The question is this: given that they obviously do not believe in the efficacy of the vaccines, why does the British government – along with most other western governments – urge their citizens to get vaccinated? Why do they keep compelling their citizenry to accept ineffective injections while exposing them to a whole array of dangerous side effects?
According to a piece in the World Tribune, “the vast majority of new serious cases of Covid in Israel are vaccinated individuals.”
Real world data increasingly show that the vaccines being injected into people’s bodies en masse are ineffective in protecting against infection by the coronavirus or against a heavy course of the Covid illness. There is, in fact, data coming from certain places – such as Israel, for example – that seems to indicate that as the virus mutates the vaccines not only fail to confer protection but actually increase one’s chances of falling seriously ill. According to a piece in the World Tribune, “the vast majority of new serious cases of Covid in Israel are vaccinated individuals.” The article goes on to quote the noted author and former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson who observes that the trend among older vaccinated Israeli individuals is “terrible.” Says Berenson:
“It is worth noting that rates of serious illness among the vaccinated are now as high as they were among the unvaccinated only two weeks ago. Perhaps that’s why the Israeli government is now predicting a further quadrupling of new serious cases by the end of August.”
Please contemplate this: this situation is unfolding in a country where 85 percent of people over 30 years of age have been fully vaccinated!
It is quite obvious that many governments are aware of the ineffectiveness of these experimental injections. After all, to know the truth they only need to look at the hard data supplied to them by their own health agencies. And yet they still insist that their citizenry get jabbed with these useless and unsafe substances. A quick look at government sources and databases reveals just how dangerous they really are. According to data obtained from EudraVigilance, which is the European Union’s database recording adverse drug reactions from COVID vaccines, there were more than one and a half million reported injuries – including more than 15,000 deaths – by June 19, 2021. Sadly, many citizens of western nations have been so brainwashed and frightened that they are incapable of believing that their governments would be capable of treating them in such a duplicitous way.
The leadership of the United Kingdom is one example of a supposedly enlightened government whose actions clearly betray the knowledge of vaccinal ineffectiveness. The evidence of this knowledge is glaringly displayed on its own website www.gov.uk. If you go to a section that provides travel guidance for the British people, you will find instructions on what they should do if they happen to come home from any of the so-called red countries, which are countries deemed by the British government to have high incidence of Covid. Those Brits who are unfortunate enough to have set foot in any of these territories in the preceding ten days are ordered to do the following:
Take a Covid test before arrival in the United Kingdom.
Book into a quarantine hotel (at their own expense) where they must remain for a full 10 days. In these hotels people are kept under close watch and not allowed to leave their rooms even for exercise.
In the course of the ten days of solitary confinement, they have must subject themselves to two further tests (at their own expense).
This is a mind-bogglingly severe and costly protocol. But what stands out is the following injunction: “You must follow these rules even if you have been fully vaccinated.”
If the British government really believed that the vaccines do their job and protect their recipients, they would not force fully vaccinated individuals to take three tests and undergo ten full days of hard quarantine. If the vaccines worked what would be the point of all of that? The injunction betrays the obvious fact that the UK government does not believe that being fully vaccinated will protect one from contracting Covid-19 and infecting other people. It is highly revealing that the instructions do not differentiate between those who have received their vaccines and those who have not.
A screenshot from the website of the British government. Please notice that after arriving from the so-called red countries the vaccinated must follow the same rules as unvaccinated. This shows that the British government obviously does not believe that vaccination protects people from the virus.
The question is this: given that they obviously do not believe in the efficacy of the vaccines, why does the British government – along with most other western governments – urge their citizens to get vaccinated? Why do they keep compelling their citizenry to accept ineffective injections while exposing them to a whole array of dangerous side effects?
What is the logic behind this?
We, The People, must force our governments to answer this question.
Here was the man who, on the House floor in 2001, predicted exactly what would happen with the housing boom and bust. He said the Federal Reserve was replacing the dot-com boom with a real estate boom, which would surely unravel.
He knew Fannie and Freddie’s days were numbered.
Not one other person running for president in 2008 or 2012 had had the first clue about any of this.
There have been a lot of bad guys over the past year and a half.
But there have been good guys, too.
And there’s something interesting that the two best guys have in common (and it has to do with my subject line for today).
By my estimation, the best U.S. senator — by far — throughout this fiasco has been Rand Paul, and the best member of the House has been Rep. Thomas Massie.
Both have been excellent on lockdowns, masks, vaccines and vaccine passports. Both have pushed back against Fauci. Were it not for Rand, we probably wouldn’t know a thing about gain-of-function research and Wuhan.
Ain’t no way a product of the GOP establishment was going to come out swinging like Rand.
Mitt Romney standing up to Fauci? Don’t make me laugh.
John McCain standing up to Fauci? This is the guy who assured us he was learning about economics because he bought Alan Greenspan’s book — an indication of utter hopelessness if ever there were one.
Most Republican governors were horrendous through this ordeal.
But Rand Paul and Thomas Massie? A+ throughout.
Yes, both men represent Kentucky, but that’s incidental.
The key: both are products of the Ron Paul revolution.
Now let’s recall: when Ron Paul himself was running for president, both the media and the Republican establishment — and, to their eternal shame, some “conservatives” — ridiculed him. He’s a “crank”! We demand someone who will flatter us and speak in platitudes we recognize!
It was embarrassing.
Here was the man who, on the House floor in 2001, predicted exactly what would happen with the housing boom and bust. He said the Federal Reserve was replacing the dot-com boom with a real estate boom, which would surely unravel.
He knew Fannie and Freddie’s days were numbered.
Not one other person running for president in 2008 or 2012 had had the first clue about any of this.
And of course he was right: when the market tried to send people red lights in 2000 and 2001, the Fed turned them all green. So people persisted in the same bad investments, making the eventual crash all the worse, and perpetuating the myths that “housing prices never fall” and “a house is the best investment you can make.” (The 2001 recession is the only one on record in which housing starts actually increased.)
Dr. Paul was withering on the U.S. warfare state, and this of course turned “conservatives” against him. The idea was: we favor limited government, but exporting feminism to Afghanistan and running a world empire? Sign us up!
Not exactly the conservatism of yesteryear, that.
Now, after COVID, perhaps some conservatives are willing to entertain the idea that the whole regime is dangerous and rotten and run by liars, and that that just might also include the people who run the foreign policy.
Incidentally, has anybody been checking in on where Rick Santorum stands on lockdowns? Or the utterly forgettable Tim Pawlenty, whom Sean Hannity promoted? Or any of the other empty suits?
Ron created something lasting. Unlike the suits, he took on rather than aped the establishment. He raised issues like the Federal Reserve that no focus group told him to mention, simply because he considered it urgent for the American public to know about them.
He told a Florida audience that free trade with Cuba was the morally correct position, even though he knew that meant a lot of people would never consider voting for him.
Who else does that?
Who else just honestly tells us his views, and is consistent in those views over a 40-year period?
Even if you disagreed with him on this or that, those disagreements are trivial when compared to the big picture: here’s someone who’s honest, who will stand up against anyone, and who actually is what all the other Republicans only pretend to be?
Yes, it’s that kind of man who inspires a Thomas Massie — and, of course, a Rand Paul.
And Ron himself, on his daily Liberty Report, has been outstanding on COVID from day one.
For old times’ sake, here’s the TV ad I wrote for Ron in 2012, summarizing his merits in a mere 60 seconds, and which ran on CNN:
And of course, here’s the K-12 homeschool curriculum I created 400 videos for at Dr. Paul’s request:
The government is pressing ahead with its Vaccine Passport and plans for a two-tier society are afoot. The effrontery of those leading the charge beggar’s belief.
And that’s just the half of it. We are midway through a Europe-wide feasibility study for the development of a common vaccine passport, launched by the European Commission in 2018.
They would have you believe – they were caught with their trousers down, their policies are proportionate to the emergency as it unfolds, and at all times they operate according to a system of informed consent.
They have deliberately plunged society into two camps – skeptics and adherents, compliant and non-conformists.
Last year established the mood for pettifogging anyone questioning the narrative, while those refusing to comply were branded narcissists and psychopaths or denounced as ‘Covid deniers’ – the modern-day equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
This government has polarised the nation on a scale never before attempted, legitimising a particular brand of prejudice and enmity not seen in Europe since the days of the Third Reich. And once the NHS App becomes your ticket to freedom on Monday, they will finally have means to weed out and punish dissidence while rewarding blind faith in authority. No matter how injurious their compliance is to society at large, the silent majority have lost their moral compass.
But it must be understood – this principle of divide and rule is as old as the hills. It was not so long ago that signs hung in the windows of establishments in Britain that read: ‘No dogs, No Irish, No blacks’. The difference today is that it won’t be the colour of your skin, your class, gender or sexual orientation that will condemn you, it will be something far more virulent – your ideology.
That this crucial point has been entirely missed by the chattering classes is astonishing. And despite the most flagrant attempts to marginalise large segments of society, identitarians, the woke brigade and other erstwhile defenders of the most marginalised remain largely unphased. Unless it is to flap their arms in the air over higher rates of vaccine hesitancy amongst ethnic minorities. But the rest of us can go to hell.
Who cares about anyone not from a protected social group, right?
In this bizarre parochial moral imperative, discrimination is only frowned upon if you’re discriminating against someone’s authorised and rubber-stamped marks of distinction, whereas discrimination, of and by itself, is entirely permissible.
These crowd-pleasers would defend their moral high ground by telling you “the unvaccinated are selfishly putting others’ lives at risk”, or that “mask refuseniks are superspreaders”. But hold on a minute. All of this is pure conjecture which, like everything else under the post-COVID sun, has been founded on speculative science and policies pulled straight from the magician’s hat.
Other than taking the government on its word, where is the actual evidence of asymptomatic transmission? Where is the evidence of mask efficacy?
In fact, can someone point me to a single risk assessment for any of these high-risk interventions? But to deny someone entry into an establishment, to prevent them from travelling, shopping, or worse, stepping foot outside of their own bolthole is no moot point. These are very real and tangible forms of discrimination, for no other reason than you personally disagree with their choices.
These people have clearly made peace with the fact that membership to society is now the exception rather than the rule. They labour under some neotribal sense of entitlement – if you’re not with us, you’re against us. Like their neolithic ancestors they take refuge in the herd from an unseen predator threatening their hand to mouth existences. Positioning themselves in the upper echelons of this looming two-tier system, with others equally desperate to get their lives back and ready to submit to whatever ephemeral demands are made of them in return for one coveted free pass to re-enter polite society.
While the rest of us – who will not be spoken for, bribed or coerced – will risk excommunication from the social-balm in defence of our principles.
This loose association of the poorest and most marginalised, conscientious objectors, lockdown skeptics, and anyone with a shred of faith in their god-given sovereignty of being or bodily autonomy will wage a personal crusade of civil disobedience against the tyranny de jour, as Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King did before them. For them, braver men have endured far worse for much less.
But what the first group fails to realise is that they are doing the unofficial bidding of another group – the well-healed members of our political establishment to whom the rules do not apply. Who are protected by more exemptions than the rest of us are governed by regulations. And who, at the onset of the pandemic, were not caught with their pants down, as the general population was.
Vaccines don’t contain antibodies or T-cells. They provoke your body into providing a natural immune response — the natural immune response that a prior COVID infection also elicits.
To deny the effectiveness of the natural immune response is to deny the basis of the vaccine.
I’m not advocating anyone should seek to get infected with COVID instead of taking the vaccine. But I find it appalling that CDC, President Joe Biden, & House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are denying science and treating people like idiots by refusing to acknowledge the efficacy of a natural immune response.
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.
Fox News commentator, Tucker Carlson, frequently reminds viewers that overall, he thinks vaccines are a good thing — but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have questions about COVID vaccines.
In fact, he has a lot of questions. And, he said, he should have the right to ask them.
In the segment below on last night’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson said the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows 3,362 Americans — or 30 people a day — died from the COVID vaccine between December 2020 and last month.
“More people, according to VAERS, have died after getting the shot in four months during a single vaccination campaign than from all other vaccines combined over more than a decade and a half,” said Carlson.
The number of deaths is likely much higher than what VAERS is reporting, Carlson said, citing reports submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 that found “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported by the VAERS system.”
Carlson also mentioned in his segment:
Of all of the MENVEO vaccines given to prevent bacterial meningitis, only one person died from the vaccine between 2010 and 2015.
In 1976, 45 million Americans were vaccinated for H1N1. A total of 53 people died from the vaccine. The U.S. government halted the vaccination program because authorities decided it was too risky.
COVID vaccines have contributed to 8,000 hospitalizations in the U.S., according to VAERS.
Someone recently asked me about the origins of my love of individual liberty and how I came to embrace the non-aggression axiom at the heart of libertarian philosophy. I initially responded that after college, I followed Mark Twain’s advice never to let my schooling interfere with my education…
So, in the spirit of being the why (and hopefully wise) guy, I have just a few questions I would like to pose to the CDC and the vaccine manufacturers before I dutifully line up to take the shots. If they can answer these fully to my satisfaction, my consent to get the shots will be informed and voluntary; if not, my submission will only occur because legal mandates will make it impossible to enjoy life on acceptable terms.
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance” Franklin Delano Roosevelt Inaugural Address
“Hell is empty, and all the devils are here.” William Shakespeare, The Tempest
We have now clocked 14 months and counting since the “temporary emergency” (two words that send chills up any libertarian spine) lockdown orders to prevent our nation’s hospitals from being unduly stressed by the Covid 19 virus. Without denying Covid’s transmissibility or infectiousness, especially for the elderly and at risk individuals with one or more co-morbidities, I think we can all agree that we have careened from fear to fear over this period of time. Fear over hospitalizations gave way to fear over the infamous death counts displayed 24/7 by mainstream media. As death rates subsided last summer, fear of death gave way to fear over cases accompanied by an almost manic counting of tests administered. And, finally, the obsession with test and case counts has been displaced by how many have gotten their Covid shots. Fear, as FDR intoned in his famous inaugural address, is often unreasoning and unjustified. It elevates the flight or fight syndrome, causes the suspension of disbelief and leads to emotional, panic-driven decisions. At each of these four stages of Covid engendered fear, one could have raised objective counters to the prevailing narrative. To wit, very few hospitals were overcrowded. Most Covid deaths, by the CDC’s own admission are with Covid not from Covid with the latter constituting 6% of the total reported. The case counts were likely drastically overinflated as a result of faulty and overly sensitive testing methodologies. And the vaccines may not be a magical cure all preventing transmission or infection, but, if safe and effective, may minimize adverse symptoms should one contract Covid. Big pharma is already mentioning the need for annual booster shots.
Raising any of these counterpoints to the prevailing narrative is unlikely to be countered by rational, calm debate, but most assuredly will get one tagged as being a Trumpian anti-vaxxer, classic ad hominem attacks hardly deserving response. But, to set the record straight, this writer is neither a Trumpian nor an anti-vaxxer. Over time my philosophic journey has evolved from an initial belief that government was a necessary evil to thinking that is mainly evil. Few politicians are for me exemplars of moral courage or intellectual honesty. President Kennedy is one exception in my lifetime as his moral courage to avert nuclear war and dismantle the national security state very well may have cost him his life at the hands of political enemies. Before Kennedy, I have to retreat to Grover Cleveland, who had the courage time after time to uphold the Constitution, earning him the sobriquet of Mr. Veto for his repeated nays to Congressional attempts to create powers not enumerated. And saying that I am anti-vaxxer is a pejorative slight implying that I substitute superstition for medicine and science when in fact, like many, I am trying to make my own informed decision about my own health and treatment or prophylactic options.
Someone recently asked me about the origins of my love of individual liberty and how I came to embrace the non-aggression axiom at the heart of libertarian philosophy. I initially responded that after college, I followed Mark Twain’s advice never to let my schooling interfere with my education so I embarked on my own course of self-education, devouring all the classics by Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, Block, Hoppe, von Mises as well as political philosophers diametrically opposed to their love of liberty and individual responsibility. But, upon further reflection, I realized that my libertarian roots may have been present as a toddler. One of my earliest memories is my parents growing frustrated with my endless use of the word why! I guess I simply never liked being told what to do or what to think, and I think this skeptical predisposition to question authority was the fertile soil for building my set of political and moral beliefs.
So, in the spirit of being the why (and hopefully wise) guy, I have just a few questions I would like to pose to the CDC and the vaccine manufacturers before I dutifully line up to take the shots. If they can answer these fully to my satisfaction, my consent to get the shots will be informed and voluntary; if not, my submission will only occur because legal mandates will make it impossible to enjoy life on acceptable terms.
Here is my list:
Why is the partnership of government and 4 major vaccine manufacturers exempt from the usual harms of crony capitalism present in other industries where government and big business are allied? Bailouts and subsidies in other industries create moral hazard, socialize risk, and tend to result in high prices and/or poor product quality as the removal of market-based penalties for failure is weakened. Where many glorify Operation Warp Speed and are eager to announce Mission Accomplished much as Bush the younger did in the early days of the forever Iraq war, I have a gnawing sense of discomfort that a product is being rushed to market without full and extensive testing. The government can posture as savior. The vaccine manufacturers, who are granted legal immunity under their private/public partnership and have been provided enormous subsidies to develop the vaccines, have a pure profit opportunity with legally constrained limits on loss or reprisal. This is not meant to ascribe improper motives to either government or corporate entities as the efforts to abate the pandemic may indeed be totally humanitarian. But, zero liability and skewed risk/reward structures create incentives which leave me uneasy.
Are the vaccines safe and effective? If so, why are many government officials still recommending that the vaccinated wear mask(s), socially distance and otherwise put their lives on hold? Does not this public messaging do more to undercut the incentive to get a vaccine than any anti-vaxxer could create?
If the vaccines are so effective, how do you account for the occurrence from December 14, 2020 through last Friday of almost 120,000 adverse events in the US reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) including over 3500 deaths?
While these may statistically indeed be a small percentage of total vaccines administered to date, is it likely that the systematic underreporting to you under VAERS is on the order of just one to ten percent of all adverse events? If that is so, then do you consider the likely true number of adverse vaccine events of 1.2 to 12 million to be material?
And, for certain segments of the population (namely anyone under the age of 30) for whom the odds of contracting Covid and/or debilitating symptoms may be close to zero, how do you justify taking an injection which is admittedly still experimental? Is this risk/reward logical?
If the “vaccines” are so desirable, why have you resorted to classic propaganda techniques (including frequent public servant announcements, photo ops of athletes, politicians and movie stars getting their shots, nonstop social messaging) to encourage their acceptance? Do you think the average citizen is too infantile to provide informed consent?
Why are you threatening the use of vaccine passports and a legal nether world of the unvaccinated to coerce getting the shots? Do you think the average citizen is too infantile to provide informed consent?
Do you think that employers and colleges mandating these vaccines at your behest is consonant with the key elements of the Nuremberg Code and its strictures regarding the scope of and moral underpinnings of medical experimentation?
Why have dissenting views by other scientists and/or vaccine safety organizations been greeted with silence and/or censorship?
I look forward to receiving complete answers to my list of questions. In the meantime, I fully recognize and respect the decision of any individual who chooses to mask up, isolate from society and get vaccinated. It is your right and prerogative. Your body is your choice. I do not respect or recognize your ability to mandate that my individual health decisions are subject to your dictates, which, by and large, I find inhuman, inhumane and unconstitutional. I search in vain for a pandemic exception to the Bill of Rights, which were adopted with a devastating smallpox scourge in the founders’ rear view mirror. To compel that I abide by your dictates so that we can all get back a way of life that was unnaturally and unconstitutionally obliterated strikes me as morally obtuse.
Steve Berger is a board member of the Mises Institute.
By referring to COVID-19 vaccines as “vaccines” rather than gene therapies, the U.S. government is violating its 15 U.S. Code Section 41, which regulates deceptive practices in medical claims
The mRNA injections are gene therapies that do not fulfill a single criteria or definition of a vaccine
COVID-19 “vaccines” do not impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. They only are designed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you get infected. As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine
Since a vast majority of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, they’ve not even been able to establish a causal link between the virus and the clinical disease
By calling this experimental gene therapy technology a “vaccine,” they are circumventing liability for damages that would otherwise apply
Did you know that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines aren’t vaccines in the medical and legal definition of a vaccine? They do not prevent you from getting the infection, nor do they prevent its spread. They’re really experimental gene therapies.
I discussed this troubling fact in a recent interview with molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. While the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots are labeled as “vaccines,” and news agencies and health policy leaders call them that, the actual patents for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections more truthfully describe them as “gene therapy,” not vaccines.
Definition of ‘Vaccine’
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,1 a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity.
Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.
They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.
As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine, and as noted by David Martin, Ph.D., in the video above, “The legal ramifications of this deception are immense.”
15 U.S. Code Section 41
As explained by Martin, 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act2 is the law that governs advertising of medical practices. This law, which dictates what you may and may not do in terms of promotion, has for many years been routinely used to shut down alternative health practitioners and companies.
“If this law can be used to shut down people of good will, who are trying to help others,” Martin says, “it certainly should be equally applied when we know deceptive medical practices are being done in the name of public health.”
Per this law, it is unlawful to advertise:
“… that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”3
What Constitutes ‘The Greater Good’?
Martin points to the 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts,4 which essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit. To put it bluntly, it argued that it’s acceptable for individuals to be harmed by public health directives provided it benefits the collective.
Now, if vaccination is a public health measure that is supposed to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to a) ensure that the individual who is vaccinated is rendered immune from the disease in question; and b) that the vaccine inhibits transmission of the disease.
Only if these two outcomes can be scientifically proven can you say that vaccination protects and benefits the collective — the population as a whole. This is where we run into problems with the mRNA “vaccines.”
Moderna’s SEC filings, which Martin claims to have carefully reviewed, specifies and stresses that its technology is a “gene therapy technology.” Originally, its technology was set up to be a cancer treatment, so more specifically, it’s a chemotherapy gene therapy technology.
As noted by Martin, who would raise their hand to receive prophylactic chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer you do not have and may never be at risk for? In all likelihood, few would jump at such an offer, and for good reason.
Moreover, states and employers would not be able to mandate individuals to receive chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer they do not have. It simply would not be legal. Yet, they’re proposing that all of humanity be forced to get gene therapy for COVID-19.
COVID-19 Vaccines — A Case of False Advertising
Now, if the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine, why are they calling it that? While the CDC provides a definition of “vaccine,” the CDC is not the actual law. It’s an agency empowered by the law, but it does not create law itself. Interestingly enough, it’s more difficult to find a legal definition of “vaccine,” but there have been a few cases. Martin provides the following examples:
• Iowa code — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.” Again, the COVID-19 vaccines make no claim of providing immunity. They are only designed to lessen symptoms if and when you get infected.
• Washington state code — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” Since Moderna and Pfizer are using synthetic RNA, they clearly do not meet this definition.
Being a manmade synthetic, the RNA used is not derived from anything that has at one point been alive, be it a whole microorganism or a fraction thereof. The statute continues to specify that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”
So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.
There Are More Problems Than One
But there’s another problem. Martin points out that “COVID-19 disease” has been defined as a series of clinical symptoms. Moreover, there’s no causal link between SARS-CoV-2, the virus, and the set of symptoms known as COVID-19.
How is that, you might ask? It’s simple, really. Since a vast majority of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, they’ve not been able to establish a causal link between the virus and the clinical disease.
Here’s yet another problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 vaccine trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those were measured.
What’s more, key secondary end points in Moderna’s trial include “Prevention of severe COVID-19 disease, and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2.” However, by its own admission, Moderna did not actually measure infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.
That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”
Why Are They Calling Them Vaccines?
As noted by Martin, you cannot have a vaccine that does not meet a single definition of a vaccine. So, again, what would motivate these companies, U.S. health agencies and public health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci to lie and claim that these gene therapies are in fact vaccines when, clearly, they are not?
If they actually called it what it is, namely “gene therapy chemotherapy,” most people would — wisely — refuse to take it. Perhaps that’s one reason for their false categorization as vaccines. But there may be other reasons as well.
Here, Martin strays into conjecture, as we have no proof of their intentions. He speculates that the reason they’re calling this experimental gene therapy technology a “vaccine” is because by doing so, they can circumvent liability for damages.
You’re being lied to. Your own government is violating its own laws. They have shut down practitioners around the country, time and time again, for violating what are called ‘deceptive practices in medical claims.’ Guess what? They’re doing exactly that thing. ~ David Martin, Ph.D.
As long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like PCR tests and COVID-19 “vaccines” are allowed under emergency use authorization. And as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially liable for any harm that comes from their use.
That is, provided they’re “vaccines.” If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the liability shield falls away, because there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy.
So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency, when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they can get immunity from liability.
Under the Cover of ‘Emergency’
As noted by Martin, if state governors were to lift the state of emergency, all of a sudden the use of RT PCR testing would be in violation of 15 U.S. Code FTC Act, as PCR tests are not an approved diagnostic test.
“You cannot diagnose a thing [with something] that cannot diagnose a thing,” Martin says. “That a misrepresentation. That is a deceptive practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. And they’re liable for deceptive practices.”
Importantly, there’s no waiver of liability under deceptive practices — even under a state of emergency. This would also apply to experimental gene therapies. The only way for these gene therapies to enjoy liability shielding is if they are vaccines developed in response to a public health emergency. There is no such thing as immunity from liability for gene therapies.
Propaganda and Vaccine Rollout Run by Same Company
Martin brings up yet another curious point. The middleman in Operation Warp Speed is a North Carolina defense contractor called ATI. It controls the rollout of the vaccine. But ATI also has another type of contract with the Department of Defense, namely managing propaganda and combating misinformation.
So, the same company in charge of manipulating the media to propagate government propaganda and censor counterviews is the same company in charge of the rollout of “vaccines” that are being unlawfully promoted.
“Listen,” Martin says. “This is a pretty straight-forward situation. You’re being lied to. Your own government is violating its own laws … They have thrown this book [15 U.S. Code Section 41] on more people than we can count.
They have shut down practitioners around the country, time and time again, for violating what are called ‘deceptive practices in medical claims’ … Guess what? They’re doing exactly that thing.”
Martin urges listeners to forward his video to your state attorney, governor, representatives and anyone else that might be in a position to take affirmative action to address and correct this fraud.
Defense contractors are violating FTC law, and gene therapy companies — not vaccine manufacturers — are conducting experimental trials under deceptive medical practices. They’re making claims of being “vaccines” without clinical proof, and must be held accountable for their deceptive marketing and medical practices.
“Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks….there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is, and often there are unintended consequences – people keep fiddling with the masks and they’re touching their face.”
“Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”
Both the Surgeon General and Fauci later reversed their stance on mask wearing when it no longer suited the control narrative, and are now fervent supporters of enforcing mask mandates. Scientific data continues to show that mask wearing does nothing to stop the spread of Covid.
I suspect a large portion of the public is at least partially aware when they are being pushed or lured into a specific way of thinking. We have certainly had enough experience with institutions trying to manage our thoughts over the years. Governments and mainstream media outlets in particular have made the manufacture of public consent their top priority. This is what they spend most of their time, money and energy on. All other issues are secondary.
The media does not objectively report facts and evidence, it spins information to plant an engineered narrative in the minds of its viewers. But the public is not as stupid as they seem to think. This is probably why trust in the media has plunged by 46% in the past ten years, hitting an all time low this year of 27%.
Except for pre-election season spikes, mainstream outlets from CNN to Fox to CBS to MSNBC are facing dismal audience numbers, with only around 2 million to 3 million prime time viewers. There are numerous YouTube commentators with bigger audiences than this. And, if you sift through the debris of MSM videos on YouTube, you’ll find low hits and a majority of people that are visiting their channels just to make fun of them.
The MSM is now scrambling to explain their crumbling empire, as well as debating on ways to save it from oblivion. The power of the “Fourth Estate” is a facade, an illusion given form by smoke and mirrors. Bottom line: Nobody (except perhaps extreme leftists) likes the corporate media or activist journalists and propagandists.
One would think that media moguls and journos would have realized this by now. I mean, if they accepted this reality, they would not be struggling so much with the notion that no one is listening to them when it comes to pandemic mandates and the covid vaccines. Yet, journalists complain about it incessantly lately.
In fact, half the media reports I see these days are not fact based analysis of events, but corporate journalists interviewing OTHER corporate journalists and bitching to each other about how Americans are “too ignorant” or “too conspiratorial” to grasp that journos are the anointed high priests of information.
I actually find this situation fascinating as an observer of oligarchy and being well versed in the mechanics of propaganda. The fundamental narrative of control-culture is that there are “experts” that the establishment chooses, and then there is everyone else. The “experts” are supposed to pontificate and dictate while everyone else is supposed to shut up, listen and obey.
Media elitists see themselves in the role of “the experts” and the public as devout acolytes; a faithful flock of sheep. But what happens when everyone starts ignoring the sheep herders?
The other day I came across this revealing interview on CBS news about a poll of Americans showing at least 30% will refuse to take the covid vaccine outright. The interview is, for some reason, with another journalist from The Atlantic with no apparent medical credentials and no insight into the data surrounding covid.
One thing to note right away is that the discussion itself never addresses any actual facts about the virus, the pandemic, the lockdowns, the mandates, or the vaccines. The establishment keeps telling us to “listen to the science”, but then they dismiss the science when it doesn’t agree with their agenda. When is the the mainstream going to finally acknowledge facts like these:
1) According to multiple official studies, including a study from American College of Physicians, the Infection Fatality Ratio (or death rate) of Covid-19 is only 0.26% for anyone outside of a nursing home. This means that 99.7% of people not in nursing homes will survive the virus if they contract it.
2) Nursing home patients account for over 40% of all Covid deaths across the US. These are mostly people who were already sick with multiple preexisting conditions when they contracted covid.
3) The Federal Government’s own hospital data from the Department of Health and Human Services indicates that capacity for hospital beds is ample in the US and that this has been the case for the past year. Covid patients at their peak only took up around 13% of inpatient beds nationally. The stories in the media of hospitals at overcapacity due to covid are therefore inaccurate or they are outright lies.
Those who seek to rule us are afraid of us. They are afraid we see through them. Worse, they are afraid we might find them and their programs laughable. Were it otherwise, they would resort to reason rather than intimidation, thoughtful dialogue rather than fear mongering.
Rush Limbaugh once said, “I don’t think looking at things through the prism of fear is going to accomplish anything.”
Rush Limbaugh passed away on Ash Wednesday at age 70.
I heard that news on the radio after leaving noon services at my church. At first, I felt a profound sadness and a touch of anger. The past year has thrown a barrage of punches at Americans. For those who loved Limbaugh’s program—I only listened sporadically, but enjoyed myself when I did—this was one more left hook delivered in a bleak season.
Yet as I thought about Rush Limbaugh, I also felt a sense of gratitude. Here was a man who brought a conservative voice to millions in our nation, who inspired other announcers to do likewise, and who worked fearlessly for truth almost until the day he died. Day after day his voice resonated on the air, striving to keep conservatism and common sense alive in our nation.
Limbaugh often encouraged his audience to stand up for their beliefs with courage and persistence. Were he on the radio today, I am certain “no fear” would be part of his message.
Before learning of Limbaugh’s death, I had looked around my church and saw visible signs of fear. Children as young as three were wearing masks as protection against COVID-19. Because of the virus, Pope Francis had asked priests worldwide to sprinkle ashes in the hair of their congregants this Ash Wednesday rather than marking their foreheads with the sign of the cross. The priest and deacon of our conservative parish decided to compromise, dipping a Q-tip into the ashes, using that to make the cross on the forehead, and throwing away each Q-tip after usage.
When I see such things, I no longer know what to think. Are we really to believe that making the sign of the cross with ash-bedecked fingers on the foreheads of parishioners will spread the virus?
For 12 months, we have lived under governments, state and federal, that encourage fear in their citizens. We now have vaccines, but we’re told that even those who have received these immunizations must go on wearing masks and practicing social distancing. We know few children under 18 are in danger of death or even sickness from this virus, yet many of our schools remain closed.
Meanwhile, the federal government would have us believe that an army of insurrectionists is waiting to invade Washington D.C., justifying the walls and wire around the Capitol Building and the thousands of National Guard troops standing by to repel an attack. These measures are ridiculous and undoubtedly make us a laughingstock in many foreign capitols, but as with COVID-19, the government wants us to be afraid.
Others outside the government try to rule by fear as well. It seems that every day college students, corporate employees, bloggers, and anyone else in the public eye must be ever more careful of what they say or write for fear they’ll be targeted by a vicious social media mob.
Evil exists in this world, and its practitioners use fear as one of their primary weapons. In C.S. Lewis’s novel That Hideous Strength, totalitarians seek to establish their “utopia” by use of blackmail, threats, and even murder. Only those who are immune to these tactics possess the courage, strength, and conviction to fight against them.
Here’s one thing we need to keep in mind. Those who utilize fear as a tactical weapon are often themselves afraid. They may make their insouciant pronouncements as if they were confident of their positions, but how else do we explain the troops and walls in our capitol? How else are we to regard the attacks on a president now out of office and banned from social media? How else should we interpret a government that operates by executive orders and fiats? If these aren’t examples of anxiety, fear of failure, unease over their positions, and terror over their illegitimacy, then I’m not sure what is.
Those who seek to rule us are afraid of us. They are afraid we see through them. Worse, they are afraid we might find them and their programs laughable. Were it otherwise, they would resort to reason rather than intimidation, thoughtful dialogue rather than fear mongering.
Rush Limbaugh once said, “I don’t think looking at things through the prism of fear is going to accomplish anything.”
We can honor the man and his achievements by standing fearlessly for our principles.
Jeff Minick lives in Front Royal, Virginia, and may be found online at jeffminick.com. He is the author of two novels, Amanda Bell and Dust on Their Wings, and two works of non-fiction, Learning as I Go and Movies Make the Man.
Essentially, in two memos the WHO ensured future testing would be less likely to produce false positives and made it much harder to be labelled an “asymptomatic case”.
What we’re seeing is a decline in perfectly healthy people being labelled “covid cases” based on a false positive from an unreliable testing process. And we’re seeing fewer people dying of pneumonia, cancer or other disease have “Covid19” added to their death certificate based on testing criteria designed to inflate the pandemic.
The scary red numbers are all going down. Check any newspaper or covid tracking website you want. Cases. Deaths. Hospitalisations. They’re all going down, sharply, and have been for weeks, especially in the US and UK.
So, why would that be?
Pundits across the media world have made suggestions – from vaccines to lockdowns – but there’s only one that makes any real sense.
It’s not vaccines
The assumption most people would make, and would be encouraged to make by the talking heads and media experts, is that the various “vaccines” have taken effect and stopped the spread of the “virus”.
Is this the case? No, no it’s not.
The decline started in mid-January, far too early for any vaccination program to have any effect. Many experts said as much:
Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, professor of epidemiology and medicine at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, said the falling case numbers can’t be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine, because not even a tenth of the population has been vaccinated, according to the CDC.
Further, the drop is happening simultaneously in different countries all around the world, and not every country is vaccinating at the same rate or even using the same vaccine. So no, the “vaccines” are not causing the drop.
It’s not lockdown either
Another suspect is the lockdown, with blaring propaganda stating that all the various government-imposed house arrests and “distancing” measures have finally had an impact.
That’s not it either.
Sweden, famously, never locked down at all. Yet their “cases” and “Covid related deaths” have been dropping exactly in parallel with the UK:
Clearly, if countries that never locked down are also seeing declines in case numbers, the lockdown cannot be causing them.
So what is?
The WHO PCR Test Guidelines
Maybe for our answer, we should look at the date the decline started.
As you can see, the global decline in “Covid deaths” starts in mid-to-late January.
What else happened around that time?
Well, on January 13th the WHO published a memo regarding the problem of asymptomatic cases being discovered by PCR tests, and suggesting any asymptomatic positive tests be repeated.
Essentially, in two memos the WHO ensured future testing would be less likely to produce false positives and made it much harder to be labelled an “asymptomatic case”.
In short, logic would suggest we’re not in fact seeing a “decline in Covid cases” or a “decrease in Covid deaths” at all.
What we’re seeing is a decline in perfectly healthy people being labelled “covid cases” based on a false positive from an unreliable testing process. And we’re seeing fewer people dying of pneumonia, cancer or other disease have “Covid19” added to their death certificate based on testing criteria designed to inflate the pandemic.
MCViewPoint 
