"fauci (et al) fraud finale?" by el gato malo

fauci (et al) fraud finale?

it appears that the courts have had about enough of teflon tony and the prevaricators

el gato malo

17 min ago

 

 

it is said that the mill of justice grinds slowly but that in the end, it grinds fine.

many times, this is optimistic and all manner of misbehavior goes unexplored and unpunished, but one of those fun codicils of crime and punishment is that more often than one might suspect it is not the crime itself that gets your caught. it’s the cover up.

and here is where the gig may be up for fauci and a great many others.

the lawsuit missouri et al vs about the whole of US public health is progressing in its exploration of the explicit and deliberate role of the US government and many of its agents including fauci, murthy, biden, and jankowicz (amidst a cast of dozens and several agencies) in the systematic shaping, suppression, and censorship of information regarding covid. as those quaint few who still believe in things like “the 1st amendment” may recall, this is a bit of a constitutional no no.

the government is not allowed to dominate the press.

this is a matter of sound and settled law.

2. A private entity violates the First Amendment “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.” Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1226 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring). “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.” Id.

these practice date back to well before covid and appear to have been a widespread program by which one political party stifled the views of the other, enhancing left leaning messaging and suppressing the right.

it’s been part and parcel of a behavioral package dating back to at least the beginnings of the obama administration, the politicized weaponization of the IRS, the FBI, and who knows how much media right up through such hit singles' as “the hunter laptop is misinformation but the steele dossier is real” and “questioning the 2016 election is patriotism but questioning 2020 is insurrection.”

you can read more on that HERE.

the fun part of this is perfectly encapsulated by this quote:

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt: “No one has had the chance to look under the hood before – now we do.”

but a funny thing happened on the way to discovery:

most of the subjects of the investigation have been steadfastly refusing to testify (a crime for which bannnon just got jail).

the refusals, prevarications, and slights of hand have been wild. it’s been the entire teflon tony playbook. but it looks like the courts have has just about enough of this slippery behavior.

 

in an exemplary act of evasiveness, tony made written response to questions to which he was required to provide verified answers under penalty of perjury but failed to sign them.

they were instead signed by an underling.

legal beagle gatopal™ phil pulls some money quotes from the court order which you can read for yourselves HERE.

this astonishing action serves as its own indictment and fits neatly into a longstanding pattern of lying to congress and to the american people and it appears that judge doughty (huge win for nominative determinism on that one) is declaring an and to the shenanigans.

folks are going to get deposed under oath, penalty of perjury, and under threat of contempt.

(and what a fun list it is. i really hope they depose slavitt. he’s been a truly stunning source of malicious mendacity and outright manipulation all covid and looks neck deep as admin hatchetman in personal level twitter decisions to deplatform people and this is laid out in the order linked above. jennifer “baghdad barbie” psaki will be another fun one presuming that “under oath” still has meaning.)

 

and apparently the “shaggy defense” (wasn’t me!) is not going to fly in US district court.

Next, Plaintiffs argue that even if Dr. Fauci can prove he never communicated with socialmedia platforms about censorship, there are compelling reasons that suggest Dr. Fauci has acted through intermediaries, and acted on behalf of others, in procuring the social-media censorship of credible scientific opinions. Plaintiffs argue that even if Dr. Fauci acted indirectly or as an intermediary on behalf of others, it is still relevant to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. The Court agrees.

Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Fauci’s credibility has been in question on matters related to supposed COVID-19 “misinformation” since 2020. Specifically, Plaintiffs state that Dr. Fauci has made public statements on the efficacy of masks, the percentage of the population needed for herd immunity, NIAID’s funding of “gain-of-function” virus research in Wuhan, the lab-leak theory, and more. Plaintiffs urge that his comments on these important issues are relevant to the matter at hand and are further reasons why Dr. Fauci should be deposed. Plaintiffs assert that they should not be required to simply accept Dr. Fauci’s “self-serving blanket denials” that were issued from someone other than himself at face value. The Court agrees. 

and then, of course, we get this:

Finally, the Court is aware of a number of substantive reasons why Dr. Fauci’s deposition should be taken. The first is the publicly available emails that prove that Dr. Fauci was communicating and acting as an intermediary for others in order to censor information from being shared across multiple social-media outlets. The second is that Dr. Fauci has yet to give any statements under oath in this matter. The third is that the Court has no doubt that Dr. Fauci was engaging in communications with high-ranking social-media officials, which is extremely relevant in the matter at hand.

 

there has been so much smoke on this issue that one could not see the gun for it, but it’s coming.

someone is going to crack and this is all going to come spilling out.

it’s not called a “prisoner’s dilemma” for nothing.

these campaigns of censorship were endemic. the sort of “misinformation” that could get you decatformed in 2021 became the data driven truth of 2022. over and over.

talking points appeared as “the science™” in stunning unison, day after day. fact checkers ran unchecked as propaganda factories. the unanimity of the promotion and suppression was far too monolithic to be natural and there are so many interesting strings here to pull and so many startling manipulations and conflicts of interest.

truly this is an embarrassment of riches. programs that had been subtly embedded over decades were yanked out of the shadows and into stark relief by their aggressive overuse.

this was about as subtle as a panzer division.

 

if we would reclaim our media, public square, and republic, then the time for consequences has come. examples should be made because this is nothing short of conspiracy by government against we the people to abrogate our rights and subvert the constituion.

calling it “exigent” or “an emergency” is invalid pretext. rights are not “unless we feel like violating them.”

and speaking for myself, i want mine back.

and so now it gets interesting.

i, for one, an dying to see how tony and andy and jenny and the rest of the gang play this now that they are pinned down.

will they refuse to comply?

will they “fail to recall?”

will they lie?

will they sing like the proverbial canaries or perhaps try to cut a deal to save their skins?

can this merry band of manipulators stay unified in denial or will they start defecting to save themselves?

pull up a chair. the movie is about to get good.

 

 Source: bad cattitude

 

"Elite Desperation Belies Europe Union Becoming Party to War in Ukraine" from Strategic Culture Foundation

Elite Desperation Belies Europe Union Becoming Party to War in Ukraine

October 21, 2022

The rulers of the United States and Europe want to start a war with Russia before their own people start a war at home.

The European Union’s summit of foreign ministers this week formally committed the bloc to training Ukrainian military forces on EU territory to fight against Russia. That inescapably makes the 27-nation EU a party to war in Ukraine.

Nearly two months ago, in a previous Strategic Culture Foundation weekly editorial published on August 19, we postulated that the conflict in Ukraine had already metastasized into a Third World War. That warning has been corroborated by the dramatic escalation of military involvement by the United States-led NATO alliance and the European Union in Ukraine.

This week, the European Union’s Council on Foreign Affairs announced a Military Assistance Mission (EUMAM) to Ukraine which would involve training of up to 15,000 Ukrainian troops over the next two years. Germany and Poland are to be major training hubs. The headquarters for the EUMAM is to be in Brussels. This indicates long-term planning for war and, lamentably, the spurning of any kind of diplomatic solution.

The EU-wide training program is but the formal, comprehensive adoption of missions that had up to now been undertaken more discreetly at national, bilateral level. The United States, Canada and Britain have had military advisors in Ukraine since 2014 where they have been mentoring NeoNazi formations such as the Azov Battalion. Training of Ukrainian troops has also been conducted in France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Estonia and the other Baltic states.

But what the EU foreign ministers have declared this week is a bloc-wide systematic participation in war in Ukraine against Russia. Legally speaking, the official training of troops on EU soil for active deployment in war makes the EU a party to war. This has grave implications for how Russia legitimately conducts its military forces. Potentially, European states have made themselves targets for Russian military strikes.

Arguably, this has already been the case at much earlier stage when European members of NATO have been joining with the United States in flooding Ukraine with more and more lethal weapons.

Russia has repeatedly warned that NATO weapons supplied to Ukraine have made the U.S.-led axis a war party. Thus, the conflict is no longer a proxy war, but a full-on confrontation.

Each passing week sees more announcements by the U.S. and its NATO allies of heavier weapons being delivered to Ukraine. It is estimated that a total of $42 billion in weaponry has been earmarked for Ukraine from Western powers, with nearly two-thirds of that ($28bn) from the United States.

In addition to ramping up training of Ukrainian military on EU soil, the EU also this week allocated an additional €500 million in assisting weapons supply to the Kiev regime. The funding mechanism has the Orwellian title of “European Peace Facility”.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz promised new supplies of self-propelled howitzers, air defense systems and multiple rocket launcher systems. Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron also vowed more howitzers, air radar defenses and missiles.

The leaders of the European Union, as with those of the United States and NATO, seem to be criminally insane. The escalation of war in Ukraine against Russia came this week as the NATO bloc was carrying out nuclear war exercises in Europe targeting Russia. Moscow’s warnings that the warpath embarked on could lead to planetary catastrophe have been recklessly distorted by Western powers as Russia allegedly using “nuclear blackmail”.

The double-think by the United States and its European vassals is astounding. U.S. President Joe Biden has talked about the danger of “nuclear Armageddon”. European leaders like Scholz and Macron have purportedly cautioned against a direct confrontation with Russia. And yet these same Western politicians and their ilk continue to stoke the war in Ukraine to cataclysmic proportions.

Not one Western leader has proffered a diplomatic solution to settle the war in Ukraine nor address the background strategic security issues that instigated the conflict.

The political and economic chaos that is gripping Britain – with the forced resignation of the hapless Premier Liz Truss this week after just six weeks in Downing Street – is a telltale sign of the wider malaise afflicting Western states from the implosion of their economies. The United States, Britain and the European Union are undergoing a veritable economic meltdown owing to their bankrupt capitalist systems.

Figures showing unprecedented levels of poverty and social breakdown are off the charts. Public protests and industrial strikes against warmongering policies and cost-of-living emergencies are proliferating across European and American cities. The systemic meltdown has been underway for decades but is being accelerated by wrong-headed imperialist policies of trying to confront Russia (and China). The self-inflicted cutting off of Russian gas to Europe is the ultimate kamikaze drone – fired by European elites on their own people!

In reality, the war in Ukraine is a geopolitical showdown with Russia to prop up an old and dying U.S.-led Western order whereby Washington is the presumed hegemon served by sycophantic European satellites. The days are numbered for that imperialist order.

Two world wars over the past century have been incited as a way to salvage bankrupt Western capitalism. To a horrible degree, those wars partially succeeded in regenerating the system, or at least postponing nemesis.

Today, again, the Western system is facing an existential crisis. Ruling establishments are clawing desperately for survival amid legitimate fears about revolutionary social upheaval. This extreme situation is why Western political elites are making decisions that are criminally reckless and perversely risking catastrophic war – all in the hoary old guise of nobility of course.

The rulers of the United States and Europe want to start a war with Russia before their own people start a war at home. Fortunately, Russia is more than capable of defending itself. That doesn’t obviate a disastrous miscalculation, however.

The culprits for this infernal situation are the Western elites, their corporate masters and the moribund capitalist system. Western citizens should hold them to account in the fullest sense.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

"‘Peaceful modernization’: China’s offering to the Global South" by Pepe Escobar

 

‘Peaceful modernization’: China’s offering to the Global South

Xi Jinping just offered the Global South a stark alternative to decades of western diktats, war, and economic duress. 'Peaceful modernization' will establish sovereignty, economy, and independence for the world's struggling states

By Pepe Escobar

October 20 2022

Photo Credit: The Cradle

President Xi Jinping’s work report at the start of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) this past Sunday in Beijing contained not only a blueprint for the development of the civilization-state, but for the whole Global South.

Xi’s 1h45min speech actually delivered a shorter version of the full work report – see attached PDF – which gets into way more detail on an array of socio-political themes.

This was the culmination of a complex collective effort that went on for months. When he received the final text, Xi commented, revised and edited it.

In a nutshell, the CPC master plan is twofold: finalize “socialist modernization” from 2020 to 2035; and build China – via peaceful modernization – as a modern socialist country that is “prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious” all the way to 2049, signaling the centenary of the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The central concept in the work report is peaceful modernization – and how to accomplish it. As Xi summarized, “It contains elements that are common to the modernization processes of all countries, but it is more characterized by features that are unique to the Chinese context.”

Very much in tune with Confucian Chinese culture, “peaceful modernization” encapsulates a complete theoretical system. Of course there are multiple geoeconomic paths leading to modernization – according to the national conditions of any particular country. But for the Global South as a whole, what really matters is that the Chinese example completely breaks with the western TINA (“there is no alternative”) monopoly on modernization practice and theory.

Not to mention it breaks with the ideological straitjacket imposed on the Global South by the self-defined “golden billion” (of which the really “golden” barely reach 10 million). What the Chinese leadership is saying is that the Iranian model, the Ugandan model or the Bolivian model are all as valid as the Chinese experiment: what matters is pursuing an independent path towards development.

How to develop tech independence

The recent historical record shows how every nation trying to develop outside the Washington Consensus is terrorized at myriad hybrid war levels. This nation becomes a target of color revolutions, regime change, illegal sanctions, economic blockade, NATO sabotage or outright bombing and/invasion.

What China proposes echoes across the Global South because Beijing is the largest trade partner of no less than 140 nations, who can easily grasp concepts such as high-quality economic development and self-reliance in science and technology.

The report stressed the categorical imperative for China from now on: to speed up technology self-reliance as the Hegemon is going no holds barred to derail China tech, especially in the manufacturing of semiconductors.

In what amount to a sanctions package from Hell, the Hegemon is betting on crippling China’s drive to accelerate its tech independence in semiconductors and the equipment to produce them.

So China will need to engage in a national effort on semiconductor production. That necessity will be at the core of what the work report describes as a new development strategy, spurred by the tremendous challenge of achieving tech self-sufficiency. Essentially China will go for strengthening the public sector of the economy, with state companies forming the nucleus for a national system of tech innovation development.

‘Small fortresses with high walls’

On foreign policy, the work report is very clear: China is against any form of unilateralism as well as blocs and exclusive groups targeted against particular countries. Beijing refers to these blocs, such as NATO and AUKUS, as “small fortresses with high walls.”

This outlook is inscribed in the CPC’s emphasis on another categorical imperative: reforming the existing system of global governance, extremely unfair to the Global South. It’s always crucial to remember that China, as a civilization-state, considers itself simultaneously as a socialist country and the world’s leading developing nation.

The problem once again is Beijing’s belief in “safeguarding the international system with the UN at its core.” Most Global South players know how the Hegemon subjects the UN – and its voting mechanism – to all sorts of relentless pressure.

It’s enlightening to pay attention to the very few westerners that really know one or two things about China.

Martin Jacques, until recently a senior fellow at the Department of Politics and International Studies at Cambridge University, and author of arguably the best book in English on China’s development, is impressed by how China’s modernization happened in a context dominated by the west: “This was the key role of the CPC. It had to be planned. We can see how extraordinarily successful it has been.”

The implication is that by breaking the west-centric TINA model, Beijing has accumulated the tools to be able to assist Global South nations with their own models.

Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, is even more upbeat: “China will become a leader of innovation. I very much hope and count on China becoming a leader for innovation in sustainability.” That will contrast with a ‘dysfunctional’ American model turning protectionist even in business and investment.

Mikhail Delyagin, deputy chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on Economic Policy, makes a crucial point, certainly noted by key Global South players: the CPC “was able to creatively adapt the Marxism of the 19th century and its experience of the 20th century to new requirements and implement eternal values with new methods. This is a very important and useful lesson for us.”

And that’s the added value of a model geared towards the national interest and not the exclusivist policies of Global Capital.

BRI or bust

Implied throughout the work report is the importance of the overarching concept of Chinese foreign policy: the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its trade/connectivity corridors across Eurasia and Africa.

It was up to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin to clarify where BRI is heading:

“BRI transcends the outdated mentality of geopolitical games, and created a new model of international cooperation. It is not an exclusive group that excludes other participants but an open and inclusive cooperation platform. It is not just China’s solo effort, but a symphony performed by all participating countries.”

BRI is inbuilt in the Chinese concept of “opening up.” It is also important to remember that BRI was launched by Xi nine years ago – in Central Asia (Astana) and then Southeast Asia (Jakarta). Beijing has earned from its mistakes, and keeps fine-tuning BRI in consultation with partners – from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Malaysia to several African nations.

It is no wonder, that by August this year, China’s trade with countries participating in BRI had reached a whopping $12 trillion, and non-financial direct investment in those countries surpassed $140 billion.

Wang correctly points out that following BRI infrastructure investments, “East Africa and Cambodia have highways, Kazakhstan has [dry] ports for exports, the Maldives has its first cross-sea bridge and Laos has become a connected country from a landlocked one.”

Even under serious challenges, from zero-Covid to assorted sanctions and the breakdown of supply chains, the number of China-EU express cargo trains keeps going up; the China-Laos Railway and the Peljesac Bridge in Croatia are open for business; and work on the Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway and the China-Thailand Railway is in progress.

Mackinder on crack

All over the extremely incandescent global chessboard, international relations are being completely reframed.

China – and key Eurasian players at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS+, and Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) – are all proposing peaceful development.

In contrast, the Hegemon imposes an avalanche of sanctions – not by accident the top three recipients are Eurasian powers Russia, Iran and China; lethal proxy wars (Ukraine); and every possible strand of hybrid war to prevent the end of its supremacy, which lasted barely seven and a half decades, a blip in historical terms.

The current dysfunction – physical, political, financial, cognitive – is reaching a climax. As Europe plunges into the abyss of largely self-inflicted devastation and darkness  – a neo-medievalism in woke register – an internally ravaged Empire resorts to plundering even its wealthy “allies”.

It’s as if we are all witnessing a Mackinder-on-crack scenario.

Halford Mackinder, of course, was the British geographer who developed the ‘Heartland Theory’ of geopolitics, heavily influencing US foreign policy during the Cold War: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.”

Russia spans 11 time zones and sits atop as much as one third of the world’s natural resources. A natural symbiosis between Europe and Russia is like a fact of life. But the EU oligarchy blew it.

It’s no wonder the Chinese leadership views the process with horror, because one of BRI’s essential planks is to facilitate seamless trade between China and Europe. As Russia’s connectivity corridor has been blocked by sanctions, China will be privileging corridors via West Asia.

Meanwhile, Russia is completing its pivot to the east. Russia’s enormous resources, combined with the manufacturing capability of China and East Asia as a whole, project a trade/connectivity sphere that goes even beyond BRI. That’s at the heart of the Russian concept of Greater Eurasia Partnership.

In another one of History’s unpredictable twists, Mackinder a century ago may have been essentially right about those controlling the Heartland/world island controlling the world. It doesn’t look like the controller will be the Hegemon, and much less its European vassals/slaves.

When the Chinese say they are against blocs, Eurasia and The West are the facto two blocs. Though not yet formally at war with each other, in reality they already are knee deep into Hybrid War territory.

Russia and Iran are on the frontline – militarily and in terms of absorbing non-stop pressure. Other important Global South players, quietly, try to either keep a low profile or, even more quietly, assist China and the others to make the multipolar world prevail economically.

As China proposes peaceful modernization, the hidden message of the work report is even starker. The Global South is facing a serious choice: choose either sovereignty – embodied in a multipolar world, peacefully modernizing – or outright vassalage. 

Pepe Escobar

Pepe Escobar is a columnist at The Cradle, editor-at-large at Asia Times and an independent geopolit...Read more

Source: The Cradle

"I guess I should also take a crack at the new mod(e)rna data in the NEJM" by Jessica Rose

 

I guess I should also take a crack at the new mod(e)rna data in the NEJM And the confirmations just keep coming... JESSICA ROSE OCT 22   ▷  LISTEN SAVE   Please head to the latest New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article entitled: “Evaluation of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Children 6 Months to 5 Years of Age” published on October 21,2022. It’s a late assessment of the ‘unknown’ “safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the mRNA-1273 coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccine in young children”. It’s not even funny how they are publishing this assessment of unknown safety factors 4 months AFTER they starting injecting children ages 6 months to 5 years of age. I have been bitching about this for a long time now. This is just another stunning example of how Eric Rubin really wasn’t kidding around when he publicly announced that ‘we won’t know how safe these products are until we start putting them into babies (people)”. Maybe this is just the way it goes now, eh? Funny how this guy is the Editor-in-Chief of this very journal. So the following is just some of what they buried in the Supplementary Appendix. I literally just glanced at it and found a few things that made me wince. The first thing I want to point out is a strange mis-use of the word ‘place-bo’ in the Trial Vaccine description on page 11. At first glance I thought, well this must be the result of the word ‘placebo’ previously having been spliced due to word spacing/processing - say, from having been sourced from a previous document. Figure 1: Place-bo?https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2209367/suppl_file/nejmoa2209367_appendix.pdf. Page 11. But, if this was the case, why is this not recurring in other words in the hefty paragraph? You might think I am being litigious here, and I am, because one thing that I have learned from all of this COVID 2-years to fatten the pockets of billionaires nonsense, is the might of the word, especially in legal documents. Since the word ‘placebo’ is not spelled correctly, then it could be argued that what they are referring to is not, in fact, a placebo - by anyone’s definition. Now they do apply a descriptor in brackets (normal saline) so I am not going to make any claims here, but I did find the mis-spelling of the word placebo, odd. I find it odd because of all the shenanigans with placebos - and lack thereof - in the contexts of vaccine trials. And in the contexts of the Pfizer and Moderna data that I have been looking at for 2 years now, I have my doubts that they are using saline as a placebo, or that their placebo is inert. I think they use empty LNPs. And the LNPs are dangerous. The second thing I want to point out is what both Alex Berenson and El Gato Malo have pointed out in their excellent assessments of this NEJM article’s Supplementary Appendix, and that is the new (they use the word ‘new’ even though making sure to point out that this baby was ‘pre-disposed’) onset of Type-I diabetes in a 1-year old within 37 days of Dose 2. This is considered to be a ‘Serious’ adverse event. Now, you might look at this and say, well Jess, it’s only 0.1% of the babies that suffered a Serious UNSOLICITED (this basically means unexpected) adverse event in the context of the nMRA-1273 shot. That’s nothing to worry about, right. And I would say, that’s 1/1,000 babies. You wanna roll those dice? By the way, you might also remember me previously writing on the fact that in their (Moderna and Pfizer) assessments of adverse event data, they use the words ‘Severe’ and ‘Serious’ to describe ‘different’ things. I believe they do this to make the data look sparser than it actually is. Let’s just refer to a spontaneous abortion using 20 different MedDRA codes! That’ll solve the problem of big numbers! Notice the number and percentage of Severe unsolicited AEs related to study ‘vaccination’: 14 reports which comprises 0.8% of the babies they studied. Just wanted to point that out. It doesn’t change the over-all percentage, but remember, these are babies and even 1 matters in the context of harm induced by a medical intervention. Figure 2: Severe and Serious AEs unsolicited and related to injections in babies ages 6-23 months. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2209367/suppl_file/nejmoa2209367_appendix.pdf. Page 62. The third thing I want to point out is on page 45 in the Supplementary Appendix. What caught my eye here are the percentages of babies and children who reported medical intervention requirements in the cases of unsolicited AEs that occurred within days (<28 days) of any injection. In the case of the babies ages 6-23 months, 30% reported medical attendance in the context of their AE and I might add here, that the dose used here was low (25 ug) and, they only looked at 150 babies. Napkin math time. If we injected 100,000 babies ages 6-23 months with this experimental mRNA-1273 gene therapy, according to this data, 30,000 would need medical attention. Think about that. And not just medically. Think, economically. Figure 3: Medically attended Unsolicited AEs related to study ‘vaccination’. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2209367/suppl_file/nejmoa2209367_appendix.pdf. Page 45. By the way, you’ll notice in the paragraph at the bottom that a 1-year-old boy suffered a febrile convulsion 10 days after injection. Sound familiar from my previous writings? Does a seizure induced by a high fever in a baby too young to hold up their head sound like something you want to experience, or have your baby experience? And 0.7% of the time in the context of an injection that your baby doesn’t need? They called this febrile seizure experience in this baby: ‘Other’ and claimed that it resolved the same day. Ok. And the last thing I would like to point out (it is NOT the final thing) is on page 59. When sorting by System Organ Class (broader classification), their data show that almost half of the babies had reports of unsolicited adverse events: 49.1%! Of these, 1.2% reported a Severe adverse event however, this is the percentage calculated from the total. If you calculate the percentage of ‘Any’ adverse events reports considered ‘Severe’, the percentage goes up to 1.8%. Not a huge jump, but it matters. Figure 4: Number of babies with Unsolicited AEs within 28 days of injection. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2209367/suppl_file/nejmoa2209367_appendix.pdf. Page 59. And by the way, once again, why did half of the babies in the Placebo arm experience and report unsolicited AEs of which 0.7% were Severe? Kind of makes you wonder about my first point, eh? And one more important thing, notice the Hand-foot-and-mouth disease rate in the Placebo ‘Any’ arm? They might have miscalculated the rate or incorrectly written in the absolute number of reports. I am not sure. If the former, then this means that 89.3% of the babies ages 6-23 months in the Placebo arm experienced and reported Hand-foot-and-mouth disease. Really? I find this suspect. If I was a betting woman, I would go with the latter explanation as the correct one and point out that, hey, this is AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT STUDY AND ANALYSIS. MAYBE DOUBLE CHECK YOUR WORK. You’re welcome. Even if the percentage is correct (meaning 176 babies got the hand and footy rot), this is still a very high rate, especially in the context of Placebo, and would require explanation, in my opinion. Source: Unacceptable Jessica

"Cancer Rates Are Increasing -- and May Get Much Worse" by Igor Chudov

Cancer Rates are Increasing -- and May Get Much Worse

Wiped Out Immune Systems Take Time to Manifest

Igor Chudov

8 hr ago

278

184

We have a problem: cancer deaths began to increase, off the charts, in late 2021, with cancer death incidence exceeding expected levels by a statistically “impossible” 9-sigma difference — and we are seeing only the first small ripple of a storm coming in the future.

Nobody exemplifies this wave of cancers better than the Belgian Covid vaccine advocate and misinformation fighter Michel Goldman, who developed a “rare” form of lymphoma (immune system cancer) following his Covid vaccination. His lymphoma rapidly worsened after his booster dose and Michel’s chance of 5-year survival is below 30 percent.

Unglossed

Covid Vaccines Give Prominent "Misinformation"-Fighter's Immune System Cancer

(With grateful acknowledgement to Igor Chudov for coaching this post’s title.) Extremely rare cases like Michel’s create a tricky terrain for science communication. […] In fact, when Michel first told me about his cancer and about the paper he’d written with his brother…

Read more

a month ago · 103 likes · 65 comments · Brian Mowrey

Michel Goldman is not an ordinary citizen. He is a lifelong promoter of vaccines and a famous immunologist. For example, Prof. Goldman lamented the slow vaccine rollout in the EU in a high-profile article from April 2021. He expressed dismay over pausing the AstraZeneca vaccine due to a “very small” number of thrombosis cases, as the pause could “fuel distrust in all Covid vaccines”, and admonished EU leaders that they must “must urgently accelerate the region’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout”.

Ironically, the above article was written on April 2, 2021, almost exactly when Michel was getting his second dose of the Pfizer vaccine - that caused his cancer.

Prof. Goldman is also cited in fact-checks such as this one:

The fact check (which did not age well in general, unlike Dr. Malone’s article) says:

For instance, human trials for a cancer mRNA vaccine have been going on since at least 2011. As Michel Goldman, a professor of immunology at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, explained: “If there was a real problem with the technology, we’d have seen it before now for sure”.

What is odd is that at the time the above fact check was written in Dec 2021, Michel Goldman already knew that Covid vaccine and booster caused his lymphoma and that he was fully aware that he already was in Stage IV of the disease.

So you can see that this vaccine-caused lymphoma could not have happened to a nicer guy!

The Atlantic Article, as well as the scientific article authored by Michel Goldman himself, describing his own cancer, glosses over the fact that his cancer was not just accelerated, but was initiated by the Pfizer vaccine. Here’s the picture from Michel’s scientific article, edited by me for clarity (my addition is in red). It shows that Prof. Goldman received the initial dose of the Pfizer Covid vaccine six months before his cancer diagnosis:

While I wish Prof. Goldman a speedy recovery from his advanced cancer, he is not alone.

Unprecedented 9-Sigma Increase Increase in Cancer Deaths in the US

There are thousands of “Michel Goldmans” in just the United States, most of whom are not as famous, but more unlucky compared to Michel. Unlike Michel, who is still alive, those thousands of people in the death statistics are already dead — and they possibly would not die if not for the Covid vaccines.

The Ethical Skeptic on Twitter has been analyzing US mortality (which is reported by the CDC on a weekly basis), which is a very difficult job due to the CDC’s strange, never-ending “system upgrade” that magically seems to hold back a lot of deaths and reclassified cancer deaths into Covid deaths.

Ethical Skeptic ☀ @EthicalSkeptic

TES adjusted this last Cancer Mortality Curve by best feel for the dynamics of the info - and reassigned 75% of those fraudulent records back to Cancer. The actual number was 78.7% 😎 Thus, TES was correct about the Cancer trend all along. We are in a 9+ sigma Cancer event.

3:46 PM ∙ Oct 18, 2022

---

767Likes236Retweets

He discovered the misclassification and corrected it, to show the true number of cancer deaths:

The lighter line is the actual number of cancer deaths, and the darker line is the expected number — showing a never-seen-before increase in cancer deaths that is deepening. As of several recent weeks, the United States has about 800 excess cancer deaths per week. As you can see on the right side of the graph, these excess deaths started just as Covid vaccination took off, and never slowed down or returned to normal; they are increasing and showing acceleration.

Similar Increases in the UK

The UK had 10-17% excess all-cause mortality in the last few months, and the concerned British government put up an “Excess Mortality Presentation”, showing us these excess deaths in a variety of ways. The page for cancer deaths is here:

Pull-Forward Effect

Unlike the Ethical Skeptic data, the UK presentation is NOT adjusted for the “pull-forward effect”, that is, the fact that many cancer patients already prematurely died with Covid in 2020-early 2021. Had the Covid pandemic not happened, these patients would be dying somewhat later, such as in 2021 or 2022.

Therefore, had no additional “factor” introduced excess cancer mortality in 2021, these early deaths with “Covid and cancer” would have resulted in a lowered rate of cancer deaths in 2021 and 2022 — so the excess deaths shown in the above presentation UNDERSTATE the true extent of excess deaths.

I used a BLUE line on the above UK chart, to qualitatively show the pull-forward effect and how it underscores that the excess cancer deaths are somewhat understated.

Since the UK excess mortality data is available for download, I took a look at May-August excess cancer deaths, a total of 1,990 deaths.

For May-August of 2022, these excess cancer deaths amount to 110 excess cancer deaths per week. Had the UK’s population (68M) been the same as the United States (330M), that difference would amount to 550 excess cancer deaths per week, which is comparable to the Ethical Skeptic’s 800+ deaths a week. Again, The Ethical Skeptic’s numbers are adjusted for the pull-forward effect and the UK data is not so adjusted. The UK excess cancer mortality would be somewhat higher if adjusted comparably.

So, our calculations show that the UK and the US experience roughly similar excess cancer mortality. Anecdotally, we are seeing more rapidly developing cancers, that Etana Hechts calls “Turbo-cancers”.

Just to be clear: these increases do NOT show causation, just as Michel Goldman possibly was an extremely unlucky victim of a coincidence. (It was not a coincidence, as Brian Mowrey’s post and Goldman’s own article explain and refer to Goldman’s RHOA G17V mutation).

We do not yet have the smoking-gun level proof. We only have a suspicion, fueled by the temporal coincidences of this excess cancer mortality with the vaccination campaign. To know for sure, we need to compare outcomes in vaccinated persons versus unvaccinated persons — something that the UK and the US health authorities are not allowing.

These Excess Cancer Deaths are Likely a Sign of Much Bigger Future Increases

This part of the post is written by A Midwestern Doctor, whose substack I highly recommend. He explains why Covid vaccines are genotoxic, mutagenic and have other effects to increase the rare of cancers far beyond what we have experienced.

The Forgotten Side of Medicine

Here I do my best to expose both the light and dark within medicine that has remained hidden. My hope is that knowledge can improve your health and the health of those around us.

By A Midwestern Doctor

Are Spike Protein Vaccines Genotoxic?

Before the mRNA vaccines entered the market, significant concerns existed regarding their cancer-causing potential. Despite this, as leaked documents from the EMA (Europe’s FDA) show, Pfizer (and most likely the other manufacturers) was exempted from testing their vaccines for genotoxicity before proceeding to human trials. To quote some of the leaked EMA documents:

“No genotoxicity has been provided. The components of the vaccine formulation are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have genotoxic potential. That being said, the novel lipids possess an acetamide moiety which is classified as possible human carcinogen (IARC Group 2B) with debated genotoxic mechanism, which should be discussed further…as the lipids contain an acetamide moiety which has been linked to carcinogenicity in animals, including liver tumors, potentially related to genotoxicity, and liver distribution and functional effects have been observed in rat, an extended discussion of these lipids is requested.”

As this testing was typically required for any new pharmaceutical and relatively easy to do, I interpreted it to mean that Pfizer had discovered their vaccine caused significant genotoxicity and felt their best option was to pretend they had never studied it so they would have plausible deniability when cancers inevitably emerged in the future (pharmaceutical companies frequently fail to report undesirable results as they almost never suffer consequences for doing so—the SSRI saga which in many ways is the best precedent we have for the current debacle is the only case I know of where pharmaceutical companies were eventually penalized by the courts for this criminally deceptive behavior).

As the vaccines began to enter the market, I then began noticing countless media outlets state that the vaccines could not change your DNA and that anyone who thought so lacked a basic understanding of science. When I looked at the evidence for this claim, I could not help but notice no direct evidence for it was provided, and rather the basis for the claim was an expert’s authority or three common logical arguments (e.g. consider these statements by Paul Offit and Anthony Fauci): 

1. The vaccines cannot enter the nucleus of the cell 

 2. mRNA from the vaccines breaks down rapidly in the cell, so it does not have time to enter the nucleus and change your DNA.

 3. mRNA is not DNA, and hence believing it can change DNA represents a fundamental lack of knowledge of biology.

 

The problems with these arguments were that:

 1. The lipid nanoparticles can traverse the cell membrane, so it is entirely possible they can also traverse the nuclear membrane. Additionally, the highly positive charge of the spike proteins suggests they may be attracted to or able to bypass the negatively charged nuclear membrane [this was subsequently proven].

 

2. A major issue with the mRNA technology was that foreign mRNA is rapidly broken down by the body and therefore degrades before the desired proteins can be synthesized. To solve this problem, the manufacturers randomly added pseudouridine to the mRNA product, allowing it to resist degradation (and persist for at least 60 days). 

 

Random pseudouridation was potentially problematic because:

•Persistent mRNA can produce an excessive dose of the spike protein product.

•Dysregulation of pseudouridation is associated with a variety of cancers.

 •Pseudouridation is known to suppress innate immunity (which is necessary for a variety of things including eliminating cancers within the body).

3. RNA (including mRNA) can become DNA with the aid of retrotranscriptases. In addition to many viruses doing this, natural reverse transcriptases also exist within human cells.

I was thus less than surprised to learn researchers had discovered SARS-CoV-2 had done the impossible and had been observed to change the DNA of infected patients.

Not long after, when independent researchers finally examined the big question, they discovered that despite all the reassurances to the contrary, the mRNA vaccines did change liver cell DNA within 6 hours of exposure. In parallel, as Arkmedic discussed, another paper discovered that the spike protein was highly genotoxic and did in fact enter the nucleus. As these findings were extremely damning to the NIH, the leadership chose to address this issue by forcing the paper to be retracted for spurious reasons (a pattern that has sadly become quite common in the pandemic whenever inconvenient data emerges and may make these officials criminally liable for the catastrophic side effects that have resulted from their conduct).  

In summary, there was a catastrophic failure on the regulator's part to not require genotoxicity for the COVID-19 vaccines (which may explain why the CDC has quitely removed the claim that their vaccines cannot alter your DNA). For those wishing to understand the potential genotoxicity of the mRNA vaccines in more detail, this recent paper by Peter McCullough and others provides an excellent summary of what is currently known on this topic.

A New Cancer Epidemic

 For reasons detailed in the previous section, I had expected the mRNA vaccines to increase the rates of cancer in those who received them. However, what I did not expect was how rapid or unusual many of the cancers would be.

One of the most definitive cases I saw for the vaccine’s causing cancer was shared with me by a friend and colleague:

I had a patient that was a late 20s male with no past medical history except for stable lipomas (benign fatty lumps under the skin) he had had for years. 

When the vaccine became available, he took both doses of Moderna. Shortly after the second dose, his previously stable lipomas started growing (this is extremely unusual).  A month later, he was able to receive a biopsy for the lipoma and it was determined to be a very rare sarcoma. 

The patient then full body imaging to stage it, cancer was also detected in the organ where this type of cancer is almost always found, he received a fairly invasive biopsy of that cancer and learned that it had the same genetic lineage as cancer found within the lipoma. 

When I later looked up this cancer, I found out there are less than 100 cases a year of it in the United States, it never appears in that patient demographic, it never presents in this manner, and has a very poor prognosis.

 Note: One of my good friends who is a nurse had a sarcoma form with a very similar progression in her husband following vaccination.  

In general, I tended to observe that the cancers I heard of typically progressed rapidly, sometimes were quite unusual types, and often were (eventually fatal) recurrences of cancers that had gone into remission years before. Given that cancers normally take years to grow before they are large enough to even be detected (one estimate pegs it approximately ten years), the fact that I was seeing numerous immediately visible cancers emerging within months of vaccination was highly concerning.

In parallel, I also came across many cases of individuals rapidly developing diseases typically associated with immune suppression after vaccination. These cases were part of a project I began at the start of the vaccine rollout where after I began to have countless people contacting me sharing stories of severe or fatal reaction they observed following vaccination. After I realized almost none of my colleagues were open to listening to me, I decided at the very least I could verify and document these reports and then share them with the appropriate audiences. The tragic thing about this experience was that the cases I alone encountered had previously been sufficient to consider pulling a vaccine from the market. 

Unfortunately, like many other red flags, they were instead ignored. Within this compilation, the cases I encountered pertaining to the focus of this article are summarized under the section titled “Immune Suppression and Cancer”  

The Forgotten Side of Medicine

Adverse Reactions to COVID Vaccines I Came Across During Their First Year on the Market

At the time I published this article it went viral and was seen by a lot of people. Since it was published, adverse events have continued to accumulate at an accelerating pace and I reached the point where I could no longer conduct a detailed followup on each case I heard of. For this reason, I decided to “cap” this project at one year, and it appears…

Read more

8 months ago · 483 likes · 592 comments · A Midwestern Doctor

Additionally, of the most common side effects of the vaccine has been the development of shingles, a complication that strongly indicates the vaccines suppress the innate immune system. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is the suppression of CD8 cells, immune cells responsible for both eliminating cancerous cells and suppressing shingles infections, which physicians such as Ryan Cole have observed significantly decline following COVID-19 vaccination.  

 All of these observations led me to suspect that the mRNA vaccines had a high propensity for creating genotoxicity in cells and also suppressing the immune response that would typically eliminate these cells. This hypothesis was further strengthened after the studies (detailed in the previous section) were published and provided strong evidence this could occur.

Typically, any time living organisms are exposed to a toxin or disease, reactions to the disease distribute on a bell curve resulting in the majority of them having relatively minor or invisible symptoms and only a small minority having significant side effects. Given that cancer is typically a slowly progressing disease, my great fear is that the rapid cases of cancer we have seen thus far are the outliers that represent the tip of the iceberg, and a significantly greater number of more slowly progressing cancers will emerge in the future.  

Or as Jill Biden stated to Newsmax this week:

“I think in the next couple of months you’re going to see more cancers,” added the first lady. “It’s not a red issue, a blue issue,” Jill Biden added. “Cancer affects every American.”

Her rationale for this trend was people finally going back to doctors and getting caught up on their cancer screening, which is odd, given that the pause in seeing doctors for non-essential visits ended over a year ago.

The Cancer Vaccine?

Are you upset that cancers are on the rise?

Well, I have great news for you!

Moderna, another Covid vaccine company, is now working on a “personalized cancer vaccine”. (I guess they do not yet consider their Covid vaccine to be a “cancer vaccine”). So, since Covid vaccine sales are flatlining, they are now looking to create a new revenue stream with “personalized cancer vaccines”! Those for sure will work great, right? For sure, desperate cancer patients will be good for cash generation — and the market may be huge!

Will the FDA approve those “cancer vaccines” based on results in a dozen mice? Would you recommend a “personalized cancer vaccine” to your personal friends?

Source: Igor's Newsletter