Pfizer Execs doing what they do . . .

Jimmy Dore and Bret Weinstein give these two lying Pfizer executives what they deserve for these big lies. Then, when you think it's winding down, Bret brings up Nuremberg Code See below).

One can make an extremely strong argument that American's didn't have informed consent when they were coerced to line up for the COVID vaccination. How important is informed consent? Here's what the Nuremberg Code specifies about informed consent in medical settings:

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential."

What does this mean? Here's the explanation offered by Evelyne Shutter in her article at the New England Journal of Medicine: "Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code."

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

Continue ReadingPfizer Execs doing what they do . . .

Corporate Media Marching in Lockstep to the Drumbeat of War

Caitlyn Johnson reminds us of the headlines at the beginning of the Ukraine war:

No nuance here. None of the context, which could have been reported quite succinctly, as shown by comedian Dave Smith:

Continue ReadingCorporate Media Marching in Lockstep to the Drumbeat of War

Inconvenient Murderers

From the New York Post:

Our era is obsessed with “hate-crimes.” So much so that it sees them in places where they don’t even happen. Yet last Saturday in Brooklyn was a hate crime. And the media are actually covering it up. All because Sibley’s assailants were not hood-wearing members of the KKK or “MAGA” hat-wearing Republicans.

Instead they come from another group that our media identifies as a victim class. The fact that the men were Muslim is why the media has been actively dishonest in its reporting. Despite the story going around the world.

Continue ReadingInconvenient Murderers

Disturbing Revelations about the Pericarditis/Myocarditis Pathway Subsequent to Receiving mRNA COVID Vaccines

I was vaccinated twice and boosted once. I now regret receiving all of those shots, and it goes well beyond and rampant scientific and public health fraud being revealed, including the outrageous paper orchestrated by Anthony Fauci, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”  And see here and here.  I'm not a scientist or a doctor, but I can see and hear and follow these discussions. We were told none of these things prior to being compelled to take these shots (except by Brett Weinstein, on a video that was pulled down by Youtube).

So here we now are. I am among a growing number of people concerned about the long-term hazards of these treatments, which were touted as "safe." Here are the most recent revelations. First, this discussion involving biologists Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying. The podcast focuses on commentary by Dr. John Campbell, an admission by Dr. Paul Offit and a new Swiss active-surveillance study: "Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination."

What do the Pfizer spokesmen not how ro say about the causal pathway from the "safe" vaccination it produced for COVID? They have no public answer. Rather than provide an answer, they purposefully and shamelessly obstruct and deflect:

Notice how they blatantly obstruct and deflect when they were asked for evidence that Pfizer vaccine decreases transmission of COVID from person to person.  They simply don't give a shit about either safety or accuracy of public health pronouncements.

Back to the issue of myocarditis and pericarditis.  First, some definitions.

Myocarditis: "Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle (myocardium). The inflammation can reduce the heart's ability to pump blood. Myocarditis can cause chest pain, shortness of breath, and rapid or irregular heart rhythms (arrhythmias)."

Pericarditis: "Pericarditis is swelling and irritation of the thin, saclike tissue surrounding the heart (pericardium). Pericarditis often causes sharp chest pain. The chest pain occurs when the irritated layers of the pericardium rub against each other."

Commentary by Dr. John Campbell on the new study: Based on this brand new high-quality active surveillance study one person out of 35 who received the Moderna booster incurred vaccine-related heart injuries:

If Regulators around the world don't take notice of the information I'm about to give via this paper, then they are at best in my view negligent at worst they don't even want to think about it. After receiving Moderna booster vaccines in a trial done in Switzerland--there were 777 working people followed up with 777 controls--5.1 percent of those who had the booster vaccine had increased troponins, indicating cardiomyocyte damage. So 5.1% increased cardiac marker damage, chemicals in the blood. 2.8 percent of the 777--that is one in 35--one in 35--had vaccine-associated myocardial injury. Quite astounding and incredible.

This is the result of receiving the Moderna booster. Many of us received two shots prior to receiving the booster. Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying suggest that one who receives all three shots have even higher risk of sustaining heart damage--greater than 1 out of 35 and just because you don't experience short term damage does not mean that you are out of the woods. I was horrified to hear the entire podcast of Weinstein and Heying. If I know there was even a 1 out of 1,000 risk of sustaining heart damage by receiving one shot, I would have refused any of this "treatment." None of us were warned, however. This is the opposite of informed consent.

How many of the elite athletes collapsing (some of them severely injured or dead) were caused by the vaccines? Many people actively do not want to know and do not want to report any of this. What concerns me is that there seems to be a coordinated nonchalance about whether the COVID vaccines are causing the increase in cardiac arrests.

Here is the entire podcast featuring the discussion of Weinstein & Heying:

I posted the John Campbell video on FB with a quote by Campbell. Instead of allowing me to post it, here's what happened:

When you click the "See Why" button:

Who are these "Independent fact-checkers" who know so much more than Dr. John Campbell? Facebook does not disclose this. Are they former employees of the FBI or CIA or DHS? If so, are they consciously adhering to a narrative dictated by the U.S. Government? I'd like to know.

From Linked In:

Nurse currently working in A and E with a demonstrated history in Nurse Education. Skilled in pratical Nursing, Healthcare, Nursing Research, and Health and Educational research. Strong healthcare services professional with two higher degrees and several teaching qualifications. Research record focused in teaching bioscience in national and international nurse education.

More about Campbell . . . 

Continue ReadingDisturbing Revelations about the Pericarditis/Myocarditis Pathway Subsequent to Receiving mRNA COVID Vaccines

Matt Taibbi on the State of the Campaigns

Matt Taibbi has eyes and ears that work, unlike the so-called journalists of corporate media organizations. An excerpt:

[T]he campaign is pure chaos, Pompeii after the blast. In the annals of presidential races we haven’t experienced many days like yesterday, July 31, which ended with the futures of all major candidates appearing hopelessly clouded. Forget the national debt; there are now not-improbable scenarios in which the main issues in next year’s debates, which could easily involve both nominees in ankle monitors, are nuclear fallout and alien visitation. Our leaders, who once had the election process reduced to scripts more predictable than Everybody Loves Raymond, now seem to have no clue what will happen beyond the next few minutes.

If not for the fact that the disintegration of American society might be imminent as a result, I’d be laughing harder. It might be funny anyway. Consider: the establishment plan for the Republican Party this cycle was clearly Ron DeSantis, but a New York Times/Siena poll published yesterday shows he’s plunging like a stone, falling to 17%, a.k.a. 37 points behind Donald Trump...

Incumbent Joe Biden not only has the lowest approval rating in history — he “shouldn’t” be this unpopular “but he is,” mused a mortified Washington Post — but as of Monday, when his son’s former partner Devon Archer testified in Congress, he appeared to be careening toward withdrawal due to impairment, scandal, or both. [P]apers like the New York Times and Washington Post . . . are suddenly filled with baleful criticisms of Biden, appearing to notice flaws for the first time. Pamela Paul in the Times compared her dread feelings about a Biden-Trump rematch to Lars Von Trier’s film, Melancholia, whose premise is an inexorable collision of a rogue planet with Earth.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi on the State of the Campaigns