My Investigations &Writings

My Investigations & Writings

Work & investigations.

The Nuremberg Codes vs C19 Agenda.

Governments all over the world, the Global Big Pharma, the Medical industrial Complex, Global institutions and the global Msmedia, were complicit in violating ALL 10 Points of the Nuremberg Code with their coordinated Covid vaccine campaign.

1. Were the public given; voluntary informed consent ? - NO: We were all lied to. No information about the number of ingredients of the vaccines was released, regardless many questions and demands of such accounting. No information about potential risks for adverse effects in pre trials was published. We were just told everything was 100 % safe and effective.

2. Was the result good for society ? - NO: It did not stop any transmission and has proven to be harmful to many who were at litle to no risk from Covid.

3. Were there prior experimentations on animals that; justify the performance of the experiment ? - NO: Animal experiments were conducted, but the results and validity of the data are still in monumental question due to the lack of data, and lack of safety/efficacy in humans together with obvious censorship of releasing it to public knowledge and scrutiny,

4. Did they; avoid all unnecessary physical or mental injury ? - NO: We were all subject to 24h/7d a week propaganda, brainwashing and coercion from employers, Msmedia, government entities and global institutions. Not to mention all the negative vaccine side effects such as Pericarditis, Myocarditis and micro and macro blod clotting and a number of other side effects on a global scale.

5. Did they; stop possible lethal or disabling procedures ? - NO: On global scale, Government Health Agencies continued to push the experimental shots despite the debilitating side effects and actual and potential deaths. In fact, they went great lengths to cover up/censor the VAERS reporting system and all public dialogue, warnings and communications concerning side effects and vaccine injuries on social media.

6. Did the; degree of risk outweigh the benefits ? - NO: +99 % of the population were NOT at risk from SARS-CoV-2, and the experimental mRNA shots did NOT prevent transmission.

7. Were; proper preparations and facilities prepared to prevent remote possibilities of injury, disability or death ?--NO: Sunjects were largely unaware, brainwashed and propagandized (Mass formation Psychosis) by Authorities and Msmedia. They were being experimented on and did not know they were at risk of injury, disability and potentially death.

8. Were; the experimentations conducted by only the scientifically qualified ? - NO: Scientists who spoke out about the potential risks with the new mRNA shots were silenced, censored and intimidated by the government agencies. Big Pharma propagandists coerced lower level public health workers to administer shots that they did not know themselves the true data or actual ingredients about. The doctors did not know the vaccines were safe, they were told they were safe. They were wrong. The government agencies hijacked the term "science" and the "speed of science" to coerce even more numbers of hesitant people to take the shot, when in fact, real science never gave any Authority mandate for doing so.

9. Can the; participants freely end the experiment ? - NO: Most of them do not know they are being experimented on, and even if they do, permanent alterations have been made to their bodies via mRNA technology that, at the time of writing this text, cannot be repaired and restored as far as we know.

10. Did they; stop the experiment when it proved to be dangerous ? - NO: Not only did they not stop, they kept going, increased their effort, doubled down and abused government emergency powers to silence, censor and defame people who spoke about the real dangers of the mRNA vaccines on social media and in the public space.

Addition:

We should also add this that, despite repeated demands in many countries (including my own correspondence with responsible authorities in Sweden) to scientifically present the complete gene sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus produced by the adequate purity and isolation processes, according to Koch's principle, required to detect any virus, no such evidence for the existence of the virus has ever been presented globally. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions from this.

¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤

The actions of governments, the Big Pharma, the Medical industrial complex, the global collective Msmedia and Global institutions, VIOLATE ALL medical ethical standards and infringe upon the basic human rights recognized by every sovereign nation on the planet. Historically – all vaccine programs are ended, corrected, adjusted or secured when just ONE (ANY) of the 10 points in the Nuremberg Code is violated. We now find that ALL the 10 points have ben violated !!! Therefore we can conclude that the failures are not coincidental, but organized. This is War on humanity.

.....

Svenska.

Nürnbergkoderna vs C19-agendan.

Regeringar över hela världen, Global Big Pharma, Medical Industrial Complex, globala institutioner och det globala Msmedia-kollektivet, var delaktiga i att bryta mot ALLA 10 punkter i Nürnbergkoden med sin samordnade Covid-vaccinkampanj.

1. Gavs allmänheten; frivilligt informerat samtycke? - NEJ: Man ljög för oss alla. Ingen information om antalet ingredienser i vaccinerna släpptes, oavsett många frågor och krav på sådan redovisning. Ingen information om potentiella risker för biverkningar i förstudier publicerades. Vi fick bara höra att allt var 100% säkert och effektivt.

2. Var resultatet bra för samhället? - NEJ: Det stoppade ingen överföring och har visat sig vara skadligt för många som var på liten till ingen risk för Covid.

3. Fanns det tidigare djurförsök som; motivera experimentets utförande ? - NEJ: Djurförsök genomfördes, men resultaten och giltigheten av data är fortfarande i monumental fråga på grund av bristen på data och brist på säkerhet / effekt hos människor tillsammans med uppenbar censur för att släppa den till allmän kännedom och granskning.

4. Gjordes allt för att; undvika alla onödiga fysiska eller psykiska skador? - NEJ: Vi utsattes alla för (24h/7d) i veckan propaganda, hjärntvätt och tvång från arbetsgivare, Msmedia, statliga enheter och globala institutioner. För att inte tala om alla negativa vaccinbiverkningar som perikardit, myokardit och mikro- och makroblodkoagulering och en mängd andra biverkningar på global nivå.

5. Gjordes allt för att; stoppa eventuella dödliga eller inaktiverande förfaranden? - NEJ: På global nivå fortsatte statliga hälsomyndigheter att driva experimentella injektioner trots de försvagande biverkningarna och faktiska och potentiella dödsfall. Faktum är att de gjorde stora ansträngningar för att täcka upp / censurera VAERS rapporteringssystem och all offentlig dialog, varningar och kommunikation om biverkningar och vaccinskador på sociala medier.

6. Uppfylldes kriteriet; Graden av risk uppväger fördelarna? - NEJ: +98 % av befolkningen riskerade INTE Allvarlig eller medelsvår biverkning av SARS-CoV-2, och de experimentella mRNA-injektionerna förhindrade INTE överföring.

7. Var; lämpliga förberedelser och anläggningar förberedda för att förhindra avlägsna möjligheter till skada, funktionshinder eller dödsfall ?- NEJ: Mottagande individer var i stort sett omedvetna, hjärntvättade och propagandiserade (massbildningspsykos) av myndigheter och Msmedia. De experimenterades på och visste inte att de riskerade skada, funktionshinder och potentiellt död.

8. Tillsågs och säkerställdes att; Experimenten endast utfördes av de vetenskapligt kvalificerade ? - NEJ: Forskare som uttalade sig om de potentiella riskerna med de nya mRNA-injektionerna tystades, censurerades och skrämdes av myndigheterna. Big Pharma-propagandister tvingade folkhälsoarbetare på lägre nivå att administrera injektioner som de inte själva visste de sanna uppgifterna eller faktiska ingredienserna om. Läkarna visste inte att vaccinerna var säkra, de fick veta att de var säkra. De hade fel. Myndigheterna kapade termen "vetenskap" och uppfann begreppet; "vetenskapens hastighet – the speed of science", för att tvinga ännu fler tveksamma människor att ta skotten, när verklig vetenskap i själva verket aldrig gav någon myndighet mandat att göra det.

9. Kan; deltagarna fritt avsluta experimentet ? - NEJ: De flesta av dem vet inte att de experimenterats på, och även om de gör det har permanenta förändringar gjorts i deras kroppar via mRNA-teknik som vid tidpunkten för skrivandet av denna text, inte kan repareras och återställas så vitt vi vet.

10. Gjordes allt för att; stoppa experimentet när det visade sig vara farligt? - NEJ: Inte nog med att de inte slutade, de fortsatte, ökade sina ansträngningar, fördubblade insatser och missbrukade regeringens nödbefogenheter för att tysta, censurera och förtala människor som talade om de verkliga farorna med mRNA-vaccinerna på sociala medier och i det offentliga rummet.

Extra:

Vi bör också lägga till detta att, trots upprepade krav i många länder (inklusive min egen korrespondens med ansvariga myndigheter i Sverige) på att vetenskapligt presentera SARS- CoV-2 virusets fullständiga gensekvens framtagen genom de adekvata renhets- och isoleringsprocesser, enligt Kochs princip, som krävs för att detektera något virus, har aldrig några sådana bevis för virusets existens presenterats globalt. Var och en är fri att dra egna slutsatser utifrån detta.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

Regeringarnas, Big Pharmas, det medicinska industrikomplexets, det globala kollektiva Msmedia och globala institutioners handlingar bryter mot ALLA medicinska etiska normer och kränker de grundläggande mänskliga rättigheter som erkänns av varje suverän nation på planeten. Historiskt gäller - att alla vaccinprogram avslutas, korrigeras, justeras eller säkras när bara EN (NÅGON) av de 10 punkterna i Nürnbergkoden bryts. Vi finner nu att man brutit mot ALLA 10 punkter !! Därför kan vi dra slutsatsen att misslyckandena inte är tillfälliga, men organiserade. Detta är krig mot mänskligheten.

.....

WHO changes definitions on Pandemics, vaccines and immunity.

Fraud.

It's about controlling your consciousness.

The definition of "pandemic" has been changed

In recent years and months, the long-standing definitions of three words have changed, with huge implications for public health policy in the midst of COVID-19
The WHO's original definition of a pandemic from 1 May 2009 specified simultaneous epidemics worldwide "with an enormous number of deaths and diseases"; this definition was amended in the month before the swine flu pandemic in 2009, removing severity and high mortality criteria
COVID-19 vaccines are technically gene therapies and did not meet the definition of vaccine, until Merriam-Webster's vaccine definition was recently changed to - conveniently - include a description of the experimental gene therapies
From June 2020 to November 2020, the WHO amended its definition of herd immunity to suggest that it is a concept that applies only to vaccination, not naturally acquired immunity obtained from previous infection
The implication for society is that by posting this false information, they are trying to change your perception of what is true and not true, and distort the science in the process.

The even greater implication for society is that by posting this false information, they are trying to change your perception of what is true and what is not true, and distort the science in the process.

WHO changed the definition of pandemic

What exactly is a pandemic? The WHO's original definition of a pandemic from May 1, 2009, specified simultaneous epidemics worldwide "with an enormous number of deaths and diseases:"1,2

This definition was amended in the month before the swine flu pandemic in 2009, which removed severity and high mortality criteria and left the definition of a pandemic as "a worldwide epidemic of a disease". 3‎

This definition transition allowed the WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide, and that's why COVID-19 is still being marketed as a pandemic even though plenty of data suggest that covid-19 mortality is on par with seasonal flu.4

Vaccine definition changed

By referring to COVID-19 vaccines as "vaccines" rather than gene therapies, the U.S. government is violating its 15 U.S. Code Section 41.5 which regulates fraudulent practices in medical claims. Under this law, it is illegal to advertise:6

In addition, you cannot have a "vaccine" that does not meet the definition of a vaccine. Until recently, Merriam-Webster defined a vaccine as "a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living completely virulent organisms administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease." 7‎

COVID-19 vaccines are not conventional vaccines manufactured with live or attenuated viruses. It's actually gene therapies. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are made with lipid nanoparticles containing polyethylene glycol (PEG)8 and messenger RNA (mRNA).

mRNA is an extract of genetic code that contains instructions for cells to produce proteins. The definition of genetic is "related to genes" and genes contain instructional code that tells the body which proteins to make. Therapy is the medical treatment of disease, so mRNA vaccines are very clearly gene therapy.

As noted by David Martin, Ph.D., Moderna's SEC filings9 specify and emphasize that the FDA considers its technology to be a "gene therapy technique," originally intended for cancer treatment. Its mechanism of action also confirms that it is gene therapy. The MRNA gene therapies are currently misleadingly marketed as "vaccines" turn your cells into bioreactors that spew out viral proteins to elicit an immune response, and there is no off-switch.10

Conveniently, since COVID-19 "vaccines" did not meet the previous definition of vaccine, Merriam-Webster's vaccine definition has recently been changed to include a description of the experimental COVID-19 gene therapies:11

Moderna's SEC filings, which in the video above claim to have carefully reviewed, specified and emphasized that its technique is a "gene therapy technique." Initially, its technology was set to be a cancer treatment so more specifically it is a chemotherapy gene therapy technique.

As Martin noted, who would raise their hand to get prophylactic chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer you don't have and may never be at risk of? In all likelihood, would have to jump on such an offer, and for good reason.

States and employers would not be able to mandate individuals to receive chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer they don't have, because it simply wouldn't be legal.

Nevertheless, they suggest that all of humanity should be forced to receive gene therapy for COVID-19. If they actually called it what it is, namely "gene therapy chemotherapy," most people would - wisely - refuse to take it. Maybe that's one reason for their false categorization as vaccines.

But there may be other reasons as well. Martin deviates from guesswork, as we have no evidence of their intentions, but he speculates that the reason they call this experimental gene therapy technique a "vaccine" is that by doing so they can circumvent liability.

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 permits. And as long as the state of emergency use is in effect, the manufacturers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially responsible for any harm that comes from their use.

That is, provided they are "vaccines". If these injections are NOT vaccines, the shield of responsibility falls away, as there is no guarantee of liability for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy.

WHO changed the definition of herd immunity

In June 2020, the WHO definition of herd immunity, published on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here's what it originally said, courtesy of the Internet Archive's Wayback machine:12

It should be noted that "immunity developed by previous infection" is how it has worked since humans have lived. Your immune system is not designed to get vaccines. It is designed to act as a response to exposure to an infectious agent. According to the WHO, this is no longer the case. In October 2020, here is their updated definition of herd immunity, which is now "a concept used for vaccination":13

On Twitter, research analyst Heather Taylor posted a screenshot with the two definitions - one from June 9, 2020 and the other from November 13, 2020 - clearly altered to suggest that herd immunity for several months suddenly became a concept that applies only to vaccination. "This still surprises me," she wrote.14 It is indeed an obvious corruption of science.

‎I en 2020 JAMA Patient Page om flockimmunitet förklarar Dr. Angel Desai, biträdande redaktör för JAMA Network Open, och Maimuna Majumder, Ph.D., med Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, tydligt att flockimmunitet kan uppnås genom naturlig infektion och återhämtning, som alltid har varit fallet:15‎

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/22/who-pandemic-definition.aspx?ui=a468010ffca324df72434fc1695dac5999dd01a6bba7897c6a8cbd3afbd3d619&sd=20210122&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2HL&cid=20210322&mid=DM836859&rid=1113716703

‎"Flockimmunitet kan uppnås antingen genom infektion och återhämtning eller genom vaccination ... Att uppnå flockimmunitet genom infektion är beroende av att tillräckligt många människor smittas med sjukdomen och återhämtar sig från den, under vilken de utvecklar antikroppar mot framtida infektion.‎

‎Vacciner tränar vårt immunsystem för att skapa proteiner som bekämpar sjukdomar, så kallade "antikroppar", precis som när vi utsätts för en sjukdom, men - vilket är avgörande - vacciner fungerar utan att göra oss sjuka. Vaccinerade människor skyddas från att få sjukdomen i fråga och föra den vidare och bryta alla överföringskedjor."‎

‎"Flockimmunitet", även känd som "befolkningsimmunitet", är ett begrepp som används för vaccination, där en population kan skyddas mot ett visst virus om en vaccinationströskel uppnås. Flockimmunitet uppnås genom att skydda människor från ett virus, inte genom att utsätta dem för det.‎

‎"Flockimmunitet är det indirekta skyddet mot en infektionssjukdom som inträffar när en population är immun antingen genom vaccination eller immunitet som utvecklats genom tidigare infektion."‎

‎b: en beredning av genetiskt material (t.ex. en sträng av syntetiserat budbärar-RNA) som används av kroppens celler för att producera ett antigent ämne (t.ex. ett fragment av virusspikprotein)"‎

‎a: ett antigenpreparat av ett typiskt inaktiverat eller försvagat (se försvagat avkänningsämne 2) patogent medel (t.ex. en bakterie eller ett virus) eller en av dess komponenter eller produkter (t.ex. ett protein eller toxin)‎

‎"Ett preparat som administreras (som genom injektion) för att stimulera kroppens immunsvar mot en specifik infektionssjukdom:‎

‎"... that a product or service can prevent, treat or cure diseases in humans if you do not have competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, where appropriate, well-controlled clinical studies of humans, proving that the claims are true at the time they are made."

"A flu pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus occurs against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with an enormous number of deaths and diseases."

.....

Svenska.

A. - Definitioner av begrepp kring"pandemi" har ändrats‎

‎Under de senaste åren och månaderna har de långvariga definitionerna av tre ord förändrats, med enorma konsekvenser för folkhälsopolitiken mitt i covid-19‎
‎WHO: s ursprungliga definition av en pandemi från den 1 maj 2009 specificerade samtidiga epidemier över hela världen "med ett enormt antal dödsfall och sjukdomar"; denna definition ändrades under månaden före svininfluensapandemin 2009, vilket avlägsnade allvarlighetsgrad och höga dödlighetskriterier‎
‎COVID-19-vacciner är tekniskt genterapier och uppfyllde inte definitionen av vaccin, förrän Merriam-Websters vaccindefinition nyligen ändrades till - bekvämt – att inkludera en beskrivning av de experimentella genterapierna‎
‎Från juni 2020 till november 2020 ändrade WHO sin definition av flockimmunitet för att antyda att det är ett begrepp som endast gäller vaccination, inte naturligt förvärvad immunitet som erhållits från tidigare infektion‎
‎Innebörden för samhället är att genom att lägga ut denna falska information, försöker de ändra din uppfattning om vad som är sant och inte sant, och förvränga vetenskapen i processen‎

‎Den ännu större implikationen för samhället är att genom att lägga ut denna falska information försöker de ändra din uppfattning om vad som är sant och inte sant, och förvränga vetenskapen i processen.‎

‎B. - WHO ändrade definitionen av pandemi‎

‎Vad är egentligen en pandemi? WHO: s ursprungliga definition av en pandemi från 1 maj 2009, specificerade samtidiga epidemier över hela världen "med ett enormt antal dödsfall och sjukdomar:"1,2‎

‎Denna definition ändrades under månaden före svininfluensapandemin 2009, vilket tog bort allvarlighetsgrad och höga dödlighetskriterier och lämnade definitionen av en pandemi som "en världsomspännande epidemi av en sjukdom". 3‎

‎Denna definitionsövergång tillät WHO att förklara svininfluensan som en pandemi efter att endast 144 personer hade dött av infektionen över hela världen, och det är därför COVID-19 fortfarande marknadsförs som en pandemi även om massor av data tyder på att dödligheten i COVID-19 är i nivå med säsongsinfluensan.4‎

‎C. - Vaccindefinitionen ändrad‎

‎Genom att hänvisa till COVID-19-vacciner som "vacciner" snarare än genterapier bryter den amerikanska regeringen mot sin 15 amerikanska kodsektion 41,5 som reglerar bedrägliga metoder i medicinska påståenden. Enligt denna lag är det olagligt att annonsera:6‎

‎Dessutom kan du inte ha ett "vaccin" som inte uppfyller definitionen av ett vaccin. Fram till nyligen definierade Merriam-Webster ett vaccin som "en beredning av dödade mikroorganismer, levande försvagade organismer eller levande helt virulenta organismer som administreras för att producera eller artificiellt öka immuniteten mot en viss sjukdom.". 7‎

‎COVID-19-vacciner är inte konventionella vacciner som tillverkas med levande eller försvagade virus. Det är faktiskt genterapier. Pfizer- och Modernavaccinerna är tillverkade med lipidnanopartiklar som innehåller polyetylenglykol (PEG)8 och budbärar-RNA (mRNA).‎

‎mRNA är utdrag av genetisk kod som innehåller instruktioner för celler att producera proteiner. Definitionen av genetisk är "relaterad till gener" och gener innehåller instruktionskod som talar om för kroppen vilka proteiner som ska tillverkas. Terapi är medicinsk behandling av sjukdom, så mRNA-vacciner är mycket tydligt genterapi.‎

‎Som noterats av David Martin, Ph.D., Modernas SEC-ansökningar9 specificerar och betonar att FDA anser att dess teknik är en "genterapiteknik", ursprungligen avsedd för cancerbehandling. Dess verkningsmekanism bekräftar också att det är genterapi. MRNA-genterapierna marknadsförs för närvarande vilseledande som "vacciner" förvandlar dina celler till bioreaktorer som sprutar ut virusproteiner för att framkalla ett immunsvar, och det finns ingen off-switch.10‎

‎Bekvämt, eftersom COVID-19 "vacciner" inte uppfyllde den tidigare definitionen av vaccin, har Merriam-Websters vaccindefinition nyligen ändrats för att inkludera en beskrivning av de experimentella COVID-19-genterapierna:11‎

‎Modernas SEC-ansökningar, som i videon ovan hävdar att han noggrant har granskat, specificerat och betonat att dess teknik är en "genterapiteknik". Ursprungligen var dess teknik inställd på att vara en cancerbehandling så mer specifikt är det en kemoterapigenterapiteknik.‎

‎Som Martin noterade, vem skulle räcka upp handen för att få profylaktisk kemoterapigenterapi för en cancer du inte har och kanske aldrig är i riskzonen för? Med all sannolikhet skulle få hoppa på ett sådant erbjudande, och av goda skäl.‎

‎Stater och arbetsgivare skulle inte kunna ge individer mandat att få kemoterapigenterapi för en cancer som de inte har, eftersom det helt enkelt inte skulle vara lagligt.‎

‎Ändå föreslår de att hela mänskligheten ska tvingas få genterapi för COVID-19. Om de faktiskt kallade det vad det är, nämligen "genterapi kemoterapi", skulle de flesta - klokt nog - vägra att ta det. Kanske är det en anledning till deras falska kategorisering som vacciner.‎

‎Men det kan finnas andra skäl också. Martin avviker från gissningar, eftersom vi inte har några bevis för deras avsikter, men han spekulerar i att anledningen till att de kallar denna experimentella genterapiteknik ett "vaccin" är att de genom att göra det kan kringgå skadeståndsansvaret.‎

‎Så länge USA är under undantagstillstånd är saker som PCR-tester och COVID-19 "vacciner" tillåtna enligt tillstånd för nödanvändning. Och så länge tillståndet för nödanvändning är i kraft är tillverkarna av dessa experimentella genterapier inte ekonomiskt ansvariga för någon skada som kommer från deras användning.‎

‎Det vill säga, förutsatt att de är "vacciner". Om dessa injektioner INTE är vacciner faller ansvarsskölden bort, eftersom det inte finns någon ansvarsgaranti för en medicinsk akut motåtgärd som är genterapi.‎

‎D. - WHO ändrade definitionen av flockimmunitet‎

‎I juni 2020 var WHO:s definition av flockimmunitet, publicerad på en av deras COVID-19 Q&A-sidor, i linje med det allmänt accepterade konceptet som har varit standarden för infektionssjukdomar i årtionden. Här är vad det ursprungligen sa, med tillstånd av Internet Archive's Wayback machine:12‎

‎Det bör noteras att "immunitet utvecklad genom tidigare infektion" är hur det har fungerat sedan människor har levt. Ditt immunsystem är inte utformat för att få vaccin. Det är utformat för att fungera som svar på exponering för ett smittämne. Enligt WHO är det tydligen inte längre så. I oktober 2020, här är deras uppdaterade definition av flockimmunitet, som nu är "ett koncept som används för vaccination":13‎

‎På Twitter publicerade forskningsanalytikern Heather Taylor en skärmdump med de två definitionerna - den ena från den 9 juni 2020 och den andra från den 13 november 2020 - tydligt förändrad för att antyda att flockimmunitet under flera månader plötsligt blev ett koncept som bara gäller vaccination. "Detta förvånar mig fortfarande", skrev hon.14 Det är verkligen en uppenbar korruption av vetenskapen.‎

‎"Flockimmunitet kan uppnås antingen genom infektion och återhämtning eller genom vaccination ... Att uppnå flockimmunitet genom infektion är beroende av att tillräckligt många människor smittas med sjukdomen och återhämtar sig från den, under vilken de utvecklar antikroppar mot framtida infektion.‎

‎Vacciner tränar vårt immunsystem för att skapa proteiner som bekämpar sjukdomar, så kallade "antikroppar", precis som när vi utsätts för en sjukdom, men - vilket är avgörande - vacciner fungerar utan att göra oss sjuka. Vaccinerade människor skyddas från att få sjukdomen i fråga och föra den vidare och bryta alla överföringskedjor."‎

‎"Flockimmunitet", även känd som "befolkningsimmunitet", är ett begrepp som används för vaccination, där en population kan skyddas mot ett visst virus om en vaccinationströskel uppnås. Flockimmunitet uppnås genom att skydda människor från ett virus, inte genom att utsätta dem för det.‎

‎"Flockimmunitet är det indirekta skyddet mot en infektionssjukdom som inträffar när en population är immun antingen genom vaccination eller immunitet som utvecklats genom tidigare infektion."‎

‎b: en beredning av genetiskt material (t.ex. en sträng av syntetiserat budbärar-RNA) som används av kroppens celler för att producera ett antigent ämne (t.ex. ett fragment av virusspikprotein)"‎

‎a: ett antigenpreparat av ett typiskt inaktiverat eller försvagat (se försvagat avkänningsämne 2) patogent medel (t.ex. en bakterie eller ett virus) eller en av dess komponenter eller produkter (t.ex. ett protein eller toxin)‎

‎"Ett preparat som administreras (som genom injektion) för att stimulera kroppens immunsvar mot en specifik infektionssjukdom:‎

‎"... att en produkt eller tjänst kan förebygga, behandla eller bota sjukdomar hos människor om du inte har kompetenta och tillförlitliga vetenskapliga bevis, inklusive, när så är lämpligt, välkontrollerade kliniska studier av människor, som styrker att påståendena är sanna vid den tidpunkt då de görs."‎

‎"En influensapandemi uppstår när ett nytt influensavirus uppträder mot vilket den mänskliga befolkningen inte har någon immunitet, vilket resulterar i flera samtidiga epidemier över hela världen med ett enormt antal dödsfall och sjukdomar."‎

.....

Statement on Virus Isolation (SOVI)

Isolation: "The action of isolating; the fact or condition of being isolated

or standing alone; separation from other things or persons; solitariness."

—From the Oxford English Dictionary

The controversy over whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ever been

isolated or purified continues. However, using the above definition,

common sense, the laws of logic and the dictates of science, any unbiased

person must come to the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never

been isolated or purified. As a result, no confirmation of the virus'

existence can be found. The logical, common sense, and scientific

consequences of this fact are:

- the structure and composition of something not shown to exist can't

be known, including the presence, structure, and function of any

hypothetical spike or other proteins;

- the genetic sequence of something that has never been found can't be

known;

- "variants" of something that hasn't been shown to exist can't be

known;

- it's impossible to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease

called Covid-19.

In as concise terms as possible, here's the proper way to isolate,

characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood,

sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms which are

unique and specific enough to characterize an illness. Without mixing these

samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material, the

virologist macerates, filters and ultracentrifuges i.e. purifies the specimen.

This common virology technique, done for decades to isolate

bacteriophages1 and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, then

allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of

identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and

purified virus.

These identical particles are then checked for uniformity by physical and/or

microscopic techniques. Once the purity is determined, the particles may

be further characterized. This would include examining the structure,

morphology, and chemical composition of the particles. Next, their genetic

makeup is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the

purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger

sequencing, that have also been around for decades. Then one does an

analysis to confirm that these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in

origin as a virus is conceptualized to be, and not the normal breakdown

products of dead and dying tissues.

2 (As of May 2020, we know that

virologists have no way to determine whether the particles they're seeing

are viruses or just normal break-down products of dead and dying tissues.)

If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, and

genetically sequenced an exogenous virus particle. However, we still have

to show it is causally related to a disease. This is carried out by exposing a

group of healthy subjects (animals are usually used) to this isolated,

purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be

transmitted. If the animals get sick with the same disease, as confirmed by

clinical and autopsy findings, one has now shown that the virus actually

causes a disease. This demonstrates infectivity and transmission of an

infectious agent.

None of these steps has even been attempted with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,

nor have all these steps been successfully performed for any so-called

1 Isolation, characterization and analysis of bacteriophages from the haloalkaline lake Elmenteita, KenyaJuliah Khayeli

Akhwale et al, PLOS One, Published: April 25, 2019.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215734 -- accessed 2/15/21 2 "Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Apoptotic Cells: An Essential Link Between Death and Regeneration,"

Maojiao Li1 et al, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2020 October 2.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.573511/full -- accessed 2/15/21 3 "The Role of Extraellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses," Flavia Giannessi, et al, Viruses, 2020

May

pathogenic virus. Our research indicates that a single study showing these

steps does not exist in the medical literature.

Instead, since 1954, virologists have taken unpurified samples from a

relatively few people, often less than ten, with a similar disease. They then

minimally process this sample and inoculate this unpurified sample onto

tissue culture containing usually four to six other types of material — all of

which contain identical genetic material as to what is called a "virus."

The tissue culture is starved and poisoned and naturally disintegrates into

many types of particles, some of which contain genetic material. Against

all common sense, logic, use of the English language and scientific

integrity, this process is called "virus isolation." This brew containing

fragments of genetic material from many sources is then subjected to

genetic analysis, which then creates in a computer-simulation process the

alleged sequence of the alleged virus, a so called in silico genome. At no

time is an actual virus confirmed by electron microscopy. At no time is a

genome extracted and sequenced from an actual virus. This is scientific

fraud.

The observation that the unpurified specimen — inoculated onto tissue

culture along with toxic antibiotics, bovine fetal tissue, amniotic fluid and

other tissues — destroys the kidney tissue onto which it is inoculated is

given as evidence of the virus' existence and pathogenicity. This is

scientific fraud.

From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-

CoV-2 virus has been isolated, please check the methods sections. If the

researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that

their process was not isolation. You will hear the following excuses for

why actual isolation isn't done:

1. There were not enough virus particles found in samples from patients

to analyze.

2. Viruses are intracellular parasites; they can't be found outside the cell

in this manner.

If No. 1 is correct, and we can't find the virus in the sputum of sick people,

then on what evidence do we think the virus is dangerous or even lethal? If

No. 2 is correct, then how is the virus spread from person to person? We

are told it emerges from the cell to infect others. Then why isn't it possible

to find it?

Finally, questioning these virology techniques and conclusions is not some

distraction or divisive issue. Shining the light on this truth is essential to

stop this terrible fraud that humanity is confronting. For, as we now know,

if the virus has never been isolated, sequenced or shown to cause illness, if

the virus is imaginary, then why are we wearing masks, social distancing

and putting the whole world into prison?

Finally, if pathogenic viruses don't exist, then what is going into those

injectable devices erroneously called "vaccines," and what is their purpose?

This scientific question is the most urgent and relevant one of our time.

We are correct. The SARS-CoV2 virus does not exist.

Sally Fallon Morell, MA

Dr. Thomas Cowan, MD

Dr. Andrew Kaufman, MD

truths;

We all have been lied to on Covid 19 Sars 2 and a Justice System founded on massive constructive fraud;

Millions of people are waking with truth and it requires all in law enforcement now join and fight this evil;

This is our moment... This is our time in history to stop the genocide now occurring with one simple truth;

I... with Christopher affix our seals and state all here in be true so help us god under penalty of death.

______________________________ ___________________________________

Gabriel Gilles of the Proulx family Christopher James of the Pritchard family

Dated September 13th, 2021

Foundational Evidence filed September 13th 2021 on and for the Public Record

 Dr. Roger Hodkinson pathologist holding multiple highly recognized positions

https://www.bitchute.com/video/hvo3yP8aC5K3/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/m1iRDoXdA7yr/

 Christine Massey FOI PDF [Exhibit 1, 2 & Affidavit] Corona Virus Sars 2 no evidence exists isolated

https://www.brighteon.com/70505743-f291-41ce-994f-84006136a8d1

 Dr Andrew Kaufman & Dr Tom Cowan 'Covid 19 Sars 2 Virus Never Isolated'

https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Statement-of-Virus-Isolation-SOVI-by-

Morell-Cowan-and-Kaufman.pdf.pagespeed.ce.w_dQtmKXl0.pdf

Mike Adams Interview https://www.brighteon.com/8eb55c10-68c5-4702-9ea7-649df190f61c

 Dr. Sean Brooks [Oxford] and Multiple Doctors Worldwide Expose The Fraud

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Xxed7jUAiDnT/

 Dr. Lee Merrit Exposes Covid 19 Bioweapon Agenda / National Security Threat

https://www.bitchute.com/video/s2RZHuo7CJpb/

https://www.brighteon.com/114cb899-3e57-4791-b9ee-f80fffe99107

https://www.bitchute.com/video/l7DMffAjMTIl/

 Experimental covid injections [vaccines they are not] contain Graphene Oxide = Poison= Murder

https://rumble.com/vlvvs7-absolute-proof-covid-shots-contain-lethal-parasites-graphene-oxide-stainles.html

 Dr. David E. Martin drops shocking COVID info on Canadians!

https://www.bitchute.com/video/mwsU8yOusHJi/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/MDQtZ7L8pv1C/

Vaccine Canada Explosive Interview https://www.bitchute.com/video/SJIQin3Iji5N/

 Dr Michael McDowell explains the True Agenda behind the creation of Covid 19

https://www.bitchute.com/video/OKz06MpT2BuJ/

 Former VP Pfizer whistle blower Dr. Michael Yeadon and Karen Kingston confirm Graphene Oxide

https://www.brighteon.com/3e513670-e06c-4ad3-8fd7-5a13e7acb846

https://www.brighteon.com/2f3c80ae-1684-4959-afcf-d28456d78b1e

 Dr. Sherri Tenpenny fraud of PCR test,

https://www.brighteon.com/a21f1107-d59c-4a6a-97b7-ded76b904624

 Fauci Corruption Exposed Dr. Judy Mikovits with Christopher James

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zA8ZvaSorA9e/

https://www.brighteon.com/9d62e7b2-945f-4fda-a4ef-726c6382688d

https://www.brighteon.com/6c2d0868-a6f1-4cd2-89ac-61bfcd7062cb

 Creator of PCR test Kary Mullis exposes Fauci/Test is not for Covid then found murdered

https://www.brighteon.com/4b9b805f-a125-4373-b5b8-04fb8915faea

https://www.brighteon.com/d07c9af6-25b7-4f0b-808f-b24e1cf64392

.....

E. - Autonoma rättigheter.

Den kanadensiska organisationen OCLA (Ontario Civil Liberties Association) presenterade 8 Läkare som agerar för försvaret av de individuella och kroppsliga autonoma rättigheterna, informerat medgivande och upprätthållande av de naturliga rättigheterna gällande individens beslut att förbli "ovaccinerad".

- 2 Augusti 2021.

Bli aldrig rädd eller ge vika för påtryckningar. Du har all rätt att visa motståndskraft, integritet och tåga. Du har rätt att komma samman med likasinnade i din närhet för att organisera er, för att assistera och hjälpa varandra att stå upp för vetenskaplig ansvarighet och yttrandefrihet som krävs för att sämhället skall utvecklas och blomstra. Vi, och många fler med oss, står tillsammans med er för era rättigheter i detta "brev till de ovaccinerade".

Angela Durante, PhD,

DRinner. PhD,

Laurent Leduc, PhD,

Donald Welsh, PhD,

John Zwaagstra, PhD,

Jan Vrbik, PhD,

Valentina Capurri, PhD,

‎OCLA-forskaren Dr. Denis Rancourt och flera andra kanadensiska akademiker skrev ett öppet brev för att stödja dem som har beslutat att inte acceptera COVID-19-vaccinet.‎enis Rancourt, PhD,

Claus

D1. ‎Gruppen betonar den frivilliga karaktären hos denna medicinska behandling samt behovet av informerat samtycke och individuell risk-nyttobedömning. De avvisar påtryckningarna från folkhälsotjänstemän, nyheter och sociala medier och medborgare.‎

‎D2. Kontroll över vår kroppsliga integritet kan mycket väl vara den yttersta gränsen i kampen för att skydda medborgerliga friheter. Läs brevet nedan eller som PDF här.‎

‎Öppet brev till de ovaccinerade‎

‎D3. Du är inte ensam! Den 28 juli 2021 har 29 % av kanadensarna inte fått något covid-19-vaccin, och ytterligare 14 % har fått ett skott. I USA och i Europeiska unionen är mindre än hälften av befolkningen fullt vaccinerad, och även i Israel, "världens labb" enligt Pfizer, förblir en tredjedel av människorna helt ovaccinerade. Politiker och medier har intagit en enhetlig ståndpunkt och gjort de ovaccinerade ansvariga för de problem som har uppstått efter arton månader av rädsla och nedstängningar. Det är dags att reda ut det hela.‎

‎D4. Det är helt rimligt och legitimt att säga nej till otillräckligt testade vacciner för vilka det inte finns någon tillförlitlig vetenskap. Du har rätt att hävda förmyndarskap av din kropp och att vägra medicinsk behandling om du anser det lämpligt. Ni gör rätt i att säga nej till en kränkning av er värdighet, er integritet och er kroppsliga autonomi. Det är din kropp, och du har rätt att välja. Ni gör rätt i att kämpa för era barn mot deras massvaccinering i skolan.‎

‎D5. Du har rätt att ifrågasätta om fritt och informerat samtycke över huvud taget är möjligt under nuvarande omständigheter. Långsiktiga effekter är okända. Transgenerationella effekter är okända. Vaccininducerad avreglering av naturlig immunitet är okänd. Potentiell skada är okänd eftersom rapporteringen av avvikande händelser är försenad, ofullständig och inkonsekvent mellan jurisdiktioner.‎

‎D6. Du blir måltavla för mainstream-medier, statliga sociala ingenjörskampanjer, orättvisa regler och policyer, samarbetande arbetsgivare och den sociala mediemobben. Ni får höra att det nu är ni som är problemet och att världen inte kan återgå till det normala om man inte vaccinerar er. Du blir brutalt syndabock av propaganda och pressad av andra omkring dig. Kom ihåg; Det är inget fel på dig.‎

D7. ‎Du anklagas felaktigt för att vara en fabrik för nya SARS-CoV-2-varianter, när ditt naturliga immunsystem faktiskt, enligt ledande forskare, genererar immunitet mot flera komponenter i viruset. Detta kommer att främja ditt skydd mot ett stort antal virusvarianter och upphäver att de ytterligare sprids till någon annan.‎

‎D8. Ni har rätt att kräva oberoende peer-reviewed studier, inte finansierade av multinationella läkemedelsföretag. Alla expertgranskade studier av kortsiktig säkerhet och kortsiktig effektivitet har finansierats, organiserats, samordnats och stöds av dessa vinstdrivande företag. och ingen av studiedata har offentliggjorts eller varit tillgänglig för forskare som inte arbetar för dessa företag.‎

‎D9. Du gör rätt i att ifrågasätta de preliminära resultaten av vaccinförsöket. De påstådda höga värdena för relativ effekt förlitar sig på ett litet antal svagt bestämda "infektioner". Studierna var inte heller blinda, där personer som gav injektionerna visserligen visste eller kunde härleda om de injicerade det experimentella vaccinet eller placebo. Detta är inte godtagbar vetenskaplig metod för vaccinförsök.‎

‎D10. Ni har rätt i era krav på en mångfald av vetenskapliga åsikter. Liksom i naturen behöver vi en polykultur av information och dess tolkningar. Och det har vi inte just nu. Att välja att inte ta vaccinet är att hålla utrymme för förnuft, öppenhet och ansvarsskyldighet att växa fram. Ni gör rätt i att fråga: "Vad händer härnäst när vi ger bort makten över våra egna kroppar?"‎

‎Låt dig inte skrämmas. Du visar motståndskraft, integritet och tåga. Ni samlas i era samhällen, planerar att hjälpa varandra och står för vetenskapligt ansvar och yttrandefrihet, som krävs för att samhället ska blomstra. Vi är bland många som står vid din sida.‎

.....

The Informed Consent Imperative.

Source: ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network)(A) – Legal Team. Aaron Siri ESQ Lead Counsel.

Issue: The protection of individual Medical Autonomy.

What is informed consent ?

It means that every individual have the right and ability TO consent or NOT to consent to medical interventions, based on information provided doctors, medical professionals, scientists, existing medical studies, test- and experimental studies, clinical trials, medical safety and efficacy evaluation protocols and your own personal research on each specific topic. Each individual first get informed, then they decide whether TO consent or NOT to consent.

These are the 6 basic questions that needs to be asked and answered before any decision on medical intervention should take place.

1. Does the Manufacturer stand behind the Product or medical Intervention ?

- Is there a warranty ?

- Is there a Guarantee ?

- Is it safe ?

- What happens if it brakes / fails ? Are you going to repair / fix it ?

- Is there documented experimental and evaluated data available ?

- What are the risks versus the benefits ?

In reality. When it comes to most vaccines on the market, the manufacturers does NOT stand behind their vaccine products. The Vaccine schedule (1950-2018 ) up until 1986, Many manufacturers of vaccines tried to survive with their own brands. there where only 3 routine childhood vaccines; DTP (Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis), OPV (Polio) and MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella). Smallpox was discontinued in 1972. Reality outcome prevented the number of vaccines on the market. The amount of harm they caused to children was so great and there were so many lawsuits and financial harm (litigation costs) to the manufacturing companies that they choosed to go out of business or stop making vaccines. In the beginning of the 1980:s there were only 3 manufacturers for the 3 routine vaccines left on the marketplace. Up until 1986, the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention)(B) recommended 12-shots (25 antigens, 8 diseases) in its childhood vaccine schedule. In 2023 that number has increased to 59-shots (71 antigens, 17 diseases). Why this "evolution" ? In 1986, the 3 manufacturers convinced US Congress to grant them immunity to dangers caused by their vaccine products. Instead of them having to make a much safer and better product, the US Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986 (C)wich permitted the manufacturers to continue selling their product, irrespective of the level of harm they caused. The problem is that, not only did the US Congress grant the manufacturers immunity for theese 3 routine vaccines, they also got immunity for ANY future childhood vaccine product. No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine. Immunity is also given for any future "emergency" related vaccines and relates to the PREP-Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preaparedness Act 2005)(D).

When searching other products on any market, I have not been able to find any other consumer product granted with immunity of this magnitude. Giving immunity to any manufacturer disincentives safety – always. Liability drives consumer product safety – always.

2. Did it´s Clinical Trial Prove it was Safe ? 16:14

A: Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials, are critical for assessing safety because they can prove causation of any harm and the product.

"Unfortunately", regulations dictate that you can not do any placebo-controlled clinical trials after the product is licensed, only before it is licensed.

So, the Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial before licensing of the product is very important indeed.

Trials and tests after licensing a product will never assert any causation between the product and any degree of harm, it can only give rise to various degrees of concern. Health authorities will never reach any conclusions that can prove any causation between a licensed product and various numbers and degrees of harm. It can then only result in "concerns" and minor advisory notes. That is the regulations, dictated by the manufacturers themselves as it seems. Any injury by any licensed product can only be hypothetically correlated – not definitively caused.

(Enclosed Link of M.D. Stanley Plotkin (E)(1,2) (world´s leading authority on vaccines) ontestifying deposition on January 11, 2018, about clinical trials-harm-risks-ethicacy and ingredients in vaccines).

1. https://youtu.be/vhNGu3jFylU?si=lrgXOSIiol7G-mde

2. https://youtu.be/Ms_FbdWq2G4?si=1nmuMYZaD72Uanrx

3. Questions to Ask when Assessing a Clinical Trial and the Risk factor.

1. Duration safety reviewed ?

Days, weeks, months, years ? Longer = often more reliable trial.

2. Proper control ?

Large comparison groups. Exposure group vs placebo group. Total comparison and statistical number outcomes.

3. Enough people ?

Large groups (numbers) of exposed. Larger = often more reliable trial.

Worth of notice: The Manufacturer of the vaccines are those who will conduct the studies and the trials. This is many times questionable and complicating because it will raise concerns of financial and operative bias and double interests at play. Adding to this, the pharmaceutical companies hire professional epidemiologists and medical experts to conduct oversight and inspection of their own trials. Theese experts are often clustered in various medical companies providing investigative and oversight control of clinical trials. Unfortunately the bias is hard to ignore, since many of the medical experts set to control the vaccine companies clinical trials, themselves has been employed or have had financial ties to the same companies that they now would control. Many has pointed this out as a "Revolving door" between the manufacturing companies and the control companies and other medical experts set to control the clinical studies.

There is an entity that is supposed to be non-biased wich is an organisation called DSMB (The independent data and safety monitoring board) (F)(which allegedly does not take funds from the manufacturing companies ?) that conduct oversight over clinical and other test trials. Some of the medical esperts on this board though, have had positions of employment in the same pharmaceutical companies they are set to oversight. One major example of this is Dr. Kathryn Edwards (Principal Investigator, Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Projec. Also Member of the Data Safety Monitoring board for Pfizer´s COVID-19 Vaccine trials. Also Co-Author to the book "Plotkins Vaccines") was directly before her position at the DSMB employed and payed by Pfizer. The Pharmaceutical companies upholds a circulatory system of influence and they seek and employes the most prominent scholars, epidemiologists and medical experts who leaves and returns in different capacities of employment or control / oversight companies and the license authorities, it is hard to separate bias or interdependency from independency. Many have underlined the issue of "revolving doors" in the Pharmaceutical industry and its many satellite companies.

If something of major concern comes up under a clinical trial, there are instances when they need to report to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) (G) and correspond regarding precautions, restrictions or other advisory topics regarding certain products. However, more than 50 % of the FDA budget comes from the Pharmaceutical companies themselves wich is far from an ideal situation regarding financial bias and dependency issues. The manufacturers seek their products to be licensed by the FDA and pays the FDA for each licensed product.

Some links (3,4) regarding how to determine 1-Duration, 2-Control and 3-Size of a Clinical Trial:

3. https://icandecide.org/72-vaccine-doses-no-placebo-trials/

4. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/vaccines-licensed-use-united-states

In every case before a court of law, any vaccine victime and his/hers lawyers, has to prove causation with a certain vaccine product. Since 1986 (vaccine manufacturers gets immunity), no one can sue the vaccine manufacturers, so the only one left to sue is the federal government !! When the 1986 Congress gave immunity to the Pharmaceutical companies, they recognized it would leave a void. Individual must therefore bring any claim before a federal court of claims. So the congress put up the NVICP (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program)(H)administered today through the HRSA (Human Resources & Services Administration)(I) wich is a department of the federal government, and counterpart in any vaccine injury lawsuit, in wich the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the NIH (National Institutes of Health) is located. Theese organisations are equipped and statutory required to fight any individual who claims any vaccine injury before a court of law. The legal claims of vaccine injury is directed against the DOJ (Department of Justice) who uses all experts, corporate knowledge and legal resources to fight any individual claim. Vaccines is the only product, were the government defends the company against the consumer vs the consumer against any company.

So, one would think that it would be helpful to have a report reviewing all studies of commonly claimed serious injuries from vaccines. CDC and HRSA actually commission such a report in 2012 in wich they compiled this data:

Link (5) Reviewing report.

5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

What this report compiled was a closer look at 158 most common serious injuries claimed from vaccines. The CDC and HRSA paid the IOM (Institute of Medicine) (J) (created by congress) review these 158 most common injuries claimed from vaccines. That included all existing clinical trials before licensure and studies after licensure on those most serious injurie claims.

Link(6) 158 most common injuries from vaccines.

6. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/13164/chapter/2

Result of the above report:

Of the 158 serious harms studied:

For 18, evidence supported a causal relationship.
For 5, evidence rejects a causal relationship.
For 135, evidence insufficient to reach conclusion.

It is disturbing to relize that on 135 of the most serious vaccine injury claims, there has never been any sufficient studie and/or there is lack of data or unclear data to reach any conclusion. How do any individual or parent to child, go forward and give consent to any medical intervention for at least 153 of the 158 interventions ? It is getting more and more impossible based on this context. It is imposible to compare and assess the RISK versus the REWARD consenting to most of these interventions for any individual. Even if one individual clearly can see the BENEFITS taking one specific vaccine product, how can one actually consent to such a procedure if there is no possibility to assess any data of the potential RISKS ??

In this environment, this is why the individual CONSENT – part is so important. It should never be at risk of being taken away !

4. What are the Benefits of the Product ? 54:00

Before taking any medicine always ask:

Do I need this Product ?

Am I at Risk ?

Always seek the information of manufacturer responsability, age group, duration, proper study, placebo trial, enough people participating and the result of those trials conducted to assess potential risks vs benefits before allowing any medical intervention.

Always search for the mortality and health/complications data of any sickness or disease before considering any vaccine product.

Always avoid the fear mongering campaigns from media, industry and politics before and under any "new" vaccine product outroll on the public. The Pharmaceutical industry has vast financial resources and will use their influence to enhance the benefits and marketing of their products in helth institutions, media, politics and tech/social search engines and platforms.

Link(7) CDC-Mortality chart for ex; Measles.

7. https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/cdc-reported-cases-and-deaths-m-vaccine-preventable-diseases-3.pdf

What is an obvious trend is often that the actual deaths from many diseases dramatically declines under a period where public health, food and hygiene standards in general advanced in society as knowledge spread about its importance. The death rate data plummeted during this period before any vaccine was ever introduced. Widespread knowledge about this fact would have made it almost impossible for the vaccine manufacturers to spread their products. In the case of the measles the first measles vaccine was distributed in 1963, while the death data for measles had plummeted towards almost insignificant risks for several years before any vaccine introduction.

Ex; current MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine licensed in 1978 was based only upon:

834 Children.
No Control Placebo studies.
42 days of safety review.
Similar trial data relied upon the license original MMR in 1971.

The FDA-licensing of many vaccines are unfortunately often underpowered, has NO-Control studies and the safety reviews is to short.

In the immunity Act of 1986 congress required the CDC to create the vaccine information statement to be enclosed for each specific vaccine product to at least inform the public about the degree of adverse events and if they would occur more often, common or rarely. Before administer any vaccine to any individual, the doctor responsible for the administration must display this vaccine information statement for the patient to read before being injected or not.

5. Can You Determine if the Risk Outweighs the Benefits ? 1:10:55

- If Risks are NOT clearly established, no one can judge if risks outweighs benefit.

Make sure the Risks of any medical product and intervention are documented, assesst and pre-licensed with proper numbers and placebo group trials. This is were many products actually fails in reliability.

6. Can You Trust the People Recommending the Product ? 1:11:13

Even if you decide to allow a specific medical intervention neglecting to absorb all the information, aspects and data we just wrote about under the above stated questions, and just choose to trust the CDC, the FDA or my local hospital and my personal doctors advice – Then there is still a final question left – Can I trust the recommendations given by the CDC, the FDA or the local hospital or my personal doctor ?

Are they free from medical bias, pressure, financing and directives from the Pharmaceutical lobby and operating without conflicting interests as institutions, regulators and doctors ? Are these recommendations based solely and firstly on my own health benefits and can these recommendations be controlled and meeting the standards through the 6 question protocol that we just put up above ?

Link(8) Medical bias and conflicted operators.

8. https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/aaron-siri-gives-testimony-on-the-floor-of-arizona-state-senate/

In a Congressional House report (June of Year 2000) they found financial, professional and other bias dependencies between the CDC and the FDA. They pointed out the obvious "Revolving doors" between the Pharmaceutical companies and its regulators and many inappropriate financing connections:

"The overwealming majority of members, both voting members and consultants, have substantial ties to the Pharmaceutical industry."

The HHS inspector General (report from December 2009) found the same conflicting problems:

"CDC had a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program." Also finding that: "58 percent of committée members had potential conflicts of interest that CDC did not identify." And also: "32 percent had potential conflicts of interest that CDC identified, but did not resolve."

Unfortunately the Pharmaceutical industry and its financial and lobbying powers ino the health industry, parliaments and Mediahouses will have their way. We have vitnessed this first hand during the C19 "Pandemic" were an almost unison propaganda campaign of coercion, vaccine-mandate directives and pressure was organized and megaphoned by parliaments, politicians, health institutions and global media. If the products had been safe, effective and merited by objective trials, it would still equal coercion and be immoral mandating it. This was done despite the vaccine products lacking in safety, efficacy and trial merits. In fact it was an experiment on the global population.

We must remember that the term "MANDATES" are the tool of bullies, criminals and dictators. If a petient refuses a medical product after being conveyed its benefits and risks, then that is called informed consent. They were informed and did not consent. MANDATING over this objection is immoral and illiberal.

- Never be bullied or coerced into a medical decision.

- Do Your homework.

- Get informed, and then make a decision.

Stay Free !

General Information Notes:

A. ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network).

https://icandecide.org/

B. CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention).

https://www.cdc.gov/

C. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546

D. The PREP-Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preaparedness Act 2005).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Readiness_and_Emergency_Preparedness_Act

E. M.D. Stanley Plotkin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Plotkin

F. DSMB(The independent data and safety monitoring board).

https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/human-subjects-research/toolkit-and-education-materials/interventional-studies/data-and-safety-monitoring-board-guidelines

https://toolbox.eupati.eu/resources/clinical-trial-data-safety-monitoring-board-dsmb/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_monitoring_committee

G.FDA (Food and Drug Administration).

https://www.fda.gov/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration

H. NVICP (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236419/

https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/ethical-issues-and-vaccines/vaccine-injury-compensation-programs/

I. HRSA (Human Resources & Services Administration).

https://www.hrsa.gov/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Resources_and_Services_Administration

J. IOM (Institute of Medicine).

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Medicine

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/12709/chapter/2

https://nam.edu/about-the-nam/