Biden Pandemic COVID Just my own thoughts Links from other news sources.

Biden Signs Bill Ending Coronavirus National Emergency.

Hits: 24

Biden Signs Bill Ending Coronavirus National Emergency.

President Joe Biden on Monday signed a Republican-led bill to terminate the coronavirus national emergency that former President Donald Trump first enacted in March 2020.

Biden’s White House was planning to wind down the national emergency next month on May 11. However, House Republicans put forth bills to end the national emergency before May.

This should have been done in January of 2021. But Biden, Tony the Fauch, CDC, NIH, and the FDA KEPT THIS GOING.

“Under the guise of COVID, President Biden and the Democrats were able to abuse emergency powers and go on a spending spree in order to prevent the American people from returning to normal,” Murphy said in a statement. “After bipartisan votes in both chambers voted to end this declaration, President Bided finally was forced to end this declaration. Medicine needs to be rooted in hard, objective science, not politics.”

“First, @HouseGOP overturned Washington, D.C.’s pro-criminal, anti-police agenda. Now, President Biden signed into law our resolution ENDING the COVID-19 emergency,” Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA) tweeted. “Under @SpeakerMcCarthy, House Republicans are delivering real results for American families.”

The GOP-led bill, introduced by Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar (R) passed the House in February by a 229-197 vote. Despite nearly 200 House Democrats voting against the bill, it received bipartisan support in the Senate, which approved it in a 68-23 vote.

COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

No, Getting Vaccinated Was Not “Doing the Right Thing” Why the Propaganda Campaign for the COVID-19 Shots Matters Today

Hits: 20

With our expectations having dwindled for the ability of the COVID-19 vaccines to end the pandemic, and with growing unease surrounding their longterm side effects, those of us who got the shots are left with the consolation prize of having done the right thing.

But rolling up our sleeves wasn’t a matter of right versus wrong, even though our leaders wanted to make it seem that way.

The prospect of saving lives made it easy to frame vaccine mandates as a moral imperative, but to some that promise was a carrot on a stick they were unwilling to follow. And there was nothing wrong with that.

From the beginning, the pandemic response had us running in lockstep towards unprecedented safety extremes that we were discouraged from questioning, even as those measures began to look increasingly unnecessary. In the back of our minds we had hoped that a vaccine would end the outbreak along with the authoritarian streak that seemed to have been stalking us.

But when the vaccine arrived, it only traded us up from one level of tyranny to the next.

Instead of being leery of the power we were handing our leaders, we let them convince us that snap, unquestioning acceptance of it was a moral urgency.

The science we so dutifully had been following happened to have bent and wended in just such a way to make it necessary that a single QR code scan would stand between every citizen and their access to society, healthcare, education, and employment — perhaps in perpetuity.

The new normal, which we thought couldn’t demand any more from us — between lockdowns, masking, and distancing — now wanted a sacrifice of our bodily autonomy and to install a non-theoretical, centralized mechanism for shutting off disobedient citizens from society.

No amount of moralizing about saving lives was going to convince a conscientious minority that such mounting edicts were a fair trade for our safety. And as we careened toward a future that looked indistinguishable from an authoritarian one, it was precisely their counterbalancing voices that we desperately needed.

So as the majority of us complied, doing our duty to stop the germ, we should have felt solace that others were doing theirs also, doggedly pushing back against a control system we had just given a blank check and all of our trust.

But instead of being leery of the power we were handing our leaders, we let them convince us that snap, unquestioning acceptance of it was a moral urgency.

What we got looked like wartime propaganda, once used to galvanize a nation against an external enemy, now used to turn us against our neighbours and to radicalize support for objectionable government policy.

We were given an hyperbolic choice between total compliance or mass death and were bombarded with daily examples of the good citizen — masked, jabbed, and willing to prove it — compared with the bad — selfish, ignorant, distrusting of authority and clinging to stupid ideas like freedom.

An entire caricature emerged of the “anti-vaxxer,” putting a stink around the mere thought of resistance. Doubt stayed silent and proud displays of compliance became a way to spite the disobedient.

What we got looked like wartime propaganda, once used to galvanize a nation against an external enemy, now used to turn us against our neighbours and to radicalize support for objectionable government policy.

And so we now either hold onto the mobilizing notion that getting vaccinated was “doing the right thing” — in spite of the alternative response being just as principled — or we realize that we lived to experience, first-hand, the kind of mind control that reshapes societies into dystopias overnight.

If we didn’t come close to permanent social restructuring, we went through all of the motions for it. And the backbone of that change was the effort to foist an exclusionary moral ultimatum onto a policy we should have seen in a spectrum of greys. What’s left to be done is to understand that goodwill can be hijacked and to recognize from the example of COVID exactly what it looks like when it happens again.

Article was first posted here.

Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Medicine

Oops! CDC, FDA “Respond” to Florida Surgeon General’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Alert

Hits: 31

WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 9: CDC Director Rochelle Walensky speaks during a news conference at HHS headquarters March 9, 2023 in Washington, DC. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra and other agency heads discussed President Joe Biden’s fiscal year 2024 budget request for the Department of Health and Human Services. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Now they’re claiming we can’t trust the Vaers database they themselves set up.

U.S. health authorities have responded to the warning from Florida’s surgeon general about a spike in reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

Drs. Rochelle Walensky and Robert Califf claimed in the response that Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the surgeon general, was misleading the public by focusing on the increase in adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

“The claim that the increase of VAERS reports of life-threatening conditions reported from Florida and elsewhere represents an increase of risk caused by the COVID-19 vaccines is incorrect, misleading, and could be harmful to the American public,” Walensky and Califf said in the missive.

Walensky heads the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Califf heads of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The CDC and FDA co-manage VAERS, which accepts reports from anybody but which is primarily used by healthcare workers.

The COVID-19 vaccines were given emergency authorization in late 2020. Under the emergency authorizations, vaccine companies and healthcare workers are required to report certain adverse events through VAERS, “so more reports should be expected,” Walensky and Califf said.

“Most reports do not represent adverse events caused by the vaccine and instead represent a preexisting condition that preceded vaccination or an underlying medical condition that precipitated the event,” they said.

They did not cite any studies or other research to support the claim.

While anyone can lodge reports with the system, authorities request medical records and other documentation in an effort to verify reports of certain events. Out of 1,826 reports of heart inflammation after Pfizer or Moderna vaccination in adults through May 26, 2022, for instance, the CDC verified 72 percent.

The CDC also identified hundreds of safety signals for the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines through analyzing VAERS data in 2022, according to records obtained by The Epoch Times. A safety signal is a possible sign of a side effect. Only a handful of adverse events are definitely caused by the vaccines, according to the CDC, including myocarditis, or heart inflammation, and severe allergic shock.

Ladapo said in February that in Florida, the number of reports to VAERS after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized spiked by 1,700 percent, while the increase in vaccine administration rose by just 400 percent.

“We have never seen this type of response following previous mass vaccination efforts pushed by the federal government,” Ladapo said in a letter to Walensky and Califf.

“These findings are unlikely to be related to changes in reporting given their magnitude, and more likely reflect a pattern of increased risk from mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he added, calling for “unbiased research … to better understand these vaccines’ short- and long-term effects.” The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both use messenger RNA (mRNA) technology.

Florida officials pointed to a study that found in the original clinical trials that the vaccinated were more at risk of serious adverse events, as well as other papers that found an increased risk of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination.

Florida currently recommends against COVID-19 vaccination for young, healthy males who have been shown to be at the highest risk of myocarditis. Vaccinating the population “doesn’t make any sense” from a risk-benefit standpoint, Ladapo, appointed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told The Epoch Times. The heart inflammation causes serious problems and can even lead to death in some cases.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert Califf testifies during a Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on April 28, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Officials Differ

Walensky and Califf, both appointed by Democrat President Joe Biden, told Ladapo that their reference information supports vaccinating virtually all people aged 6 months and older with not only a primary series of the COVID-19 vaccine, but boosters.

“Based on available information for the COVID-19 vaccines that are authorized or approved in the United States, the known and potential benefits of these vaccines clearly outweigh their known and potential risks,” they said. “Multiple well conducted, peer-reviewed, published studies and demonstrate that the risk of death, serious illness and hospitalization is higher for unvaccinated individuals for every age group.”

The officials cited studies from the CDC, including papers published by the agency’s quasi journal. According to the CDC, some papers published by the journal aren’t peer reviewed. All of the studies are shaped by agency officials to align with its messaging, which during the pandemic has been aggressively pro-vaccination, even as awareness of confirmed and possible side effects has grown.

The messaging was on display in the letter.

“As the leading public health official in state, you are likely aware that seniors in Florida are under-vaccinated, with just 29% of seniors having received an updated bivalent vaccine, compared to the national average of 41% coverage in seniors,” Walensky and Califf said. “It is the job of public health officials around the country to protect the lives of the populations they serve, particularly the vulnerable. Fueling vaccine hesitancy undermines this effort.”

The officials said that they “stand firmly behind the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which are fully supported by the available scientific data.”

“Staying up to date on vaccination is the best way to reduce the risks of death and serious illness or hospitalization from COVID-19. Misleading people by overstating the risks, or emphasizing the risks without acknowledging the overwhelming benefits, unnecessarily causes vaccine hesitation and puts people at risk of death or serious illness that could have been prevented by timely vaccination,” the officials continued.

The letter came after the CDC’s recent risk-benefit assessment of the new, updated boosters was criticized by independent medical professionals for downplaying risks and exaggerating benefits.

The officials did not note that the FDA authorized, and the CDC recommended, the new vaccines absent any clinical trial data. More than half a year later, that data has still not been made available, prompting many doctors to forgo boosters. Recent CDC data indicates the vaccines provide poor protection against infection, that the shielding against severe illness quickly wanes, and that natural immunity is superior to vaccination.

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo. (York Du/The Epoch Times)


Walensky’s and Califf’s response to Ladapo featured citations to flawed studies, Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Epoch Times via email, “The CDC routinely conducts cross-sectional studies and inappropriately analyzes them as if they were case-control studies, which substantially overestimates their reported vaccine efficacy measures.

“In this letter, these doctors cherry pick studies and ignore, for example, reliable Public Health UK data showing the exact opposite of what they claim,” Risch said.

“As much as they claim that the VAERS data are not quantitatively useful, these data indeed show a major COVID-19 vaccine rollout-period mortality signal that cannot be ignored or handwaved away by the lack of a population reference. These agencies continuously proclaim their data monitoring of several other information sources, yet they have not been transparent with these data,” he added.

Risch noted that insurance data shows a jump in COVID-19 deaths after the vaccines were authorized and that, according to a recent survey, many Americans know of at least one person who has suffered an adverse event after vaccination.

“FDA and CDC have lost credibility with much of the American public, and accusing Dr. Ladapo of misinformation when they themselves are the official purveyor of misinformation is unconscionable,” Risch said.

Nikki Whiting, a spokeswoman for Ladapo, said that the surgeon general would be sending a response letter to the officials.

“The response from the federal government is just another redundant display of the same apathetic talking point of ‘safe and effective.’ Googling their fact sheets would have achieved the same result,” she told The Epoch Times in an email.

“While the Feds gaslight the American public, Florida pushes for the truth. Three inquiries remain unanswered: 1. Access to raw patient-level data to allow for unbiased research. 2. Adequate attention surrounding the risks detected by numerous researchers around the world. 3. Public transparency from the CDC, FDA, and Big Pharma.”

COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Lead author of new Cochrane review speaks out.

Hits: 30

Lead author of new Cochrane review speaks out.

I’ve decided to post the entire interview from Dr. Demasi’s substack Also our lurker loons seem to be confused about what’s a fact and what’s Progressive gobly gook. Before I forget, the Study Doctor Jefferson’s group of doctors and scientists did was peer reviewed. Recently one of the lurker posted what it called a fact. A assistant worker at a hospital as a rebuttal to the report. One low level person. Well again this loon went after the report.

It’s source was Michael Hiltzik. What doctor or scientist is Mr. Hiltzik? He’s not one. I’ve been in contact with him since 2004. He’s a business writer for the LA Times. Yes a business writer. And a very good one at that. Not a medical writer. So if you wish to read his articles, you’ll find him in the business section not medical.



Tom Jefferson, senior associate tutor at the University of Oxford, is the lead author of a recent Cochrane review that has ‘gone viral’ on social media and re-ignited one of the most divisive debates during the pandemic – face masks.

The updated review titled “Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses” found that wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to influenza-like or covid-19-like illness transmission.

This comes off the back of three years of governments mandating the use of face masks in the community, schools and hospital settings. Just last month, the WHO upgraded its guidelines advising “anyone in a crowded, enclosed, or poorly ventilated space” to wear a mask.

Jefferson and his colleagues also looked at the evidence for social distancing, hand washing, and sanitising/sterilising surfaces — in total, 78 randomised trials with over 610,000 participants.

Jefferson doesn’t grant many interviews with journalists — he doesn’t trust the media. But since we worked together at Cochrane a few years ago, he decided to let his guard down with me.

During our conversation, Jefferson didn’t hold back. He condemned the pandemic’s “overnight experts”, he criticised the multitude of scientifically baseless health policies, and even opened up about his disappointment in Cochrane’s handling of the review.

The Interview

DEMASI: This Cochrane review has caused quite a stir on social media and inflamed the great mask debate. What are your thoughts?

JEFFERSON: Well, it’s an update from our November 2020 review and the evidence really didn’t change from 2020 to 2023. There’s still no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic.

DEMASI: And yet, most governments around the world implemented mask mandates during the pandemic…

JEFFERSON: Yes, well, governments completely failed to do the right thing and demand better evidence. At the beginning of the pandemic, there were some voices who said masks did not work and then suddenly the narrative changed.

DEMASI: That is true, Fauci went on 60 minutes and said that masks are not necessary and then weeks later he changed his tune.

JEFFERSON: Same with New Zealand’s Chief Medical Officer.  One minute he is saying masks don’t work, and the next minute, he flipped.

DEMASI: Why do you think that happened?

JEFFERSON: Governments had bad advisors from the very beginning…  They were convinced by non-randomised studies, flawed observational studies.  A lot of it had to do with appearing as if they were “doing something.”

In early 2020, when the pandemic was ramping up, we had just updated our Cochrane review ready to publish…but Cochrane held it up for 7 months before it was finally published in November 2020.

Those 7 months were crucial. During that time, it was when policy about masks was being formed.  Our review was important, and it should have been out there.

DEMASI: What was the delay?

JEFFERSON: For some unknown reason, Cochrane decided it needed an “extra” peer-review.  And then they forced us to insert unnecessary text phrases in the review like “this review doesn’t contain any covid-19 trials,” when it was obvious to anyone reading the study that the cut-off date was January 2020.

DEMASI: Do you think Cochrane intentionally delayed that 2020 review?  

JEFFERSON: During those 7 months, other researchers at Cochrane produced some unacceptable pieces of work, using unacceptable studies, that gave the “right answer”.

DEMASI: What do you mean by “the right answer”?  Are you suggesting that Cochrane was pro-mask, and that your review contradicted the narrative. Is that your intuition?

JEFFERSON: Yes, I think that is what was going on. After the 7-month delay, Cochrane then published an editorial to accompany our review.  The main message of that editorial was that you can’t sit on your hands, you’ve got to do something, you can’t wait for good evidence…. it’s a complete subversion of the ‘precautionary principle’ which states that you should do nothing unless you have reasonable evidence that benefits outweigh the harms.

DEMASI: Why would Cochrane do that?

JEFFERSON: I think the purpose of the editorial was to undermine our work.

DEMASI: Do you think Cochrane was playing a political game?

JEFFERSON: That I cannot say, but it was 7 months that just happened to coincide with the time when all the craziness began, when academics and politicians started jumping up and down about masks. We call them “strident campaigners”.  They are activists, not scientists.

DEMASI: That’s interesting.

JEFFERSON: Well, no. It’s depressing.

DEMASI: So, the 2023 updated review now includes a couple of new covid-19 studies….the Danish mask study….and the Bangladesh study.  In fact, there was a lot of discussion about the Bangladesh mask study which claimed to show some benefit….

JEFFERSON: That was not a very good study because it was not a study about whether masks worked, it was a study about increasing compliance for wearing a mask.

DEMASI: Right, I remember there was a reanalysis of the Bangladesh study showing it had significant bias….you’ve worked in this area for decades, you’re an expert…

JEFFERSON [interjects]… please do not call me an expert. I’m a guy who has worked in the field for some time. That has to be the message. I don’t work with models, I don’t make predictions. I don’t hassle people or chase them on social media. I don’t call them names… I’m a scientist. I work with data.

David Sackett, the founder of Evidence Based Medicine, once wrote a very famous article for The BMJ saying that ‘experts’ are part of the problem. You just have to look at the so-called ‘experts’ that have been advising government.

DEMASI: There were so many silly mask policies. They expected 2yr olds to wear masks, and you had to wear a mask to walk into a restaurant, but you could take it off as soon as you sat down.

JEFFERSON: Yes, also the 2- meter rule. Based on what? Nothing.

DEMASI: Did you wear a mask?

JEFFERSON: I follow the law. If the law says I need to wear one, then I wear one because I have to.  I do not break the law. I obey the law of the country.

DEMASI: Yeah, same. What would you say to people who still want to wear a mask?

JEFFERSON: I think it’s fair to say that if you want to wear a mask then you should have a choice, okay. But in the absence of evidence, you shouldn’t be forcing anybody to do so.

DEMASI: But people say, I’m not wearing a mask for me, I’m wearing it for you.

JEFFERSON: I have never understood that difference. Have you?

DEMASI: They say it’s not to protect themselves, but to protect others, an act of altruism.

JEFFERSON: Ah yes. Wonderful. They get the Albert Schweitzer prize for Humanitarianism. Here’s what I think. Your overnight experts know nothing.

DEMASI (laughs)

JEFFERSON: There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop. My job, our job as a review team, was to look at the evidence, we have done that. Not just for masks. We looked at hand washing, sterilisation, goggles etcetera…

DEMASI: What’s the best evidence for avoiding infection?

JEFFERSON: I think your best shot is sanitation/sterilisation with antiseptic products. We’ve known for about 40 to 50 years that the inside of toilets, handles, seats for example, you recover a very high concentration of replication competent virus, it doesn’t matter what viruses they are. This argues for a contact / fomite mode of transmission.

Also, hand washing shows some benefit, especially in small children. The problem with that is, unless you make the population completely psychotic, they will not comply.

DEMASI: May I just ask a finer point on masks… it’s not that masks don’t work, it’s just that there is no evidence they do work…is that right?

JEFFERSON: There’s no evidence that they do work, that’s right. It’s possible they could work in some settings….we’d know if we’d done trials. All you needed was for Tedros [from WHO] to declare it’s a pandemic and they could have randomised half of the United Kingdom, or half of Italy, to masks and the other half to no masks. But they didn’t. Instead, they ran around like headless chickens.

DEMASI: I’ve worked as a political advisor, so I know that Governments don’t like to appear “uncertain,” they like to act as if they are in control of the situation….

JEFFERSON: Well, there’s always uncertainty. Masking became a “visible” political gesture, which is a point we make over and over again now.  Washing hands and sanitation and vaccination are not overtly visible, but wearing a mask is.

DEMASI: Your review also showed that n95 masks for healthcare workers did not make much difference. 

JEFFERSON: That’s right, it makes no difference – none of it.

DEMASI: Intuitively it makes sense to people though…. you put a barrier between you and the other person, and it helps reduce your risk?

JEFFERSON: Ahhhh the Swiss cheese argument…..

DEMASI: Well, the ‘Swiss cheese’ model was one of the most influential explanations for why people should layer their protection. Another barrier, another layer of protection? You don’t like the Swiss cheese model?

JEFFERSON: I like Swiss cheese to eat — the model not so much …It’s predicated on us knowing exactly how these respiratory viruses transmit, and that, I can tell you, we don’t know.  There isn’t a single mode of transmission, it is probably mixed.

The idea that the covid virus is transmitted via aerosols has been repeated over and over as if its “truth” but the evidence is as thin as air. It’s complex and all journalists want 40 years of experience condensed into two sentences. You can quote the Swiss cheese model, but there’s no evidence that many of these things make any difference.

DEMASI: Why? How can that be?

JEFFERSON: It’s probably related to the way that people behave, it could be the way viruses are transmitted or their port of entry, people don’t wear masks correctly….no-one really knows for sure.  I keep saying it repeatedly, it needs to be looked at by doing a huge, randomised study – masks haven’t been given a proper trial. They should have been done, but they were not done. Instead, we have overnight experts perpetuating a ‘fear-demic.’

DEMASI: I’ve heard people say it would be unethical to do a study and randomise half of a group to masks and the other half to no masks….do you agree?

JEFFERSON: No, because we don’t know what effect masks will have.  If we don’t know what impact they have, how can it be unethical? Strident fanatics have managed to poison this whole discussion and try and make it into a black and white thing…and rely on terribly flawed studies.

DEMASI: Thanks for the chat with me today.

JEFFERSON: You’re welcome, Maryanne.

Note: This interview was edited for clarity and brevity. Jefferson is co-author of Trust The Evidence

COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Just putting this out there. Covid injections are ineffective and don’t block transmission, says Bill Gates AFTER selling his shares in BioNTech for a massive profit

Hits: 19

Covid injections are ineffective and don’t block transmission, says Bill Gates AFTER selling his shares in BioNTech for a massive profit.

I want to thank  The Expose.

In 2021, Bill Gates called mRNA injections “game changers.” Contrast that with his latest statements, after turning his $55 million investment into $550 million, acknowledging the injections’ failures. What evil plan is he hatching next?

In 2019, Bill Gates invested $55 million in BioNtech – which developed the covid injection for Pfizer – it’s now worth $550 million.

Gates sold some of the stock at the end of 2022 when the share price was over $300.  After reaping huge profits, Gates criticised covid injections, stating they don’t block infection, aren’t effective against variants and have “very short duration.”

Gates’ motivations run far deeper than making money off shrewd investments. By funding the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), Gates is able to ensure that the decisions it makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma partners.  Gates – via collaborations with WHO, Anthony Fauci and others – is aiming to have absolute power to control pandemic declarations and responses worldwide.

The Hill: Bill Gates MRNA Grift EXPOSED? Billionaire TRASHES Jab Despite Reaping MASSIVE Profits, 25 January 2023 (9 mins)

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

In The Hill video above, Bill Gates trashes mRNA covid-19 injections, naming three problems with them that need to be fixed. “The current vaccines are not infection-blocking,” Gates says, “They’re not broad – so when new variants come up you lose protection – and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”1

Covid-19 injections’ lack of efficacy and safety is not news, so why is this a remarkable statement coming from Gates? He’s been a major proponent of mRNA technology and invested heavily in BioNTech, which developed the covid-19 injection for Pfizer. He’s since sold a lot of those shares, earning a 10x profit.

Gates Reaps Windfall Profits From mRNA Injection Investment

As reported by The Hill’s co-host Briahna Joy Gray, Gates invested $55 million in BioNtech in 2019, and it’s now worth $550 million. He sold some of the stock at the end of 2022 when the share price was over $300 – representing a massive gain. Co-host Robby Soave then states:2

Let’s follow that trajectory: [Gates] invests heavily in BioNTech, “mRNA vaccines are great, this is the future,” he talks about the vaccine timeline and how we can develop it faster, “we might have to cut some corners on safety” … All in … sells it … makes a huge amount of money … but now it’s “yeah, it’s okay, it could be better, but what we really need is this breath spray.”

Soave is referring to a statement Gates made regarding a type of inhaler that could be used “very early in an epidemic” to block people from becoming infected.3 The glaring conflict of interest is only highlighted by Gates’ about-face regarding the injections.

In 2021, Gates called mRNA injections “magic” and “game changers.” He’s also said: “Everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves but reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal.”4 Contrast that with his latest statements acknowledging the injections’ failures. Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel explained:5

Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who served as one of the architects of covid hysteria and had more of an impact than any other individual on the disastrous global pandemic policies, has finally acknowledged that the mRNA shots he’s been promoting for two years are nothing more than expired pharma junk.

Translation: Gates admits that the shots are impossible to align with rapidly developing variants, they expire in lightning speed, and they don’t stop transmission. And they don’t work for the only at-risk portion of the population.

Gates’ major reversal on the injections comes too late, however, as his prior praises were instrumental in dictating government policy, despite his massive financial conflicts of interest. Soave adds:

For there not to be more interrogation of his conflict of interest here by the mainstream is deeply disturbing, and for people who have been sceptical of this aspect of Pfizer and the drug development around covid and who have been shot down in the media as kooks, anti-vaxxers and the like.

I frankly think that this issue of pharmaceutical corruption and people pushing various interventions, having an investment in profit, should have been an issue that the left was leading on.

We have to be more transparent about the fact that people who are having input in what the government policy is going to be, what’s going to be required people, the Biden administration tried to require people to get this, shouldn’t it be known at least when there are hundreds of millions of dollars of financial interests at stake for the people advising this? And their tune changes as it follows the money!

Gates Games the WHO

Gates’ motivations run far deeper than making money off shrewd investments. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation remains a primary funder of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), as Gates contributes via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the vaccine alliance GAVI, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (“SAGE”), UNICEF and Rotary International.

In 2017, Politico wrote a highly-critical article about Gates’ undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:6

… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.

Indeed, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,” “The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial – albeit unelected – leader of the WHO.”7 And, in that role, Gates is able to ensure that the decisions the WHO makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma partners.

You may remember that, in 2019, Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsored a novel coronavirus pandemic preparedness exercise shortly before the pandemic started.

The event, which took place on 18 October 2019 in New York, was called Event 201, and it included a detailed simulation of a coronavirus outbreak with a predicted global death toll of 65 million people within a span of 18 months.8

On 23 October 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and WHO co-hosted another exercise, this one dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,” 9 which involved a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25) that primarily kills children.

So, we can already begin to predict what the next pandemic will revolve around, and with WHO aiming to have absolute power to control pandemic declarations and responses worldwide, it paves the way to usher in the next phases of The Great Reset and Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Covid Is Critical to Hack Humans

The Scheming cf Bill Gates And Anthony Fauci (5 mins)
Source: Dr. Joseph Mercola on Bitchute

Transhumanist Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, a top advisor to Klaus Schwab, owner and chairman of WEF, has spoken openly about WEF’s plan to gain control by “hacking organisms.”

“By hacking organisms,” Harari said, “[we] gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself. Because once you can hack something, you can usually also engineer it.”10 Soon, he says, some corporations and governments will be able to “systematically hack all the people.” And if they succeed in hacking life, he describes it as the “greatest revolution in biology since the beginning of life 4 billion years ago.”11

Covid-19 is instrumental in this plan, Harari says, as it propelled the public to accept privacy violations it would have otherwise rejected. “Covid is critical,” he says, “because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimise, total biometrics surveillance.”12

Undoubtedly, the plan is to connect everything together – your identification, personal finances via central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”), and medical and vaccination records. Gates has downplayed suggestions of biometric surveillance as conspiracy theories, however.

In an interview with Australian journalist Sarah Ferguson, Gates not only mentions “intentionally caused” pandemics13 – while maintaining that the covid-19 pandemic was “natural” – but also states he reported “false stories” and “people who highlight almost silly misinformation” to Big Tech.14

But while Gates tries to pass off people’s concerns about his undue influence over their health as a joke, there’s no shortage of evidence that he really is pulling strings, including via his collaborations with other key players, like Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Decades ago, Fauci and Gates formed an agreement to control and expand the global vaccine enterprise, which in 2021 culminated in a plan to inject every man, woman and child on the planet with an experimental covid-19 “vaccine.” Gates and Fauci’s collaboration are detailed in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s best-selling book, “The Real Anthony Fauci.” The video above summarises their joint scheme.

Gates Lies About Epstein Relationship

ABC News (Australia): Bill Gates complained to tech companies about ‘laughable’ covid-19 conspiracy theories, 31 January 2023 (13 mins)

While speaking with Ferguson, Gates also lies about his relationship with the now-infamous sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, stating they had dinner together and “that’s all.”15 However, media reports claim they met on multiple occasions and were in discussions about co-creating a charitable fund with seed money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan Chase.

It’s also been suggested that Gates’ global agenda is driven by a eugenicist ideology.16 Investigative journalist James Corbett notes:

According to The Times, Gates emailed his colleagues about Epstein in 2011: “His lifestyle is very different and kind of intriguing although it would not work for me.”

Epstein’s will even named Boris Nikolic – a Harvard-trained immunologist who served as the chief scientific advisor to both Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and who appears in the sole publicly known photo of Epstein and Gates’ 2011 meeting at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion – as the backup executor of Epstein’s estate.

It is not difficult to see why Gates would try to distance himself from his relationship with a child sex trafficker … But, as it turns out, the attempt to suppress the Gates-Epstein story may have been an attempt to suppress the revelation of an altogether different shared interest …

The already scarcely believable Jeffrey Epstein story took another bizarre turn in August of 2019 when it was reported that Epstein “Hoped to Seed the Human Race With His DNA.”

As The New York Times explained, Epstein’s plan to impregnate 20 women at a time at his New Mexico ranch in order to “seed the human race with his DNA” – plan he told to a number of the “scientific luminaries” he kept in his orbit – put a modern gloss on a very old idea.

Gates’ Relationship with Epstein Began Before 2011

Investigative journalist Whitney Webb, author of the book ‘One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime That Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein, also delves into Epstein’s ties to Gates. While the corporate media narrative states that Epstein and Gates didn’t meet until 2011, Webb says that’s not true:17

There’s mainstream media articles from 2001 saying that Jeffrey Epstein made all his money from his business connections – to three men – and those three men are Leslie Wexner [former owner of Victoria’s Secret], Donald Trump and the third one is Bill Gates.

One example of the deep connection that actually existed between Epstein and Gates involves Melanie Walker, who is also involved with WEF:18,19

She was recruited by Epstein in 1992, allegedly as a Victoria’s Secret model, but there’s no evidence she ever actually modelled for Victoria’s Secret. He apparently was funding her education, hires her as his science advisor in the late ’90s and then a couple years after that, in the early 2000s, she becomes the science advisor to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

So if you’re going to apply to be science advisor to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and your CV says my most recent experience is being the science advisor to Jeffrey Epstein, and you’re Bill Gates hiring your top science advisor, you would have to know who Jeffrey Epstein is and what kind of science he’s into.

Webb believes Gates is lying about his ties to Epstein not only to protect himself but also to protect Microsoft. “You also have, in the ’90s, Jeffrey Epstein flying around on planes to official Microsoft functions in Russia, apparently giving women to the chief technology officer who was very close to Bill Gates … all sorts of stuff going on there with Epstein and Microsoft,” Webb explained.20

Is the Narrative on Covid Injections Changing?

Gates’ negative remarks about the mRNA covid injections appear to be the start of a media trend exposing the injections’ risks and failures. The Wall Street Journal published a review detailing the “deceptive campaign for bivalent covid boosters,” stating they “fail to live up to their promise, but vaccine makers and experts keep pushing them.”21

Reports that Pfizer intends to mutate SARS-CoV-2 using gain-of-function processes, or directed evolution, have also been met with alarm and calls for a Congressional investigation.22 It’s possible the injections’ failures are becoming too great to cover up, leading to a gradual shift in the narrative, with a focus on preparing for future pandemics – one of Gates’ favourite topics.

Not content to stop with covid-19, Gates is intent on creating and distributing “standby tools” – i.e., more injections and drugs – globally to be prepared for the, apparently inevitable, next pandemic:23

So there’s a class that’s got measles in it, a class of flu, a class of coronavirus, and a fourth class, all of which we need to have standby tools, both antivirals and vaccines that can deal with those. It’s very doable. So on the tools front, we can be far more prepared.

Sources and References

COVID Reprints from others.

Just putting this out there. EXCLUSIVE: Stunning new data pulled from the Medicare database shows how each shot increases your risk of death

Hits: 40

EXCLUSIVE: Stunning new data pulled from the Medicare database shows how each shot increases your risk of death

We can now see very clearly what is going on. Shot #1 bumps your risk of death by around 20%. Shot # 2 bumps it another 20%. Shot #3 bumps your risk another 10%.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services - Wikipedia

Executive summary

I’m still gathering data from Medicare, but a consistent picture is emerging for Medicare participants under 80 years old:

  1. Shot #1 increases your risk of death by around 20% with an exponential time constant of around 150 days.
  2. Shot #2 increases your risk of death by an additional 20% with a time constant of around 100 days.
  3. Shot #3 increases your risk of death by an additional 10% with a time constant of around 50 days.
  4. Due to the limitations of the Medicare data (missing vaccination data on nearly half the records), it’s not clear whether the shots reduce your risk of death from COVID. We need data that the public health authorities refuse to provide. If the shots worked, they’d want to make this data public. Keeping the data under wraps suggests that the shots not only make you more likely to die from all causes, but they also make you more likely to die from COVID.

The data

Here’s the data. I’ll explain more in the next section.

About the data

This is Medicare death data for those under 80 years old pulled from all 50 states.

The graphs are deaths after vaccine shot #N by day.  So an x-axis value of100 means you died 100 days after you got that shot # and the vertical axis is the count of deaths at that time distance from that shot number.

The charts count all people who were vaccinated with the specific shot number sometime in 2021.

The effects of COVID spikes are smoothed out here due to the time window of the vaccine shots being spread so there aren’t “peaks” due to COVID outbreaks.

Since most older people were given their first vaccines in Q1 of 2021, there is a small seasonal spike around 300 days after the shots because older people die more often in the winter. That spike may also be from the COVID death surge in Jan 2022.

My interpretation of the results

My interpretation of the data above is based not just on this data, but extensive analysis of the Medicare data that I’ve done that is not described here.

Here’s what I believe is happening:

  1. In the first 20 days or so, we have a healthy vaccinee effect operating, i.e., they don’t inject people who they believe are about to die. That’s the big slope at the start with a short time constant of around 8 days. Death counts are also low because of a startup effect where if they inject you, and you are seriously injured, they’ll try to keep you alive before they give up and you’re officially dead. So after around 20 days, we’re at the “baseline” normal death rate.
  2. The drug starts working on you making you more and more likely to die over time starting from when you are injected. For the first dose, it looks like a time constant of around 150 days with a final value of around 20% above baseline death rate (without the vaccine). For shot #2, it seems to be a shorter time constant (around 100 days), and an endpoint 20% higher. So for the two shots combined, you are raising your risk of death by around 40%. The third shot acts faster to raise your risk of dying, but the endpoint is only around 10% above your previous baseline. So after your third shot, if you are old, you’ve raised your risk of death by around 50%.
  3. While these numbers seem impossibly high, consider that I know of a geriatric practice with 1,000 patients where the death rate was 11 deaths a year and in 2022, they had 39 deaths. They attribute all of the excess deaths to the vaccine. A funeral service in California that I recently talked to doubled his business in 2022. And many embalmers report 40% or more of their cases have these mystery clots. I know of a nursing home in Australia where the death rate went from 2% per year to over 20% in the 12 months after the vaccines rolled out. So I find it puzzling that the death numbers in the US appear to only be up by less than 20%.
  4. The drop offs you see in the charts after 360 days is because the time window of the shots is 1 year and we only looked at deaths till the end of 2022. Thus, we simply run out of time. The graphs limit you to vaccination in 2021 meaning ONLY the first 365 days are going to be “flat.”
  5. Pro-vaxers could argue these graphs by  claiming, “Oh look, the vaccines save you from dying for a year and then they wear off.” I’ve explored that and it’s not true. COVID kills in waves and when we restrict the vax window we look at, we can see the COVID peaks on top of the graph. Whether or not those peaks might have been higher if the person wasn’t vaccinated is something we can see if we can get the full dataset of who was vaccinated and who wasn’t so we can compare the peaks of vaccinated people with the peaks of unvaccinated people. That will tell us if there is any benefit to the vaccines at all; I wouldn’t be surprised if the peaks are higher for the vaxxed than the unvaxxed.

Have you looked at the excess deaths in the US lately?

The fact that 2021 and 2022 were excess death years suggests our main intervention made things worse, not better. And the 2022 numbers are incomplete according to the CDC. This is very unusual for excess deaths to be up like this. Usually, when you have a year with excess deaths, it is followed by a year of deficit deaths due to the depletion effect. This suggests something is at work that is killing people and it is not COVID. Hmmmm… wonder what it could be???? Hmmmm… gotta think about that one.


The shots increase your risk of death with every shot you take. The COVID vaccines aren’t safe for anyone.

It remains troubling to me why the authorities don’t release the data so everyone can see what is going on.

It is even more troubling that nobody in the mainstream medical community is calling for data transparency so that people will know the truth.

The only reason for keeping people in the dark about the COVID death/vax data is if the numbers would make the medical medical community look inept for supporting the vaccination program.

Mark my words: they will not be able to keep hiding the data.

When the data is finally set free, the entire medical community will be discredited, along with Congress, the White House, the mainstream media, high tech companies that continue to censor doctors trying to spread the truth, public health officials all over the world, and numerous State leaders, lawmakers, companies, universities, and organizations that required these vaccines in order to participate in society or keep a job.

World leaders should be listening to the people they are censoring and ignoring the people they are listening to.

COVID How sick is this? Uncategorized

How stupid are these people? Of course more vaccinated are dying. Maybe because the vaccine doesn’t work like they thought it would?

Hits: 56

How stupid are these people? Of course more vaccinated are dying. Maybe because the vaccine doesn’t work like they thought it would? Not so long ago I thought I explained this, but I guess there a few folks who don’t get it.

Some on the left have two things they always say. Sure we’re getting COVID, but it’s mild and we’re not being hospitalized. That worked for some until August of 2022. More vaccinated than unvaccinated were dying from COVID. And more vaccinated than unvaccinated were being hospitalized. So now what?

Not to worry. The new slogan went something like this. Sure more vaccinated are being hospitalized and dying because more are vaccinated than unvaccinated. Does that work?

So the WHO, CDC, and the FDA claimed that the vaccination would prevent the death and hospitalizations less a few rare cases. But when more vaccinated are dying, getting sick, and being hospitalized, how was the vaccine beneficial for those folks? Remember the first claim. Vaccinated protects you from dying and getting hospitalized.

Don’t even get me started on the side effects the vaccinated are having.

Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Just putting this out there. Professor: COVID pandemic, inflation make minority parents ‘devolve’ to poor behavior

Hits: 18

‘Historically marginalized communities like Philadelphia experience even higher levels of trauma’A professor at Thomas Jefferson University said incidences of Philadelphia parents and other adults coming to schools to settle their kids’ arguments and threaten teachers is due in part to the effects of the COVID pandemic, inflation and gun violence.Psychologist Kirby Wycoff (pictured) told The Philadelphia Inquirer that “historically marginalized communities like Philadelphia experience even higher levels of trauma than other communities,” and as such “may devolve to behavior that’s not helpful.”

“These families are stressed out, overwhelmed, and not sure how to get their needs met,” Wycoff said. “It’s not OK, but I can understand where it’s coming from.”

Over the last two years, the 217 schools in the city district have seen a concerning number of threats and incidents involving adults. In the first half of this school year there have been “five assaults on employees by parents and 35 threats by parents to employees.” At this same time last year there were two and 41, respectively.

Jerry Jordan, president of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, related how he recently approved the transfer of a teacher who had been assaulted by a student and, soon thereafter, members of the student’s family.

“Adults just marched right into the school, ignored the rules of checking into the office, walked right into the classroom, and attacked the teacher [physically],” Jordan told the Inquirer.

MORE: Philly teachers fed up with knuckleheaded discipline policies

Former Principal Robin Cooper said school district officials share the blame: “Why would I act appropriately if there’s nothing in it for me, if I know I can come up and act a fool and my kid still gets to terrorize a school? Our schools are not bad if the supports are there to hold people accountable for behavior.”

Cooper’s comments reflect the situation in many American schools: a paucity of teachers.

Despite media accounts about things like poor salaries, constant student misbehavior and lack of administrative support rank consistently highest among educator (and potential educator) concerns.

Wycoff’s solutions — more school “resources” and “promoting trauma-informed practices across systems” — sound a lot like methods in line with “restorative justice.”

According to her faculty page, Wycoff is co-author of articles such as “Motherhood Among Young Black Women: Wisdom and Survival amidst Trauma, Racism, and Structural Oppression,” “‘I ain’t ready: It’s time to get ready:’ Exploring Dichotomous Feelings about Motherhood among Young Women of Color,” and “Applying a MTSS Framework to Address Racism and Promote Mental Health for Racially and Ethnically Minoritized Youth.”

MORE: Philly schools launch ‘comprehensive initiative’ to end racism

COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Putting it out there. Washington Post Report Showing Exercise Reduces COVID-19 Risk was Criticized Online for “Confirming the Obvious”

Hits: 9

Washington Post Report Showing Exercise Reduces COVID-19 Risk was Criticized Online for “Confirming the Obvious”

How can that be? A part time water department employee tells us only the multiple jabs prevent COVID risks.

A Washington Post report showing exercise reduces COVID-19 risk was criticized online Wednesday for “confirming the obvious” and vindicating critics who opposed gym closures during the pandemic, Fox News reported.

Gretchen Reynolds, a health columnist for the Washington Post, mentioned in what she called an “eye-opening study” in an article titled “Regular exercise protects against fatal COVID, a new study shows” that confirmed any amount of activity significantly lowered the risk of acquiring a severe coronavirus infection.

“Men and women who worked out at least 30 minutes most days were about four times more likely to survive covid-19 than inactive people, according to an eye-opening study of exercise and coronavirus outcomes among almost 200,000 adults in Southern California,” according to the article.

“The study found that exercise, in almost any amount, reduced people’s risks for a severe coronavirus infection. Even people who worked out for as little as 11 minutes a week — yes, a week — experienced lower risks of hospitalization or death from covid than those who moved about less,” it added.

“The findings add to mounting evidence that any amount of exercise helps lower the ferocity of coronavirus infections, a message with particular relevance now, as holiday travel and gatherings ramp up and covid cases continue to rise.”

“It turns out exercise is even more powerful than we thought” at protecting people from severe covid, said Robert Sallis, a clinical professor at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine in Los Angeles and senior author of the new study.

Many people online blasted the far-left Washington Post for reporting a study of what most people already knew since the beginning of the pandemic.







While the rest of the world is busy mandating the experimental COVID-19 vaccines, El Salvador launched a new ad campaign to help prevent COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations.

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele launched a new ad campaign that promotes people to live a healthy lifestyle, early this year.

The campaign video, tweeted by President Bukele, tells Salvadorans that a healthy lifestyle also helps reduce any complications caused by COVID-19. It is the safest and easiest way to combat COVID-19.

The video gives recommendations that people need to follow to help reduce complications from COVID-19 and prevent deaths and hospitalizations.

The El Salvadoran government told people what the “experts” should have been saying from the beginning. American health officials, Dr. Anthony Fauci,  Joe Biden, and state governors should spend time talking about these things and not about pushing experimental vaccines to kids and adults.

Here’s the translation:

“Maintaining a healthy lifestyle also helps reduce complications from COVID-19. The groups most at risk of mortality are older adults and people with obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and chronic diseases. Therefore, put these recommendations into practice. Eat a healthy balanced diet to get closer to your ideal weight. Do outdoor activities so you can breathe fresh air and get some sun. What your body needs to make vitamin D. Drink at least two liters of water a day to keep your kidneys healthy. Reduce stress by spending time with yourself such as doing yoga or reading a book. Try to sleep no less than 6 hours a day. Include citrus fruits in your diet, such as lemons, oranges, or tangerines. Avoid consuming alcoholic beverages, foods high in sugar or saturated fat. Today more than ever we must take care of each other. Stay healthy. Government of El Salvador.”




COVID Reprints from others.

Why Won’t the Canadian Medical Association Comment on the 32 Deaths of Vaccinated Doctors Since the Rollout Began?

Hits: 24

Article by Will Jones.

Dr. William Makis, a doctor in Canada, has written to the Presidents of the Canadian Medical Association to draw their attention to what appears to be an extraordinarily high death rate among doctors in Canada, 32 of whom died “suddenly and unexpectedly” in the past 16 months.

Dr. Makis points out that all of them were double, triple or quadruple COVID‐19 vaccinated, and argues each death is “highly suspicious for COVID‐19 vaccine injury, as these previously healthy doctors died suddenly while engaging in regular physical activity, died unexpectedly in their sleep, suffered heart attacks, strokes, unusual accidents, or developed sudden onset aggressive cancers”.

Steve Kirsch reports that Dr. Makis has received no response to his letter sent four weeks ago.

While the letter’s sample lacks a control group to compare how many such deaths would be expected among the cohort during the period, the figure does seem to be extremely high given the age of the doctors, and the circumstances of the deaths are indeed consistent with vaccine injury. It’s certainly not proof of causation, but it’s something that warrants urgent investigation, and the CMA’s silence is disturbing.

September 3rd 2022

Canadian Medical Association (CMA)


Dear CMA Presidents Dr. Alika Lafontaine (2022‐23) and Dr. Katharine Smart (2021‐22)

Re:      Sudden deaths of 32 young Canadian doctors since rollout of COVID‐19 vaccines

CMA’s Mission Statement is: “Empowering and caring for patients.” CMA’s Vision Statement is: “A vibrant profession and a healthy population.” Since the rollout of COVID‐19 vaccines in Canada starting in December 2020, CMA has aggressively and unethically promoted the use of experimental COVID‐19 vaccines in populations where risks of serious vaccine injury far outweighed any potential benefits (including children of all ages, teens, pregnant women, healthy adults under age 70).

CMA also supported illegal and unscientific COVID‐19 vaccine mandates that were forced upon Canada’s 92,000 doctors by corrupt health bureaucrats. CMA did so in violation of its own CMA Code of Ethics, and both of you participated in these ethics violations. You betrayed not only your physician members but the Canadian public that CMA serves. This is unprecedented in CMA’s 155‐year history.

I am attaching photos and information of 32 young Canadian doctors who died suddenly and unexpectedly in the past 16 months, all of whom were double, triple or quadruple COVID‐19 vaccinated. Each of these deaths is highly suspicious for COVID‐19 vaccine injury, as these previously healthy doctors died suddenly while engaging in regular physical activity, died unexpectedly in their sleep, suffered heart attacks, strokes, unusual accidents, or developed sudden onset aggressive cancers.

Pfizer and Moderna may not be legally liable for their defective pharmaceutical products, but in publicly promoting their forceful use on Canada’s doctors, you are both legally liable, and so is CMA.

You cannot stay silent while illegally mandated COVID‐19 vaccines may be killing dozens of young Canadian doctors and putting thousands of doctors at high risk of severe injury and death. I am urging you to remember your ethics and Oath, and use your platform as Presidents of CMA to publicly call for the immediate termination of all COVID‐19 vaccine mandates in Canada’s healthcare, and call for urgent investigations and public inquiries into what is killing fully COVID‐19 vaccinated young Canadian doctors.

Thank you,

Dr. William Makis MD, FRCPC

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights