, what has emerged over the past three decades are two distinct policies: one restricted to people on their deathbed and exemplified by Oregon, Australia, and New Zealand; and the other open to anyone who is “suffering” and exemplified by the Benelux nations and Canada, without any slippage between the two. It is not a coincidence that all the horror stories come from the latter. The lesson for the rest of the world is not to throw out assisted dying altogether, but to copy the policy that works, and avoid the policy that doesn’t.Aside from the major objections, critics have leveled many practical objections: Do doctors always know when someone has six months to live? Are fatal drugs always painless? What if relatives pressure someone to commit suicide? I may go through these one by one some other time, but here I will simply say this: Once you understand how much suffering is on the other side of this moral equation—that is, once you understand just how bad “bad deaths” are—then you must view these practical objections as problems to be addressed, rather than as reasons to jettison the whole policy.
It is commonly said that a huge percentage of our healthcare spending comes in the last year of life. But the far more important corollary is rarely said: In many cases, a huge portion—perhaps a majority—of our lifetime suffering comes not just in the last year, but in the last few months. Assisted dying therefore represents an opportunity to prevent an immense amount of needless suffering in the world. If my mother’s story can help even one person come around to this view, then I can say that she did not suffer completely in vain.
I think of these issues every so often. And I often think back to my college days when I volunteered as a counselor and trainer for Suicide Prevention in St. Louis. After doing my best for several years I left. I had had several cases where I did my best to encourage people to live another day, but where I privately wondered whether that was the kind of advice I would want were I in a situation that was truly (not merely apparently) hopeless. I'm referring to people who were terminally ill, jobless, in constant pain, who had no longer had family or friends to look out for them. People who had worked hard for months to find reasons to keep on living but no longer could. People for whom the things that once brought them great joy were no longer interesting to them.
I hope that humane people will step up to help me in my moment of need, people who have the courage to show mercy rather than to obsess about the "rules."
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who was fired by Harvard for telling the truth (and who has still not been rehired):
More on Kulldorff's firing by Harvard. Excerpt:
On March 10, 2020, before any government prompting, Harvard declared that it would “suspend in-person classes and shift to online learning.” Across the country, universities, schools, and state governments followed Harvard’s lead.Yet it was clear, from early 2020, that the virus would eventually spread across the globe, and that it would be futile to try to suppress it with lockdowns. It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage, not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health. We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world—all will suffer.
Schools closed in many other countries, too, but under heavy international criticism, Sweden kept its schools and daycares open for its 1.8 million children, ages one to 15. Why? While anyone can get infected, we have known since early 2020 that more than a thousandfold difference in Covid mortality risk holds between the young and the old. Children faced minuscule risk from Covid, and interrupting their education would disadvantage them for life, especially those whose families could not afford private schools, pod schools, or tutors, or to homeschool . . .
Every honest person knows that new drugs and vaccines come with potential risks that are unknown when approved. This was a risk worth taking for older people at high risk of Covid mortality—but not for children, who have a minuscule risk for Covid mortality, nor for those who already had infection-acquired immunity. To a question about this on Twitter in 2021, I responded:
Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.If Harvard and its hospitals want to be credible scientific institutions, they should rehire those of us they fired ...
Most Harvard faculty diligently pursue truth in a wide variety of fields, but Veritas has not been the guiding principle of Harvard leaders. Nor have academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, independence from external forces, or concern for ordinary people guided their decisions.
Harvard and the wider scientific community have much work to do to deserve and regain public trust.