Read full article: Best news here
Do you remember the scenes broadcast on the mainstream news channels, and plastered across the front pages at the start of 2020?
Infamous images of Chinese medical officials in hazmat suits collecting bodies off the pavements of Wuhan, where we were told they had collapsed and died in the street because of a new strain of coronavirus, now knows as COVID-19.
The scenes have not been replicated anywhere else, confirming that it was all a lie and propaganda, used to whip up the hysteria and justify the introduction of medical tyranny across the world, in the name of preventing the spread of COVID-19.
That is of course until now. Because now they are playing the same game, but this time with India.
By Jeanne Smits
According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before ‘proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product’ was produced.
April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A regional independent drug assessment center, the CTIAP (Centre territorial d’Information indépendante et d’Avis pharmaceutiques), which is linked to the Cholet public hospital in the west of France, recently published a report showing that the vaccines used against COVID were not only submitted to insufficient clinical testing, but that the quality of the active substances, their “excipients, some of which are new,” and the manufacturing processes are problematic. “These new excipients should be considered as new active substances,” the Cholet hospital team stated, in a study that according to them raises issues that have not been commented to date.
The team led by Dr. Catherine Frade, a pharmacist, worked on public data released by the EMA with relation to the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) shots, and its first caveat was that all these products only have temporary marketing authorizations. They are all subject to further studies that reach as far as 2024 and even beyond, and these will be almost impossible to be completed because of the way the vaccines are now being distributed, said the CTIAP report.
These studies even include the stability and comparability of the vaccine batches put on the market and the quality and safety of excipients — substances formulated alongside the active ingredient of a medication to facilitate or enhance their absorption.
According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before “proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product” was produced: all the manufacturing labs obtained future deadlines to submit their studies in this regard.
The authors of the report consider that the “variabilities, which impact the very core of the product, could even invalidate any clinical trials conducted” in the coming months and years.
They go so far as to state: “Prudence would even dictate that, in all countries where these vaccines against COVID-19 have been marketed, all the batches thus ‘released’ should be withdrawn immediately; and that these MAs that have been granted should be suspended, or even canceled, as a matter of urgency until further notice.”
Can we imagine launching a car manufacturing line and putting vehicles on the road, despite the uncertainties noted in the official documents published? These uncertainties are related to the quality of the parts making up the engine and the various other parts, including those related to safety, the manufacturing process, the reproducibility of the batches that are being marketed, etc.
In the field of medicines (including vaccines), the pharmaceutical act of “release” of the finished product (an authorized product intended for sale) constitutes the final stage of control that precedes the release of these products to the population. This key step of “release” is under the pharmaceutical responsibility of the manufacturers.
Following its previous analyses, the CTIAP of the Cholet Hospital Center has once again revealed to the public, and probably in an unprecedented and exclusive way, new vital information concerning the following four vaccines against COVID-19: the one from the BioNTech/Pfizer laboratory; the one from the Moderna laboratory; the one from the Astra Zeneca laboratory; the one from the Janssen laboratory.
This work was made possible thanks to the valuable contribution of Dr. Catherine Frade, pharmacist and former director of international regulatory affairs in the pharmaceutical industry. She graciously provided us with a documented, written alert. In this document, she sheds light on data extracted, on March 22, 2021, from the MA (marketing authorization) itself; an MA qualified as “conditional.” She has extracted “source data that is difficult to identify by someone who does not work in the field.” This data is therefore public and verifiable. First of all, it should be noted that the author of this document no longer works in the pharmaceutical industry; she states: “First of all, I would like to make it clear that I have no conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry.” It is therefore with her agreement that CTIAP intends to make available to the public, health professionals, decision-makers … an analysis of some of these data that all should read carefully.
This reflection first presents what a “conditional” MA is (I). Then, it recalls that the studies for these vaccines are not complete, as they run from “2021 to at least 2024” (II). Then, it reveals, in an unprecedented and exclusive way, that the official documents, published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), underline the insufficiency of the evidence concerning also the “quality” of the “active substance” and of the “excipients,” of the “manufacturing process,” of the “reproducibility of the batches” that are being commercialized, etc. (III). Finally, this analysis proposes a conclusion.
I — First of all, it is important to understand what a “conditional” MA is
An MA is to a drug what a car registration document is to a car. MA is granted when a drug has proven its quality, efficacy, and safety; with a positive benefit/risk ratio: that is, it presents more benefits than risks. Obtaining this MA is the essential condition for a pharmaceutical laboratory to sell any drug, including vaccines.
Here, in the case of these vaccines against COVID-19, the four MAs issued are so-called “conditional” MAs. They are temporary. They are valid for no more than one year, because they were obtained on the basis of “incomplete data.” To obtain a standard 5-year MA, the laboratories concerned must provide dossiers completed with “studies in progress and studies planned for the coming years.” Throughout “this development,” close and coordinated monitoring between the manufacturing laboratories and the health authorities is organized through regular discussions. The “conditional” MA is “re-evaluated each year” according to the contribution and critical analysis of additional data provided and collected during a full year.
This “conditional” MA is a European MA. It was obtained through the centralized accelerated procedure. It allows simultaneous marketing in the following 30 countries (European Union and European Free Trade Association): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden.
The studies concerning these four vaccines are therefore still in progress.
II — Secondly, the planned studies are still in progress and are spread over a period ranging from “2021 to at least 2024”
All of the studies submitted during the MA application are summarized in the EPAR (European Public Assessment Report). This report is published on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website. The planned studies, not yet completed, are also included.
This schedule, which “extends from 2021 to at least 2024,” depending on which COVID-19 vaccine is involved, is defined in the “annexes” of the conditional marketing authorization and in the published EPARs.
As an example, the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine received this European conditional MA on December 21, 2020. And the deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this vaccine is “December 2023.”
The Moderna vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 6, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “December 2022” at the earliest.
AstraZeneca’s vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 29, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “March 2024.”
The Janssen vaccine was granted conditional European marketing authorization on March 11, 2021. The deadline for submitting “confirmation” of the vaccine’s efficacy, safety and tolerance is “December 2023.”
However, to date — and this is undoubtedly where the unprecedented and exclusive revelation of this study lies — another deadline has been set for these four vaccines. This deadline no longer concerns only the ongoing clinical trials, but also the “proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product” itself: that is, the intrinsic quality (the heart) of the product sold and administered to millions of people.
III — Thirdly, and this seems to be unprecedented, the published official documents also underline the incompleteness of the evidence concerning the “quality” of the “active substance” and “excipients,” the “manufacturing process,” the ”reproducibility of the batches” marketed, etc.
The deadline for submitting additional evidence on the “quality” of the “active substance” and the “finished product” (i.e., the vaccine that is authorized and sold) is set for:
- “July 2021” for BioNTech/Pfizer;
- “June 2021” for Moderna;
- “June 2022” for Astra Zeneca;
- “August 2021” for Janssen.
Indeed, for these 4 vaccines, paragraph E, “Specific obligation regarding post-authorization measures for the conditional marketing authorization,” taken from Annex II of the MA, clearly states the following:
For the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine (pages 18-19)
By “March 2021,” the laboratory must provide “additional validation data” to “confirm the reproducibility of the finished product manufacturing process.”
By “July 2021,” the laboratory must provide missing information to:
- “complete the characterization of the active substance and the finished product;”
- “strengthen the control strategy, including the specifications of the active substance and the finished product” in order to “ensure the constant quality of the product;”
- “provide additional information regarding its synthesis process and control strategy” in order to “confirm the purity profile of the excipient ALC-0315” and “to ensure quality control and batch-to-batch reproducibility throughout the life cycle of the finished product;”
- and by “December 2023,” and “in order to confirm the efficacy and safety” of this vaccine, the company “shall submit the final clinical study report for the randomized, placebo-controlled, blind observer study (Study C4591001).
For the Moderna vaccine (page 15)
The laboratory should provide the missing information to:
- “complete the characterization of the manufacturing processes of the active substance and the finished product” (deadline “January 2021”);
- confirm the reproducibility of the manufacturing process of the active substance and the finished product (initial and final batch sizes) (deadline “April 2021”);
- “provide additional information on the stability of the active substance and the finished product and review the specifications of the active substance and the finished product after longer industrial practice” with the aim of “ensuring consistent product quality” (deadline “June 2021”);
- “submit the final study report for the randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded clinical trial for the mRNA-1273-P301 observer” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccine Moderna” (by December 2022).
For the Astra Zeneca vaccine (pages 14-15)
The laboratory must submit the missing information in order to:
- “provide additional validation and comparability data, and initiate further testing” with the aim of “confirming the reproducibility of the manufacturing processes of the active substance and the finished product” (by “December 2021”);
- “Provide the main analysis (based on the December 7 data cut-off (post database lock) and the final analysis of the combined pivotal studies” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca” (deadline “March 5, 2021” (for the main analysis) and “May 31, 2022” (for the combined analysis);
- “submit final reports of the randomized controlled clinical studies COV001, COV002, COV003 and COV005” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca” (due “May 31, 2022”);
- “provide additional data regarding the stability of the active substance and the finished product and revise the specifications of the finished product after extensive industrial practice” in order to “ensure consistent product quality” (deadline “June 2022”);
- “submit the synthesis and summaries of the primary analysis and the final clinical study report for study D8110C00001” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca in the elderly and in subjects with underlying disease” — due “April 30, 2021” (for the primary analysis) and “March 31, 2024” (for the final study report).
For the Janssen vaccine (page 18)
The laboratory should submit the missing information to:
- “provide additional comparability and validation data” to “confirm the reproducibility of the manufacturing process of the finished product” (deadline “August 15, 2021”);
- submit the final report of the VAC31518COV3001 randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind clinical study to “confirm the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S vaccine” by December 31, 2023.
These facts allow us to offer a conclusion.
For these reasons, which are not exhaustive, it has proved useful to look for and read the content of the paragraph E: “Specific obligation relating to post-authorization measures concerning the conditional marketing authorization,” extracted from Annex II of the MA, corresponding to each of these 4 vaccines against COVID-19.
The inadequacy of the evaluation does not only concern the clinical trials (studies conducted in humans (women and men)), but also the quality of the active substance, the excipients, some of which are new, the manufacturing process, and the batches released and administered to humans in several countries around the world.
Moreover, these new excipients must be considered as new active ingredients, and thus be the subject of a complete evaluation file similar to that required for a new active ingredient.
Changing the commercial name of one of these vaccines, as was recently announced for the AstraZeneca vaccine in particular, can only be considered as a cosmetic arrangement of the product’s image for marketing purposes (winning new public confidence, boosting sales). It would not answer the questions raised concerning the quality, efficacy and safety of the product. This is one of the usual techniques used to put make-up on (dissimulate) certain undesirable characteristics of the product concerned. It is a technique that has been used to present other drugs in the best possible light.
As already mentioned, in the field of medicines (including vaccines), the “release” of the finished product (intended for sale) is the final stage of control (of quality and therefore of safety) before making these products available to the population.
This key stage of “release” of batches is the pharmaceutical responsibility of the manufacturers. However, the responsibility of the users (institutions and health professionals in particular) may also be involved.
In our opinion, these clinical studies should never have begun before the intrinsic quality of the finished product and its manufacturing process had been fully mastered; before the formulas of these vaccines had been stabilized.
How can the results of these clinical trials, conducted on a global scale, be compared if the vaccine administered can vary from one manufacture to another, from one batch to another, from one region to another?
These variabilities, which impact the very core of the product, could even invalidate any clinical trials conducted.
Even in the case of a health emergency, it is therefore difficult for us to understand the basis for the MA (marketing authorization) that has been granted to these COVID-19 vaccines.
In addition to the uncertainties related to COVID-19, there are also the approximations related to the use, and the intrinsic quality, of these vaccines. Now two problems will have to be managed instead of one.
The maneuver seems subtle. The useful information is available in the official documents published in the framework of the MA; but this data is not made visible by the official discourse. It seems the latter has only tried to present these products as being effective and safe, without reservations; even though the formulas and manufacturing processes of these vaccines do not even seem to have been fully stabilized yet.
These new revelations, which are undoubtedly unprecedented and exclusive, further cast doubt on the validity of consent (a fundamental freedom) that is supposed to be free and informed, and which is said to have been given by the people who are now already vaccinated.
Every person has the right to clear, fair and appropriate information. This information is also perennial: if new data is revealed, those already vaccinated must be informed a posteriori (after the administration of this or that vaccine).
The “obligation” to vaccinate cannot therefore be sustained, even in a disguised form, notably through a “vaccine passport.”
This new analysis further confirms our previous reflections such as the one entitled “Could the Covid-19 vaccine (Tozinameran; COMIRNATY°) be qualified as ‘defective’ by a judge?” or those expressed in the two open letters that have already been sent to the Minister of Solidarity and Health and to the seven Orders of health professionals.
Vulnerability does not only arise from the age and state of health of individuals. Not being able to access independent information on medicines (including vaccines) is the first form of poverty and inequality.
Moreover, concerning the uncertainties on the effectiveness of these vaccines, the Council of State noted, on March 3, 2021, in particular the admission of the Ministry of Solidarity and Health itself, and the contradictions of the French “administration.” In this decision, and against the opinion of this Ministry, the Council of State had produced a decision that seemed to tend towards the recognition of this effectiveness. But, a few days later, in a new decision (n° 450413) issued on March 11, 2021, the Council of State changed its position and admitted “the uncertainty that remains regarding the real effectiveness of the vaccine in terms of the spread of the virus.” It should also be recalled that, on February 18, 2021, the Minister of Solidarity and Health also recognized, and that publicly, that no European country has been able to provide proof that these vaccines can prevent “severe” forms of COVID-19 (see press conference, starting at 34min 44s).
In its latest “Update on the surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines — Period from 12/03/2021 to 18/03/2021” published on March 26, 2021, and updated on March 29, 2021, the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines (ANSM) reports, in particular, the number of deaths that have occurred in France after the administration of these vaccines. Deaths that are notified (reported) in pharmacovigilance (regardless of the certainty of the “causal link” between these vaccines and these deaths): “311 deaths” after administration of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine; “4 deaths” after administration of the Moderna vaccine; “20 deaths” after administration of the Astra Zeneca vaccine; (no data is available at this time regarding the latest vaccine (Janssen) to be licensed). In general, for all drugs, there is a high level of under-reporting in pharmacovigilance despite the mandatory nature of these reports.
Consequently, prudence would even dictate that, in all countries where these vaccines against COVID-19 have been marketed, all the batches thus “released” should be withdrawn immediately; and that these MAs that have been granted should be suspended, or even cancelled, as a matter of urgency until further notice. In any case, this is the sense of the recommendations that we could suggest to the ad hoc authorities, and in particular to the French authorities. And, at the very least, this information must be made known to everyone in a clear, fair, and appropriate manner.
All the more so since, in the case of serious adverse effects, including deaths, and in order to establish the said “causal link” with certainty, the victims and their families are often powerless when faced with the requirement of “probatio diabolica” [a legal requirement to achieve an impossible proof].
Source: Life Site
All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…
By Jose Hermosa
Infectious disease expert Dr. Steven Hatfill confirms hydroxychloroquine-based medicine’s efficacy against the CCP (Communist Party of China) Virus. He has condemned Dr. Anthony Fauci and others’ intentional interference against the drug’s use, despite its proven effectiveness.
“It’s pretty clear that Dr. Fauci, Dr. Woodcock and Dr. [Rick] Bright are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States for giving this drug a bad name,” Dr. Hatfill said on Steve Bannon’s War Room program on April 13.
Also, Hatfill attributes the attitude of Fauci and other specialists who discredit hydroxychloroquine to the economic interest in pushing experimental vaccines, which is why they resort to the blockages inherent in medical bureaucracy.
Dr. Hatfill even states that by treating those infected with CCP Virus with hydroxychloroquine: “There is no need for a vaccine.”
“The fact is, the normal development of a vaccine takes a long time,” he said. “And it is only precipitated in case of extreme emergency if there is no effective drug treatment.”
He also said, “There was interference in the use of hydroxychloroquine, intentional interference. And we are in the mess we are in.”
In this regard, an article published in One News Now magazine by the American Family Association, a fundamentalist Christian non-profit organization founded by Mississippi pastor Donald Wildmon, claims that Fauci knows about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.
“Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose ‘expert’ advice to President Trump has led to the total shutdown of the greatest economic engine in the history of the world, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses,” wrote One News Now, last year.
It adds: “How did he know that? From research conducted by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is director.”
One News Now provides as the source of its claim an “official National Institutes of Health publication by Dr. Fauci.”
The study he refers to is from 2005 indexed by the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health and appeared in the peer-reviewed Virology Journal.
On the other hand, more than 232 clinical trials have already been published confirming hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy against infection with the CCP Virus.
In particular, hydroxychloroquine is given before the patient becomes seriously ill. According to studies listed on the c19HCQ.com website, the patient’s condition improves significantly, which documents the involvement of 3,706 scientists and the participation of 358,764 patients.
However, many physicians deny treatment with this product as a prophylactic or in early treatment due to the defamation promoted by Dr. Fauci and the politicized medical community.
Instead, vaccination with products manufactured by several laboratories is promoted by all means, even though all of them generate serious adverse effects, including thousands of deaths in several countries, when given.
In the following video, Dr. Dolores Cahill, world-renowned immunologist, and professor at University College Dublin in Ireland, talks about the adverse effects of vaccines with RNA technology, which could cause death after a few years, not only in the elderly but also in young people.
Doctora Dolores Cargill : pic.twitter.com/TDgOgmlCtC
— Félix S. Gutierrez (@Felixsanrafael) April 13, 2021
Source: The BL.Tv Politics
By Tia Sewell
On Mar. 10, the FBI’s Cyber Division released a Private Industry Notification (PIN) warning that:
“Malicious actors almost certainly will leverage synthetic content for cyber and foreign influence operations in the next 12-18 months.”
The PIN explains that manipulated images or video—often referred to as “deepfakes”—can be investigated by the FBI when the synthetic content is malicious and “attributed to foreign actors or is otherwise associated with criminal activities.”
The report specifically highlights content generated with artificial intelligence or machine learning techniques. It alleges that Russian, Chinese and Chinese-language actors have already used these emerging technologies to create real-looking profile images of nonexistent people in an effort to make their messages appear more authentic to online users. As technology continues to advance, the PIN asserts, the public is increasingly likely to encounter fraudulent, synthesized content online.
The PIN warns that “cyber actors may use synthetic content to create highly believable spearphishing messages or engage in sophisticated social engineering attacks,” citing a November 2020 Europol research report.
It further provides guidance for identifying the use of deepfakes in influence operations, using a photo from thispersondoesnotexist.com to illustrate different indications of deepfake technology. And it offers general guidance for combatting disinformation campaigns in a digital landscape littered with synthetic content.
The PIN was coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
You can read the PIN here :
Source: Law Fare
Not sick but criminals.
Jeffery Epstein Part I
Jeffery Epstein Part II
Jeffery Epstein Part III
Source: America the Greatest – WWG1WGA
History tells us that the 1918 Spanish Flu killed between 50 – 100 million people. At the time, medical and pharmaceutical sources described it as THE MOST horrific disease process since the Black Plague of 1347, which killed an estimated 25-30 million people.
Vaccination: “The Elephant in the Room”
In the book, Vaccination Condemned, by Eleanor McBean, PhD, N.D., the author describes, in detail, personal and family experiences during the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.
McBean’s coverage of the 1918 “Spanish Flu”, as a reporter and an unvaccinated survivor, requires that the historical basis of the event needs to be revisited, not as a “conspiracy theory” but with evidence that will “set your hair on fire”.
A few years ago, I came across another book by Eleanor McBean: “Vaccination…The Silent Killer”. McBean provides evidence that not only were the historical events of the 1918 “Spanish Flu” compromised, but also those of the Polio and Swine Flu epidemics.
Let’s Talk “Spanish Flu” Facts:
The Spanish Scapegoat
Spain was neutral during WW1 and did NOT censor its press, unlike the combatting countries. As a result, Spain was the first to report the 1918 Flu epidemic and the world “scapegoated” Spain as the source. Thus, the “Spanish Flu” is born.
The First Case: Military Vaccination Experiments in Fort Riley, Kansas
In preparation for WW1, a massive military vaccination experiment involving numerous prior developed vaccines took place in Fort Riley, Kansas- where the first “Spanish Flu” case was reported.
WW1 Draft = Human Test Subjects
The fledgling pharmaceutical industry, sponsored by the ‘Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research’, had something they never had before – a large supply of human test subjects. Supplied by the U.S. military’s first draft, the test pool of subjects ballooned to over 6 million men.
CLICK HERE for more details.
Bacterial Meningitis Vaccine: The Killing Field
Autopsies after the war proved that the 1918 flu was NOT a “FLU” at all. It was caused by random dosages of an experimental ‘bacterial meningitis vaccine’, which to this day, mimics flu-like symptoms. The massive, multiple assaults with additional vaccines on the unprepared immune systems of soldiers and civilians created a “killing field”. Those that were not vaccinated were not affected.
So… How did Civilians Die?
- WW1 ended sooner than expected, leaving HUGE quantities of unused experimental vaccines.
- Fearing that soldiers coming home would spread diseases to their families, The U.S. government pushed the largest vaccine ‘fear’ campaign in history. They used the human population as a research and development lab to field test experimental vaccines.
- Tens of millions of civilians died in the same manner as did the soldiers.
- Instead of stopping the vaccines, doctors intensified them, calling it the great “Spanish Flu of 1918”. As a result, ONLY THE VACCINATED DIED.
“Seven men dropped dead in a doctor’s office after being vaccinated. Letters were sent to their families that they had been killed in action.”
Minnesota Wellness Directory
WW1 U.S. soldiers were given 14 – 25 untested, experimental vaccines within days of each other, which triggered intensified cases of ALL the diseases at once. The doctors called it a new disease and proceeded to suppress the symptoms with additional drugs or vaccines.
Deception and Secrecy Have a Long History
In the examples given in my previous blog “COVID 19: Another Chapter in the History of Deception and Secrecy”, history is replete with intentional lies told to the public to either “save face” or to deceive for nefarious purposes. The 1918 “Spanish Flu” was no exception.
Back to COVID-19: The Ferguson Models are False and Misleading
British scientist and Professor Neil Ferguson of The Imperial College, London (the same Imperial College of London funded by the Bill Gates Foundation) was responsible for developing the mathematical pandemic computer models for the COVID-19 pandemic.
The world followed Ferguson’s advice, yet all his models have been proven to be grossly over stated and misleading.
For example, Ferguson modeled that Sweden would experience 100,000 deaths by June, 2020. To date, Sweden peaked at 2,854 deaths total.
The Media Silences Non-Conformist Viewpoints
The media, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and other “privately” owned communications outlets have become the self-proclaimed “guardians” (censors) of information.
On April 26, 2020, Twitter suspended the account of a publicly traded biotech company for sharing information about a non-medicinal UV light therapy for COVID-19. YouTube also removed a video demonstrating how the technology works.
“(YouTube) will ban videos that contradict W.H.O. guidance on the pandemic or share fake or unproven Coronavirus remedies.”Susan Wojcicki
CEO – YouTube
NewsGuard recently classified Mercola.com as fake news for reporting that the COVID virus potentially leaked from the biosafety level 4 laboratory in Wuhan City, China.
The Pharmaceutical Industry Owns and Controls the Medical Profession
“Fact Checking” is often provided by paid writers from the pharmaceutical companies and not from verified, independent sources.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”Arnold Relman
Former Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine
Infectious Disease Levels were Dropping BEFORE Vaccines Entered the Picture
Vaccine promoters claim that vaccines wiped out most infectious diseases. History tells us a different story. The beginning of the 20th century introduced improved sanitation (sewers), water treatment plants, and vastly improved nutrition.
The sample graphs above show that infectious diseases like Measles, Whooping Cough, Diphtheria, Typhoid Fever and Polio, were all at their lowest levels and dropping, BEFORE the vaccines were introduced.
The 1918 “Spanish Flu” held sinister secrets for 100 years. Based on my previous blog: “COVID 19: Another Chapter in the History of Deception and Secrecy”, will we learn that the world-changing protocols from COVID-19 may also contain hidden secrets?
Source: Dr. Sal Martingano, FICPA