What its dominant hardliners say goes, according to their own rules no matter how flagrantly in breach of international and their own constitutional law.
Western vassals subserviently bow to the will of their higher power in Washington.
Ukraine has no say whatever about what’s going on.
Hegemon USA controls what’s happening on the ground.
Ukrainian troops are considered expendable cannon fodder, their lives, rights and well-being ignored.
There’s no ambiguity about the outcome of Russia’s liberating SMO, just what tactics its Defense Ministry will pursue ahead and how long it’ll take for Russia to achieve its objectives.
In nearly 7 months of fighting, numbers of Ukrainian troops killed, maimed, wounded badly enough to prevent their return to battle or fled cross-border to Russia or elsewhere is staggeringly high.
And all for nothing except in service to US hegemonic aims at the expense of the territory called Ukraine and its people.
No longer a nation-state, the empire of lies and forever wars transformed it into a platform for endless war and carnage.
The longer things continue, the greater the toll on ordinary Ukrainians — victims of Nazified tyranny with hegemon USA pulling its strings.
Separately according to the Biden regime’s war department, the following arms, equipment and related assistance was supplied by its dark forces to Kiev since taking office after usurping power.
Included are over 8,500 Javelin anti-armor missile launchers, 126 155mm howitzers, about 806,000 shells, 16 HIMARS), eight NASAMS, 20 Mi-17 helicopters, over 60 million rounds of small arms ammunition, and over 50 counter-artillery radars, as well as intelligence supplied by the Pentagon and CIA.
Since at least the vast majority of Ukrainian troops aren’t trained to operate sophisticated US/Western weapons, operatives from their ruling regimes are doing it for them, including selection of targets.
And what’s listed above most likely excludes other military aid that the Pentagon and CIA won’t reveal — including weapons, munitions and toxins banned by international law for battlefield use.
Separately in June, a hacker called Beregini published what’s called the Information and Psychological Operations Department of the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces (SSO).
Their mission allegedly involves espionage, elimination of individuals and groups considered a threat to Kiev, as well as related activities.
What’s going on likely began shortly after the Obama/Biden regime’s 2014 coup.
On Friday, Vladimir Putin explained that hegemon USA has been trying to undermine, weaken and isolate Russia for decades, all things Ukraine the latest example of its diabolical scheme.
Russian intelligence is well aware of what’s going on.
Over time, it’s done an effective job in ferreting out and foiling diabolical plans of the empire of lies and forever wars.
Nor has its ruling regimes and Western vassals dented Putin’s overwhelming public approval — currently at over 81%, according to the most recent poll.
Separately on Friday, Politico reported that Kiev seeks US F-16 warplanes, MQ-1C Grey Eagle UAVs ad Patriot air defense systems.
The regime also seeks longer-range rockets and missiles to strike targets well inside Russia.
According to Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova:
If the Biden (or other Western regimes) supply Kiev with these munitions, they’ll “cross a red line and become an actual party to the conflict.”
The move will trigger “an adequate (Russian) response.”
Its leadership “reserves the right to defend its territory using any means available.”
Since Russia’s liberating SMO began in late February, dominant Biden regime hardliners and likeminded congressional allies have been steadily escalating proxy hot and sanctions war on Russia.
At this time, they’re ominously closer to crossing the line to direct confrontation between the world’s leading nuclear powers.
A nightmare scenario avoided since development, production and use of nukes at end of WW II would risk catastrophic consequences if what’s unthinkable becomes reality.
With hardcore criminal lunatics running things in Washington, anything is possible ahead.
The forces are mounting that will eventually overwhelm most Americans and send their standard of living to unknown depths. Americans that have only known the post WWII prosperity are ill equipped and educated to deal with depression level living. Easy credit and instant gratification have created a nation of whining, self absorbed, entitlement minded people with no moral or mental toughness.
Doug Casey believes we are headed for what he calls a super depression created by the ending of a debt super cycle. The bigger the debt cycle the bigger the depression that follows. That’s how reality works and most people are not prepared for reality.
When this depression, which has already started, gets momentum, it will overwhelm the plans of a society that is expecting to get things like social security, pensions and payouts from retirement plans they have paid into for many years. All of those things will disappear almost overnight and leave society gasping and stupefied over what to do. Their reactions will be to yell and scream and try to identify who to blame but the only person they should blame is the one in the mirror.
Many very smart people have raised the alarm and done their best to warn the sleeping public, but those slumbering masses have ignored the warnings and hit the snooze button one more time. The masses do not understand economics, do not want to understand economics and they will pay dearly for that ignorance in the coming days.
When the real unemployment rate becomes common knowledge as it increases substantially, people will be left to survive on what resources they have saved up outside the banking system that cannot be stolen by the politicians and bankers. That is a key point here. The assets you have outside the system that cannot be stolen from you with a few key strokes on some computer.
Those hoping for some miraculous event that will send the U.S. back to the days of manufacturing might and jobs for all will never see it happen. Those days are gone. The west line theory tells us our economy will slow down and become more modest as the shipping center of the world moves west to the next powerhouse region which is Asia. This is what history teaches us.
When people suddenly wake up one morning and they have no job, their retirement is gone and they need to care for their family, what will they do? When government services have collapsed and they suddenly realize they are now living in a third world country with few government services, what will they do? When the banks are closed and only a select few connected people have any type of money or access to goods, what will they do?
This is the reality that many people will face in the future and they have no idea how bad it can get. They refuse to contemplate the harsh reality they will be living in and take steps to mitigate the effects. To do so would be to acknowledge it could happen and they are taking personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is a dirty phrase in today’s entitlement society. To see some of the effects one only has to look at the collapse of society in Venezuela today to see what awaits.
When it happens it will all fall back to you to take responsibility for your family and take care of them for the duration. To do that you need to plan now for that eventuality and build up the resources you will need to provide food, shelter, clothing and security when the system fails to do it for you. You need to be Noah on his ark not the people watching as he floated away.
Having resources stored up is a must but it may not get you all the way through if the situation lasts for many years. That is why you need some type of plan to replace those resources as time goes by and have some way to generate some type of income or at least items to trade. Usable goods are for the short term and things like gold ,silver and production equipment are for the long term to help you get through the crisis with the least amount of pain.
Even with proper planning the days ahead will not be easy as the standard of living of society will fall substantially to levels only seen in failed third world countries or old pictures. The assets actually owned by people today is very small compared to how they live. They will default on their home loan, their car loan, and their credit card debt leaving them with very few real possessions and few ways to move what they have left even if they have some place to go. Ultimately these people will become the new serfs to the wealthy class that will take possession of anything of value. Feudalism will once again rule.
The lack of planning by society will make this a reality if it is allowed. What will you do when everything you have worked a lifetime for is suddenly taken away? Do you have a plan to keep what you have? Do you have a plan to make money when you cannot find a job? Do you have a way to take care of your family until things stabilize? Do you have a home you will not lose if the whole system breaks down? What will you do if electricity or fuel is too expensive to buy or not available to the general population? These are the questions you should be asking yourself now and you better have a good answer because your family will be asking them when the greater depression sets in.
First, a lot hinges upon the current Constitutional make-up of the SCOTUS. There is a very important case (though, sadly, they refused to hear the TEXAS VS BATTLE-GROUND STATES that only the SCOTUS could hear, and should have heard, to deal with Election 2020 irregularities of many States (including my own home State of Michigan) that Democrat Officials, blatantly, and with malice of forethought, disregarded): MOORE VS HARPER. MVH stems out of the clear Constitution delineation of STATE LEGISLATURE as SOLE ARBITER of Election Laws and Elections. PERIOD. Not a Governor (zero authority to Veto legally adopted State Legislature Election Laws), not a Secretary Of State (to pick and choose if they want to uphold them), not State Courts (no shopping for Liberal Activist Courts to do the bidding of FASCICRATS), and NOT EVEN STATE REFERENDUMS!!!
Once MOORE V HARPER comes down the way it HAS TO, to adhere to the clear and plain text of the US Constitution, Republican held Legislatures need to enact many COMMON SENSE Election Integrity Laws. NOT to mention, and when/where FASCICRATS break the Laws again, SCOTUS MUST IMMEDIATELY STEP IN and Order new Elections (if necessary, and YES there are Lower Court precedence of such in past (in Local, and even Congressional District Elections)) any State in 2024 that does NOT FOLLOW RULE-OF-LAW.
Simple … Common Sense … Election Law reforms … needed in all 50 States immediately … (#2000Mules and #1Whale (#StaceyAbrams))
OK, I’ve written several times on Elections and #VoterFraud (related other Articles referenced down-page), it is time I finally officially put in writing the simple… common sense… Election Law reforms needed immediately… And, yes, well intentioned peoples can have some “disagreement” as to some of these, but I’m betting TLB readers will be in-line with the majority of them….
[I’m going to copy/paste #11 here to the top, as many would obviously say it would be their #1…
11) and, of course, ENFORCE THE DAMN LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE (but we still need these additional things in the Election Laws) and so that they will be we must KICK all AG’s and SOS’s in States that refuse to deal with the rampant Fraud and Prosecute the Criminals involved in the 2020 Fraud (refusing to enforce even existing, not tough enough, Laws). That includes RINOs (like Raffensperger in GA) as well as FASCICRATS (like Commie Activist MI-AG Dana Nessel and MI-SOS Benson in MI, among so many others)! ]
Before we get into the others, let’s review this important little Video of Biden admitting VOTER FRAUD EFFORTS by the FASCICRATS (which I call them, yes another whole other piece.
Biden Admits Voter Fraud
1) PHOTO VOTER ID (obvious), there is ZERO EXCUSE for this everywhere. ID is required for virtually everything in America except Voting. So spare us the moronic manure that SOME CANNOT GET ID (especially when all the VoterID Laws offer FREE ID opportunities and even very “flexible PROOFS” someone is legally able to cast a Vote at a particular Precinct). Some States have ID IN NAME ONLY Laws, you can virtually produce any piece of printed paper (easily falsified) to CLAIM you are someone living at a particular address. So, NO not all States even have the farcicle weak Voter verification Law, let alone half of those with them not requiring actual/real/legit Photo-ID.
2) ELECTION DAY, as the Constitution prescribes. NOT Election week, or Election month, and especially this bullshit of ballot discovery for up to a week past the Election day.
3) Cleaning of the Voter Rolls in off Election years. PERIOD. NO EXCUSES. Dead people and those who moved out of a Precinct/City/County/State MUST BE PURGED – as is THE FEDERAL MOTOR-VOTER LAW REQUIRES (passed under and signed by Bill Clinton CALLS FOR that the FASCICRATS (not hyperbole, FACTS (DNC vs NSDAP) see: The NAZI label keeps getting tossed about – let’s examine the claim: always find excuses TO VIOLATE)!
4) Immediate reporting of number of Voters at Poll close. SIMPLE! Each Voter is checked against the Voter Rolls and it is absolutely, positively, known what Voter number they are. TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTERS MUST BE REPORTED WITHIN 15 MINUTES OF REGULAR POLL CLOSING TIME or a State Official MUST be dispatched to retrieve such information and watch for any other potential VIOLATIONS OF LAW (if they are withholding this number, the only reason to do so is BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CREATE MORE (ILLEGAL) VOTES)! And spare us the THEY MAY NOT KNOW as people who are in line by Poll close time are still allowed to vote – any SIX YEAR OLD can go out and count the remaining people to Vote that are in line, add it to the number of those already Voted, REPORT THE TOTAL. This eliminates the “ESTIMATED VOTERS” bullshit in the results reporting. Every Precinct will have reported the FINITE NUMBERS THAT WERE CAST AT THAT LOCATION.
5) NONE-OF-THE-ABOVE or NO-VOTE option in each and every Ballot race. If someone does NOT want to Vote for any Candidate in any (or more than one) given Race(s) THEY MUST HIGHLIGHT THE NO-VOTE OPTION. If any Ballot is NOT completely filled out properly IT MUST BE REJECTED BY THE VOTE MACHINE until corrected or the Ballot spoiled and a new properly filled in Ballot issued and cast! PERIOD! This eliminates ANY SHENANIGANS AFTER THE FACT where a Voter left a Race BLANK and a Poll Worker with ill-intent casting AN ADDITIONAL VOTE ON THEIR BEHALF instead.
Therefore, at end of night, total-votes-cast must always equal total-voters-casting-votes IN/FOR ALL RACES! PERIOD! No post-Election shenanigans could occur.
THE SAME APPLIES TO ABSENTEE BALLOTS, count them, report how many before casting/counting of ABV Votes are begun to be actually counted (Cast). And, again, spare us the fake THEY MAY NOT KNOW, they can count all the ones they have (say 996) and if any come in THE DAY OF while Polls open add them to the count (say 4, 996 + 4 = 1,000 and THAT MUST BE REPORTED WITHIN 15 MINUTES OF POLL CLOSE)! Any improperly filled out Ballot MUST BE SPOILED (so there can be LESS VOTES than total expected BUT NEVER MORE) no Poll Worker allowed to “guess” what a Voter wanted. If you cannot get your Ballot correct, SHOW UP IN PERSON TO BE SURE, or otherwise your Ballot IS TOSSED. SIMPLE! And, obviously, if there are more than say 3% of ABV’s “spoiled” independent investigation must occur post-Election to ensure Poll Workers weren’t deciding they didn’t like how someone Voted and decided to IMPROPERLY SPOIL a bunch of Votes/Ballots.
Therefore we know, absolute certainty, Precinct X had Y number of in-person-voters + Z number of ABV and MORE BALLOTS CANNOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AT 3AM. And we know EXACTLY how many Votes (%) is really counted/in (no estimates) and exactly how much of the Vote is still outstanding on Election night reporting.
6) NO “UNRESOLVED” VOTES FOLDERS ON MACHINES. PERIOD! If a machine is UNCERTAIN the Ballot shall not be accepted and must be corrected (ovals properly filled) or Ballot spoiled and new Ballot issued to be properly Cast. None of this DOMINION UNRESOLVED FOLDER where a Poll Worker with potential ill-intent gets to “interpret” a Voters intent. If the intent is UNCLEAR the Machine MUST REJECT THE ENTIRE BALLOT and require it be completely and full filled-out. PERIOD!
7) A minimum of ONE, and up to THREE, POLL WATCHERS of each and every Party with Candidates on Ballot within a Precinct MUST BE PRESENT during any Vote counting to watch/monitor counts OR SAID PRECINCT VOTES MADE NULL AND VOID (do you think Democrats would want their Votes tossed? They finally would COMPLY with Law)!
8) ALL PRECINCTS put into a hat, or whatever assured RANDOMNESS, and 10% of all Precincts BE FULLY AUDITED (Every Ballot rechecked vs the Counts and Totals Reported) for correctness within 48 hours of Election day by State (not the same local) officials. CERTIFICATION of State Results may NOT occur until such actually certifies sample Vote and ANY IRREGULARITIES TRIGGER FULL/STATEWIDE FULL/COMPLETE (every Vote checked) AUDIT (again, State cannot, will not, be Certified until such occurs).
9) Drop boxes must be made ILLEGAL. These Boxes are UNSECURE (unguarded). Easy to be stuffed with ILLEGAL BALLOTS. This is obvious and easy access to/for VOTER FRAUD and DIRECT VIOLATION OF EVERY STATES’ CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY LAWS! Plus, since unsecure, could be damaged/destroyed that could destroy potentially valid/legal Ballots. Must see Dinesh D’Souza’s ”#2000mules and #1Whale (Stacey Abrams)” (as I call it) since we all know Stacey’s fake “Fair Elections” group was involved. Their Groups and their Legislation titles are always the EXACT OPPOSITE of their intentions, which they must always hide knowing, sadly with the state of our Education system for decades, there are a lot of clueless SNOWFLAKES easily fooled/maniupulate by Leftist Lies.
THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON FOR SOMEONE TO OPPOSE THESE CHANGES TO AID/ENSURE A SECURE AND FAIR ELECTION – AND THAT IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO CHEAT TO WIN AND WILL CHEAT.
10) Any Precinct failing to uphold proper SIGNATURE VERIFICATION STATUTES votes NULL AND VOID as they are NOT CONFIRMED VOTES/VOTERS.
THESE ARE COMMON-SENSE, ANY PRECINCT THAT CHEATS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO LET THEIR VOTE COUNTS STAND OR BE REFLECTED IN FINAL VOTES REPORTING. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO DISINSENTIFY THEIR CHEATING, IF THEY KNOW THEIR CHEATING WILL RESULT IN TOSSING OF EVEN VALID DEMOCRAT VOTES ALONG WITH THE ILLEGAL ONES!
11) and, of course, ENFORCE THE DAMN LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE (but we still need these additional things in the Election Laws) and so that they will be we must KICK all AG’s and SOS’s in States that refuse to deal with the rampant Fraud and Prosecute the Criminals involved in the 2020 Fraud (refusing to enforce even existing, not tough enough, Laws). That includes RINOs (like Raffensperger in GA) as well as FASCICRATS (like Commie Activist MI-AG Dana Nessel and MI-SOS Benson in MI, among so many others)!
12) NOTICE I DID NOT EVEN GO INTO THE OBVIOUS: YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEND ANYONE A BALLOT THAT DOES NOT REQUEST IT! PERIOD. I didn’t mention it, BECAUSE THAT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES, and yet we know many States VIOLATED THEIR OWN LAWS (it was the basis of the TX Lawsuit against other States for VIOLATING THEIR LAWS WHICH DISENFRANCHISED TX’s VOTES and you can see my SCOTUS COWARDICE related article on that listed in the related links below) in this regard (knowing full well Ballots would be mailed to addresses of Dead people, people that no longer live at a particular address, etc!
13) add YOUR common-sense additions in the comments!
PLUS, sorry, have to add, IF EVERY CONSERVATIVE AND ANYONE REMOTELY CONSIDERS THEMSELF A REPUBLICAN WOULD GET OFF THEIR ASS AND VOTE IN PERSON they could still potentially steal a Local Election here and there but there would be NO WAY they could STEAL STATEWIDE OR NATIONAL ELECTIONS. If you show up to Vote each and every Election, you are on Record as such, and they will not likely attempt to Cast a Vote in your name (as it WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY EXPOSED when you show up to the Poll and they say you Voted already and you then could, would, should, demand a Police Report be Filed that someone illegally Cast your Ballot) illegally without your consent because they are looking for NON-VOTERS from who to illegally Cast Votes on behalf of. If people got off their asses rather than constantly complain how their Vote doesn’t really count, it would be damn near impossible to commit enough Fraud on such wide-scale to Win (again, certainly some exceptions could happen, but not the clear widespread theft of multiple counties to Steal State Elections and not multiple States to Steal another Federal Election). One way to be certain the FASCICRATS Win, is not bother to try and keep them out of Office.
Another important Video is the whole 2000 Mules documentary, or as I call it: “#2000mules and #1Whale (Stacey Abrams)” (as I “truthfully” label it)
2000 Mules Trailer
Seriously FASCICRATS spare us your lame excuse LIES Talking Points…. If these people collected LEGIT VOTES why not turn them in at the City Clerks office, Secretary of States’ office, or even ALL IN ONE DROP-BOX! Everyone knows the answer why not – FRAUD!
An earlier article asked whether dominant Biden regime hardliners would breach terms of the 1947 agreement between the UN and US.
It affirmed that the world body’s New York City headquarters is international territory.
That “(t)he UN shall have (sole) power to make regulations, operative within the headquarters district, for the purpose of establishing therein conditions in all respects necessary for the full execution of its functions.”
That US “federal, state or local authorities…shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district” by UN member-state officials, their families, press, world body recognized NGOs, “or other persons invited to the headquarters.”
Nor shall US officials obstruct them in any way while in New York for UN-related activities.
As international territory, the US has no legal or other authority over the UN’s NYC headquarters.
Yet time and again throughout US history, its ruling authorities breached, in one form or other, virtually everything they agreed on.
It’s proof positive that the empire of lies and forever wars on invented enemies can never be trusted — that diplomatic outreach to its regimes is a colossal waste of time.
On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, commented on Russia’s involvement in the UN General Assembly’s 77th session — what began on September 13.
Following its customary practice of obstructing, delaying or denying the issuance of visas to delegations from Russia and other nations free from the scourge of its imperial control to attend annual General Assembly sessions in New York — in flagrant breach of the 1947 agreement, what forbids such actions — US visas were belatedly issued for Sergey Lavrov and other Russian delegates involved in this year’s GA sessions, bilateral meetings and multilateral events.
Later this month, Lavrov will address the GA’s 77th session, Zakharova explained.
He’ll also meet with counterparts from 20 or more other nations and participate in various multinational events.
He’ll also meet with imperial tool, UN secretary general Guterres, at his request.
Zakharova stressed that Russian delegates “will uphold their positions of principle at this (year’s GA) session.”
They’ll “continue advocating for the strengthening of the UN’s central coordinating role in world affairs and strict observance of its Charter, including (core) principles of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs.”
“We believe that the global organization remains the nucleus of the multilateral system and the only truly universal forum for resolving urgent problems of our time.”
At the same time, it’s clear how US-dominated Western regimes use the world body as a platform to promote their destructive agenda — while strong-arming and otherwise pressure world community nations to bend to their will.
They also demonize, bully and threaten independent nations, ones unwilling to sacrifice their sovereignty and souls to a higher power in Washington.
These tactics repeat with disturbing regularity in flagrant breach of the UN Charter, other international law and the 1947 agreement explained above — as well as in more detail in an earlier article.
At this year’s GA session, Russia will “focus on countering (US/Western) attempts to undermine authority of the global organization and subdue it to (their on) whims,” Zakharova explained, adding:
The Russian delegation will also “promote many initiatives on key international issues (despite) the unfavorable backdrop (of this year’s) session.”
Russia’s team will present new GA draft resolutions for strengthening arms control, promoting disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as preventing the militarization of space.
And Russia will seek to establish universal rules of conduct “in the information space and (to counter) the glorification of Nazism” — what’s spearheaded by hegemon USA-dominated Western vassals.
On the sidelines of this year’s session, foreign ministers of BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) will meet to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern.
At this time, Russia remains concerned about whether the Biden regime will obstruct the ability of its delegates to reach UN headquarters — and whether other hostile actions will be taken against them while in New York.
Hegemon USA is duty-bound by international law and the 1947 agreement to facilitate, not obstruct, UN member-states from pursuing their legitimate interests and activities at the world body’s headquarters.
Yet it’s well known that the empire of lies and forever wars operates exclusively by what it deceptively calls its “rule-based order” — what flagrantly breaches the letter and spirit of core international and its own constitutional law.
For over three decades, the United States of America has been chest-thumping about being the world’s “sole remaining superpower“. Some in the US establishment have even claimed that the US has become the world’s first “hyperpower“. And indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet dismantlement, the US-led political West seemed unbeatable, unilaterally starting wars across the globe, all under various pretexts such as “humanitarianism“ and the much-touted “War on Terror“.
The US and NATO used both of these excuses to invade dozens of other countries, be it former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc. The US military seemed unstoppable and able to overcome any opponent, oftentimes by using air power only, with minimal ground engagements, at least until it got bogged down, which in itself was very useful for the ever-profit-hungry Military Industrial Complex.
Although many in the US establishment seemed convinced this will be a perpetual state of affairs, luckily for the world, the last decade proved the power of the belligerent thalassocracy is waning. While the Pentagon could count on hundreds of thousands of battle-ready soldiers during most of the 1990s and early 2000s, in recent years, there has been a significant drop in young Americans’ interest to go die or get maimed for life in one of America’s many pointless invasions and general aggression against the world.
Even though the Pentagon found other ways to continue with its imperialist belligerence, primarily through an exponential increase in the use of unmanned combat systems around the globe, indiscriminately targeting civilians under the ever-convenient pretext of the “War on Terror“, most Americans have become aware of the fact that the US power (albeit still significant) is fading away faster than anyone would’ve expected just a decade ago.
A new poll conducted by the YouGov/Economist is the latest proof of this public opinion shift. The project polled Americans about the probability of various “dire political scenarios“ and found that 50% of the US population considers that America will lose its global superpower status within a decade. The poll also found that nearly half (47%) of Americans think that a “total economic collapse“ is inevitable.
“Among 15 potential future scenarios involving instability or political violence, the one that most Americans consider likely in the next decade is that the U.S. ceases to be a global superpower (50% say this), followed by a total collapse of the U.S. economy (47%). Each of the 15 dire scenarios is considered somewhat or very likely in the next decade by at least 20% of Americans. […] 37% of Americans say [a civil war] is at least somewhat likely to occur,“ the YouGov poll found.
The most surprising aspect of the poll must be the staggering nearly 40% of US citizens who consider civil war “at least somewhat likely.“ With a population of approximately 330 million people and being among the world’s most armed nations, such a prospect seems rather terrifying. However, it’s hardly surprising, especially given the sheer level of polarization of the US society, regardless if it’s based on race, religion, sex/gender, identity, ideology or any other parameter which the parties and various interest groups in the US are trying to exploit and use for political, financial and power gain.
“[…] After an end to the U.S.’s global-superpower status and economic collapse, the next scenario is that the U.S. will cease to be a democracy (39%). Democrats believe the U.S. will become a fascist dictatorship (31%), while Republicans think it will be a communist one (21%). Two-thirds of Republicans (65%) believe that total economic collapse is at least somewhat likely, compared to only 38% of Democrats. Around half of Republicans (48%) say it’s likely that the government will confiscate citizens’ firearms; only 17% of Democrats say this. Republicans are also more likely than Democrats to believe there will be a total breakdown of law and order (49% vs. 31%),“ according to the poll.
Although it’s expected to see a larger number of Republicans being more pessimistic about the country’s future under a Democrat president and government, the percentage of Democrats who aren’t particularly optimistic is quite telling. It’s more than clear that many DNC voters themselves are unsatisfied with the policies of the current US government.
“[…] Republicans and Democrats believe the U.S. will cease to be a democracy in the next decade. Democrats are slightly more likely to say the U.S. will be a fascist dictatorship (37% vs. 32%). Republicans, on the other hand, are three times as likely to say it will be a communist dictatorship (31% vs. 13%). In terms of the possibility of a civil war, Republicans are likelier to believe there will be one between members of each party (45% vs. 35%) or between people from red and blue states (36% vs. 30%). Democrats are slightly more likely to believe there will be a war between the poor and rich (37% vs. 25%) or between cities and rural areas (23% vs. 20%). Democrats and Republicans are equally likely (31%) to expect a civil war between racial groups,“ the poll concluded.
Although the opinions vary significantly based on the ideological/party background, the very fact so many Americans think the US is turning into a dictatorship and that a civil war is a likely scenario speaks volumes of the unflattering state of the much-touted “American democracy“ which has often been used as yet another pretext for America’s war against the world.
Propaganda by the redefinition of words is a basic much-used device used by dishonest manipulative bastards since the earliest control cults decided it would be a splendid wheeze to have large numbers of human beings as their cattle or slaves. Its use by the enemies of humanity during the Covid psyop provides fine contemporary examples that illustrate amply how it is done. Understanding how these mind games are played frees you from mind control.
Increased understanding is the antidote to brainwashing and being alert and able to form your own ideas rather than being the effect of those inserted craftily into your brain is safer, more pro survival and more fun than being played by sly knobheads.
The War on Words
What does the word vaccine actually mean? When a president, governor, or prime minister refers to a vaccine, do they mean what you think they mean? Language naturally changes over time, but sometimes these changes aren’t organic, and when that happens it might be considered a war on words.
We’ve seen many things change over the last two years, from the way we interact with each other to how we spend our time. Some of these changes are impossible to ignore while others have been subtle and more difficult to pinpoint, such as a shift in the meaning of words and how those words are being used.
While they may appear subtle, these shifts matter. Unchecked, they can confuse, mislead, and even cause harm. That’s why it’s so crucial to be vigilant, identify these shifts, and take action. Before we explore some of the words and terms that have become weaponized over the last two years, we need to understand and appreciate just why this matters so much.
The latest news is shocking!!!
Experts predict that an EMP strike that wipes out electricity across the nation would ultimately lead to the demise of up to 90% of the population.
Language is one of the unique attributes of being human. No other animal on this planet employs words to convey meaning or even has the physiology with which to do so. Languages themselves evolve, with words building up meaning over time. Words can trigger particular thoughts, emotions, memories, and ideas. This is why language is so powerful. Language shapes the way we think and feel and even how we perceive the world.
Many religious traditions revere language as the driving force behind creation. It’s certainly why governments and political parties seek to manipulate the power of language through propaganda. If they can manipulate the way people use and understand certain words, they can quite literally alter how people perceive reality.
This is why, whenever there is a conscious effort to exploit or manipulate words, it is important to pay attention. And we need to pay attention right now. Over the course of the pandemic, we have seen a new war on words in an effort to control whole populations and ‘nudge’ them into certain actions or behaviors. This has been done in two ways: either by exploiting the powerful connotations of a particular word and ransacking its meaning or by changing the definition of a word altogether.
Words and Phrases Under Attack
Here’s a quick look at a few terms that have been exploited over the last two years:
Safe and effective
In this instance, politicians and public health bodies have co-opted words with a strong, positive connotation for their own ends. Safe and effective quickly became a mantra used to describe the Covid-19 vaccines at a time when the data to back up the use of this term was still not yet available. Even today, in the face of official data demonstrating that the injections are actually risky and ineffective, this mantra is still being used. Just because someone repeatedly says that something is safe and effective, doesn’t mean it is.
Vaccine
Prior to September 2021, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) defined a vaccine as, “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
Most would recognize this as a suitable definition. However, by this definition, the new mRNA jabs technically could not be defined as vaccines. They were never designed to produce immunity to Covid-19, only to reduce the severity of symptoms. Rather than call the mRNA technologies something more accurate, the CDC simply changed the definition of vaccine to, “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
In making this change, the CDC argued that this was simply to avoid any suggestion that vaccines offer 100% immunity. When Merriam-Webster chose to alter their own dictionary definition of vaccine, they acknowledged this was in part to incorporate mRNA technology within the meaning. But who decides what vaccine means? There is a strong case for stating that since mRNA technologies do not function in the same way as previous vaccines, they should not be defined as such.
Covid Case
Seeing daily reports on the number of Covid cases within our respective countries has become normal for many of us. But what exactly is a Covid case? The case numbers we see are based on the number of people testing positive for the virus SARS-CoV-2. This is the virus that causes the disease known as Covid-19—it is not Covid-19 itself. A person may carry SARS-CoV-2 and not have Covid-19, just as a person may carry the Varicella-Zoster virus that can lead to shingles, without ever actually getting shingles. The assumption that testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 means you have Covid-19 is simply inaccurate. This inaccuracy also suggests the Covid case figures are wildly inflated.
Fully Vaccinated
This definition has become something of a moving target. Whether you’re considered fully vaccinated or not depends on where you live and when you are asking. In some countries, two jabs are still enough for a person to be considered fully vaccinated against Covid-19. In Austria, the bar has been raised to three jabs, with many countries such as the UK, Croatia, Switzerland, and Greece intending to follow suit. In Israel, where a fourth jab is already available, each booster shot only extends a person’s fully vaccinated status for six months.
In today’s world, governments appear to be dictating what fully vaccinated means—and exploiting their power to change the definition as they please.
Let’s Use Terms The Right Way
The misuse of these terms—and many others—has become commonplace. As a result, many people still believe the mRNA ‘vaccines’ offer lasting immunity simply because they are defined as vaccines and that is what vaccines are supposed to do. People understandably worry about the number of Covid cases, not realizing that in fact, many of these ‘cases’ are not Covid cases at all. Likewise, people see these novel mRNA technologies as safe and effective, even though the latest data suggests otherwise.
This is not, however, a done deal. It’s time for all of us to make the conscious effort to use these terms correctly—and, where appropriate, to gently correct those who misuse them. In doing so, we bring a more accurate picture of how things truly are—and with clarity comes empowerment and understanding.
Important below:
Today I’d like to share with you a “3-second survival hack” you can use to skyrocket your chances of protecting your loved ones during ANY crisis.
Once upon a time there was a pandemic. Terror filled the land as people fell ill to a foreign and insidious malady that attacked young and old, rich and poor, Republican and Democrat, male and . . . whatever floats your boat. The leaders of the land wrung their hands, trying to protect the people. Finally it was agreed upon that the citizens should stay home, wear masks, and take baths.
Gatherings were frowned upon. Even funerals where only the deceased would show up, providing they could find an Uber. Stores were bare, and businesses would shut their doors! Well, all but liquor stores in Texas because you can only take this nonsense so far. And schools were shut down. The eternal baby sitter went away, and parents nationwide had to answer for their sins.
So, home schooling was arrived upon. How hard can it be? Read a few books, fill out a few forms, email it to the schools that were also locked down, too, and call it a day. Right? Wrong! It was discovered that if this were to be continued the end result would be a generation educated by a bunch of day drinkers. Just like Texas in 1880!
Yet, there was no way around it. The pandemic raged on, and every time there was a gathering of any time the city had to spend tax money disposing of the bodies. But, there was a method that just might prevail. Something called Zoom! An application on a phone or computer that enabled gatherings of any size. Totally safe! The only virus was a computer virus.
Zoom had been around for a while. Businesses used it. Groups of all sizes and shapes. Why, you could even go on a date and not have to worry about STDs! So, why not schools? You take an unemployed teacher, print up some stimulus money, gather thirty or so little urchins, I mean they’ve all got iPhones, and rock and roll! Gosh! Why thirty? Three hundred! And have ‘em pay a fee. Or better yet, tap into the school funding. Hell, that money’s just sitting around gathering dust anyway. God Bless ‘Murica!
Pretty soon Zoom was the order of the day! Even after the plague abated Zoom Academy was zooming right along. Gone were the days of stuffy old classrooms with stuffy old teachers. Just fire up your pad or phone, and you too could earn a degree in The Study of 1950s TV Commercials! If the course curriculum was a bit beyond you your kid sister could punch the keys for you. Who’s to know? The vetting had about the same standards as cyber sex with someone from Nigeria. Pretty soon the class included one teacher and three hundred or so Bots! What could possibly go wrong?
Now, heaven forbid someone would take advantage of such a thing. But, wouldn’t you know, someone did! A couple guys got together. One was an actual professor! No, I’m not kidding. From back in the day when they would stand up in class every day and later date the cutest student. A real pillar of academia. (Don’t sit there and act like you didn’t know that!) Anyway he filled the slot for the respectability thing. And, he knew all the ropes. I mean he was a freaking professor for God’s sake. But the old boy didn’t want to get his hands dirty with the teaching or day to day counting of the proceeds. So he had this other guy actually teach the classes. He even had a PHD! In fact he had TWO! But, you know, once you’ve seen one PHD you’ve seen ‘em all.
So the University of Whas a Matta U was up and running! The teacher would dedicate two hours a week on Zoom with the virtual class filled with Bots and two or three actual students working on their doctorates. In class the teacher looked like Sidney Poitier, but on his marathon YouTube rants he came on like the Watts riots, complete with priestly vestments, a huge wig (sans dreadlocks) and a huge belt proclaiming that he was the world champion of gab! He could talk for four hours and not say a single thing. Meanwhile the money rolled in from fees and grants and from just about anybody that was stupid enough to give. God was in his heaven, the professor was in his study, and the teacher was in his garage toking on a big ol’ joint!
And that’s where we find ourselves today. Classroom is filled. Only a few things the dynamic duo missed. In class were some who weren’t cool with this new understanding of education. And, for want of a better word, they were Investigative Journalists. And when they stumbled on this dog and pony show they thought it was their birthday. At the very mention of the mechanics of this situation the teacher’s poo poo went to water and he blamed everyone but himself, ranting about all the money he’d lose should this ever leak out. Well it has leaked out! Those who have eyes let them see. And keep looking because you’re fixing to see a lot!
New UK Government Data Shows The COVID Vaccines Kill More People Than They Save
We’ve been asking everyone: Show me the all-cause mortality data proving the vaccines are safe. I finally got some data. It’s from the UK government and it’s devastating. REALLY devastating.
Overview
New UK government data allows us to analyze the data in a way we couldn’t before. This new analysis shows clearly that the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save for all age groups. In other words, they shouldn’t be used by anyone. The younger you are, the less sense it makes.
Anyone can validate the data and methodology. The results make it clear that the COVID vaccines should be halted immediately.
If the vaccines really work, then why hasn’t any government anywhere in the world produced a proper risk-benefit analysis that shows the opposite result?
If the vaccines work, then why do all the lines in Figure 6 below show that Dose 1 and Dose 2 of the vaccines kill more people than they save?
Not a single public health authority in any country will have a conversation with us on the record to justify their vaccine recommendations by producing an all-cause risk benefit analysis similar to what I computed here. I wonder why?
The latest news is shocking!!!
Experts predict that an EMP strike that wipes out electricity across the nation would ultimately lead to the demise of up to 90% of the population.
Here’s the result of the analysis comparing unvaxxed vs. 2 doses given at least 6 months ago. I believe this analysis is conservative and the actual numbers are worse than this due to the seasonal variation of the all-cause mortality.
Figure 1. Risk/benefit determination from the UK data shows that for all ages, the vaccines kill more people than they save.
A value of 15 means we kill 15 people from the vaccine to save 1 life from COVID. This is from the Exec Summary tab of the spreadsheet.
The data showed that for most age ranges, the vaccine reduced your chance of dying from COVID, but it increased your chances of dying from other causes. The former effect was smaller than the latter effect so the vaccines are nonsensical.
For example, if you are 25 years old, the vaccine kills 15 people for every person it saves from dying from COVID. Below 80, the younger you are, the more nonsensical vaccination is.
The cells in Figure 1 with a * means that the vaccinated had more COVID deaths than the unvaccinated. This is known as “negative vaccine efficacy.” This wasn’t surprising since we’ve been claiming that the vaccines damage your immune system.
Above 80, the UK data was too confounded to be useful. Until we have that data, it’s irresponsible to make a recommendation.
I describe below how you can compute this yourself from the UK data.
Please share this result on all your social media platforms. One user got 10,000 likes in less than 24 hours on Twitter and he had only 2,000 followers. So Twitter permanently suspended his account. So probably not a good idea to share on Twitter. According to Twitter, “health officials consider the COVID-19 vaccines safe for most people” and therefore any UK government data that shows that they are lying is a violation of Twitter Community Standards.
Introduction
One of my friends recently sent me a link to the mortality data from the UK government Office of National Statistics from January 1, 2021 to January 31, 2022. I had not seen this data before so I analyzed it.
What I found when I analyzed the data was absolutely stunning because it was consistent with the VAERS risk-benefit analysis by age that I had done in November, 2021.
The Proper Way To Do A Risk-Benefit Analysis
To show the vaccines are a beneficial intervention, you’d ideally want to do a randomized trial. We did that and the results showed 7 excess deaths for the single life we saved from COVID. More about that later. But the numbers we too small to be confident they weren’t statistical noise.
Since the trials are now all unblinded, we need to see is a retrospective study of matched individuals with 100,000 in each group selected on December 1, 2020 before the vaccines rolled out to the public.
One group goes the full vax route. The other group shuns the vax entirely.
We then look at the number of COVID vs. non-COVID deaths in each group and compute the risk-benefit analysis as we did earlier. Since each group is nearly identically matched except for the intervention, the comparison is fair.
That’s what we want to see.
What we get in the UK ONS data is something completely different (as we will explain below) and there is no clear way to repurpose that data for our study.
Where To Get The UK Government Source Data
The government data is archived here. You want to open the spreadsheet, and look at the spreadsheet tab labeled Table 6.
In either case, you click the green button labeled “xlsx” to get the spreadsheet, then go to tab “Table 6”:
Note: The data is from England only, not all of the UK. On top of that, it is based on people in England who were both a) registered in the 2011 UK census and b) registered with a GP in 2019.
Where To Get My Analysis Of The Data
This makes it easier to see what is going on. You can see all the original data and my formulas for calculating the ACM ratios and risk benefit analysis on the Table 6 tab.
It is all in plain sight for everyone to see. I then copied values to the Summary and Exec Summary tabs from the Table 6 tab.
Interpreting The Data
Here’s what the data looks like in Table 6:
Table 6 example from the ONS table
The definitions of each row is in the Definitions tab of the spreadsheet.
In summary, they track people as they spend time in each row based on their new status. So a triple vaccinated person who was vaccinated more than 21 days ago will spend time in every row except possibly the “Second dose, at least 6 months ago” which they would be able to skip if they got boosted before the 6 month waiting period. So if they waited 7 months before getting boosted, they’d only spend a month in that category. If people decided they weren’t high risk enough to get boosted, they’d accumulate time in the 2nd, 6+ category.
So that means if the vaccines are as deadly as we claim, the benefits of the vaccine against COVID will be minimal in the <21 days ago category and the ACM elevation over the unvaxxed should be the highest there. In short, the <21 days is the category where we should see the strongest risk-benefit signal so if you were an evil anti-vaxxer, this would clearly be the row you’d want to cherry pick to prove your point.
Conversely, if you were cherry picking for data to support your evil anti-vaxxer mission, the very last place you’d expect to find a strong signal is 6 months after the second dose since most of the people killed by the vaccine were killed in the 30 days after the shot as you can see from this graph from openvaers:
Furthermore, the non-COVID ACM in the unvaxxed group is going to be very high (since it peaks in Q1 when most people were contributing time in that group); that’s going to work against you. And as far as effectiveness, we all know these vaccines do wane over time, so there is still going to be a lot of protection left at that point.
So for the 2nd dose, 6m+ group, we have:
Low likelihood of death from the vaccine
ACM for the vaxxed will be naturally lower due to seasonality (lowest in Q3)
High ACM for the unvaxxed (which peaks in Q1)
Degraded, though still impressive protection from the vaccine at that point
In short, all four of these major factors works against you if you are an evil anti-vaxxer. It would be absolutely the worst row to examine to prove your point. It’s much more likely to show the vaccines are effective.
Which means if you can show there is a strong signal against the vaccines on this row, that’s really powerful since this has to be the row with the weakest case against the vaccines.
So this is exactly what we are going to do here: prove using the UK data that there is a very strong danger signal in the hardest place to find it.
Important below:
Today I’d like to share with you a “3-second survival hack” you can use to skyrocket your chances of protecting your loved ones during ANY crisis.
The data quality here is strongly biased in favor of making the vaccine look effective.
They are massively underestimating the proportion who are unvaccinated and they are putting ludicrous faith in the accuracy of the NIMs and GP records. Fenton and his team have written extensively about the problems with miscategorization in the ONS data and missing vaccination deaths.
The other huge problem with the data is that it shows that if you died, the % of COVID related deaths ranged from 10% in the very young to over 40% in the elderly if you were not vaccinated. That’s impossibly high. In 2020 in the US when everyone wasn’t vaccinated, the % of COVID deaths was 15%. The numbers in the ONS database just don’t make sense.
The data is not available for researchers to use freely; you have to tell the ONS up front what your study is about before you are allowed to look at the data and they have to approve any publication you want to make. So if you find something bad, you can’t talk about it. This isn’t government transparency. It is the opposite.
The ONS data and reports are produced by a team led by Vahé Nafilyan and Charlotte Bermingham. They are the lead authors on this March 23, 2022 paper which claims that it was COVID (and not the vaccines) that was causing cardio problems in young people. Here’s what they wrote:
There was a decrease in the risk of all-cause death in the first week after vaccination and no change in each of weeks 2 to 6 after vaccination or whole six-week period after vaccination. Subgroup analyses by sex, age, vaccine type, and last dose also showed no change in the risk of death in the first six weeks after vaccination
There is no way that can be right because it doesn’t match any reality I’ve ever seen. So this is yet another example that the ONS data is HIGHLY skewed to be favorable for the vaccine.
What this means is that it should be nearly impossible to find anything negative in the data, even if you were cherry picking because according to the authors the vaccine is perfectly safe and is massively effective.
You’d normally then look in the place most favorable to support an anti-vaxx hypothesis.
So it is stunning that in the last place anyone expected to find a signal, we find a very strong signal. Here, we found it across every age group under 80 without exception. That cannot happen by chance. We picked the exact same row for each age group and we picked the worst possible row. You cannot explain that away no matter how hard you try. It should have strongly favored the vaccine as safe and effective, yet we found exactly the opposite. That’s stunning.
Does the COVID Jab Kill More People Than It Saves?
Also, the Substack article, All-Cause Mortality by Vaccination Status, is excellent and provides a wide range of charts that are particularly illuminating showing visually that the the vaccines are not as safe as people claim. Just look at the black link here which is the unvaccinated.
Lines above the 1x line are cohorts where the vaccine is nonsensical. In short, over time, it becomes more and more obvious that the vaccines are a disaster.
Figure 6. Only at the start of the data collection period did the numbers look favorable for the vaccine. They all turn negative over time for Doses 1 and 2 over time meaning the vaccines are nonsensical. No cherry picking required. You can see it visually. Source: All-Cause Mortality by Vaccination Status
The article concludes:
This data is all very alarming. A poorly functioning vaccine should still have at least a small positive effect. A non-functioning vaccine should have no effect. Yet we see a negative effect in all age groups for both 1 or 2 doses taken ‘at least 21 days ago’, and it is most cases the negative effect is quite large. The fact that the pattern is consistent and predictable, meaning it moves smoothly from month to month and age bracket to age bracket, gives even more credibility to the pattern.
It’s a great read.
Methodology
I compared the all-cause mortality (ACM) for people who got 2 shots at least 6 months ago with the unvaccinated since this was the row that would be the most difficult to show an anti-vaxx signal.
Our goal in this analysis was not to get definitive numbers. We describe later the proper way to do a risk-benefit analysis. Our goal was to show that the vaccines are dangerous even if you look at a row that is least likely to make your point.
Summary Of The Data
This summary below (which I put on the Summary tab which is to the right of the Table 6 tab) shows the rates of all-cause mortality per 100,000 person-years for each age range and also shows the risk benefit ratio.
Figure 2. A summary of the calculations from the UK data. This is shown in the Summary tab of my spreadsheet.
Here’s the legend for each column:
A: age range for the row
B: ACM rate for unvaxxed
C: ACM rate for vaxxed
D: Risk benefit calculation which is # non-COVID lives lost due to the vaccine / # of COVID lives saved from the vaccine. This is the single best metric for justifying the use of an intervention. The larger this number is, the less sense the intervention makes. A value >1 means the intervention should never be used. The cells with * means that the vaccine actually caused more COVID cases to happen than the unvaccinated. Note: you need to view the full spreadsheet to see the data used to calculate this number. You cannot do it from the summary data on this screen.
E: ACM of vaxxed/ACM unvaxed, i.e., Column C/ Column B. A value >1 means the intervention should never be used since it is costing lives. This is a crude measure of the effectiveness of an intervention as we explain below.
F: % of ACM deaths due to COVID, i.e., the fraction of all the ACM deaths that were caused by COVID.
The data clearly shows that any mortality benefit you get from taking the vaccine and lowering your risk of death from COVID is more than offset by the mortality you lose from the vaccine itself. This isn’t new. It is something I have been saying since May, 2021. But now I finally found direct government data where I could demonstrate this for all ages under 80.
In The Pfizer Phase 3 Trial, There Was A 40% Increase In ACM In The Vaccinated Group. They Killed An Estimated 7 People For Every Person They Saved From COVID!
In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there were a total of 21 deaths in the vaccine group and 15 deaths in the placebo group.
This 40% increase in the all-cause mortality in the trial (21/15=1.4) was of course dismissed as not statistically significant. While that is true, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay attention to the number.
But now, based on the UK data, we know that the result in the Phase 3 trial wasn’t a statistical fluke. Not at all.
In fact, if we look at the risk benefit, we see that we saved 1 life from dying from COVID (1 COVID death in the treatment group vs. 2 COVID deaths in the placebo group= 1 life saved), but there were 7 excess non-COVID deaths (20 – 13).
So the Pfizer trial showed that for every person we saved from COVID, we killed 7 people. However the numbers were too small to place a high confidence in this point estimate.
However, I’d argue that Pfizer trial was a best case because:
The trial enrolled abnormally healthy people who died at a 10X lower rate than the population (there is a 1% US average death rate per year, yet there were just 15 deaths in the 22,000 placebo arm in 6 months which is a .1% death rate)
They were able to get rid of anyone who had a reaction to the first dose without counting them
The most important point though is that the Pfizer trial killed: save ratio of 7:1 and the ACM ratio of 1.4 is consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccine kills more people than it saves.
My ACM Risk/Benefit Estimate Using VAERS
This is from a risk/benefit computation I did on November 1, 2021 using the VAERS data to compute the ratio of the # of people killed from the vaccine (V) to the # of people who might be saved from COVID (C) if they took the vaccine and it had 90% effectiveness over 6 months (since we knew it waned over time and variants would change). Of course that was a conservative estimate of the benefit, but that’s because I wanted to make sure I was on solid ground if attacked.
So now we know that my VAERS calculations approximately match the actual UK data in Figure 1. Since my analysis was deliberately conservative, many of the numbers are smaller than the actuals.
This is another example that people who claim (without evidence) that the VAERS data is too “unreliable to use” are wrong. If it is so unreliable, how did it match the real world UK results so well?
Figure 3: Risk-benefit analysis from VAERS
Note how that VAERS showed exactly the same effect back then that we just learned from this UK data: that the younger you are, the more nonsensical getting vaccinated is.
Our V:C column decreases as you get older (from 6:1 down to 1.8:1) just like column E decreases (from 1.9:1 to 1:1 over the same range) in Figure 2.
Isn’t that an interesting “coincidence”? They are within a factor of 3 of each other.
Confirmation From Others
I’m hardly the only person noting that the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save. Other articles show either no benefit at all or a negative benefit.
For example, check out:
99.6% of COVID deaths in Canada were among fully vaccinated people between April 10-17 which can only happen if the vaccinated have a great ACM than the unvaccinated since there is only an 86% vaccination rate in Canada. This is hard for anyone to explain.
Follow-up of trial participants found ‘no effect on overall mortality’
Figure 4. Table from the Denmark paper published as a preprint in the Lancet
Horowitz: The failure of the mRNA shots is on display for all with open eyes
Note that the Denmark paper (pre-published in the Lancet) showed overall zero all-cause mortality benefit based on clinical trial data. That’s certainly more optimistic than the UK numbers, but the problem for the vaccine makers is that the UK numbers showed up to 38% of the deaths were from COVID so if the vaccines actually worked and were safe, you’d see a huge ACM benefit and you saw nothing.
Why are we mandating a vaccine with a zero ACM benefit?? No public health official wants to answer questions about that.
What Makes This Analysis Different Than Previous Work
The UK ONS data is more detailed than in the more frequently cited UK Health Security Agency summaries. It contains both COVID and non-COVID deaths by age. We haven’t had that before February 2022.
This enables me to validate the data as I explain in the next section.
Why I Picked The 2nd Dose, 6 Month Row Only
There are three reasons I picked the 2nd dose, 6 month row for the comparison with the unvaccinated:
It is the hardest row to make a case since most vax deaths happen within 30 days after the vaccine. So if I can prove the vaccine is dangerous for this row, it’s simply stunning. You don’t expect any excess non-COVID ACM deaths from people 6 months from their last dose of the vaccine.
The data in this row consistently met a very simple sanity test which allows for a fair comparison (described below)
The vaccines were still effective in preventing COVID deaths in this row, e.g., for age 50-54 there was still a 50% efficacy in reducing COVID deaths which is in line with assertions by the government about effectiveness (64 COVID deaths rate delta for the vaccinated vs. 127 COVID death rate for the unvaxxed).
So nobody can really accuse me of “cheating.” This is the most difficult row to make a my case.
One commenter speculated anyone in this bucket must be sickly which explains the higher non-COVID ACM. That’s wrong. Anyone sickly wouldn’t have even made it into the bucket. They would have been killed by COVID or the 2 doses long before entering the 6 months from COVID shot bucket. If they made it into this bucket, these people are super healthy.
The Sanity Test
The all-cause mortality (ACM) rates for NON-COVID deaths in the vaxxed cohorts should be the same as the rates for the unvaccinated for a perfectly safe vaccine; it should be higher for sure for this vaccine as we know from VAERS; we have over 10 ways showing that this vaccine significantly INCREASES your non-COVID ACM.
Note that a number of people claim that Professor Christine Stabell Benn has said that vaccine can positively affect your ACM. While this might be true theoretically for a perfect vaccine, nobody I know has pointed me to any real-life vaccine that has this “fountain of youth” property for anything other than the disease the vaccine was designed for. Bobby Kennedy Jr. tried for 20 years to get a debate on this and nobody would challenge him. In particular, all the COVID vaccines share the same problems of increasing ACM. You can see it very clearly yourself in Figure 6 above. All ages, doses 1 and 2. The ACMs are all worse.
Therefore, anytime that non-COVID ACM is lower for the vaccinated than the unvaccinated in a given age cohort, the row is unreliable (either corrupt or seriously confounded, e.g., by season). Others noticed this as well; without being able to adjust the data, we get nonsense results. Adjusting for bias is a huge task and would be subject to “data manipulation” attacks which would open up another level of attack. So we resigned our analysis to using data we didn’t have to normalize. The 2nd dose, 6 month row fit our purposes.
If I ignored the sanity check and include all the data for the vaccinated in the UK report, then the vaccines are marvelous life savers but ONLY if you are 25 years old or older. The vaccine will keep you from dying from cancer, car accidents, etc. especially if you are elderly. It’s like a fountain of youth for the elderly if you do that. Which doesn’t jive at all with reality where funeral home directors like John O’Looney couldn’t believe how many calls he was getting of elderly that had died when the jabs rolled out. The point is simple: Garbage data in, garbage data out.
Here’s a more in-depth explanation of the confounding due to survivor bias which explains why these data sets are not constructed for our purposes.
Could my sanity check be wrong because the vaccine is actually able to keep you from dying from all diseases and also accidents as well? Very unlikely. VAERS would be empty if this drug reduced adverse events and doctors would report elderly people being cured of disease. Instead of adverse event reports, doctors would be filing Beneficial Event Reports (BER) after vaccination.
I’ve written about this supposed “fountain of youth” effect on November 12, 2021.
The bottom line is data analysis is tricky so sanity checks are important if you want credible results.
Should Those Over 80 Get The Shot?
My VAERS analysis said no.
The anecdotal data from nursing homes from whistleblowers all says no (see slides 53 to 59). This includes Abrien Aguirre on Oahu, Sunnycrest nursing home in Canada, and John O’Looney’s experience, and experience from embalmers where most of the bodies being embalmed have telltale blood clots caused by the vaccine.
Based on curve fitting, it doesn’t look good for the elderly, for either.
The UK dataset used in this article was too confounded to use since the non-COVID ACM rate for the vaccinated was lower than the vaccinated so it didn’t meet the sanity check.
All the anecdotal data I hear is strongly negative. The ONS data shows the COVID vaccines are a fountain of youth and will cut your risk of dying from every cause in half.
If I was over 80, I wouldn’t get the shot until I saw reliable, self-consistent data showing a clear benefit from multiple independent sources. Seen any of that lately?
If I Am Vaccinated, Should I Continue To Get My Boosters, Or Not?
Consider that 75% of the people in the radiology department of Marin/UCSF got religious exemptions so they didn’t have to take the booster.
Does that help? They aren’t reading ONS data. They are seeing patients with 1, 2, and 3 doses of the vaccine.
We see over and over that each shot increases your risk of side-effects and death.
It’s like asking the question: “The first bullet I fired into my brain didn’t kill me. Should I try again?”
ACM Ratio Vs. Risk/Benefit Analysis
Now that we have the basics out of the way, I want to explain in greater detail the difference between the ACM ratio and the risk/benefit number and why the latter is what we should be focusing on.
For example, Toby Rogers estimated that we kill 117 kids from the COVID vaccine for every child we might save from dying of COVID in the 5 to 11 age range.
Here, in an even older cohort (10 to 14), we found it is 1600 to 1. The problem with this young age range is that there are so few deaths, that there is a lot of statistical noise since the denominator is so small (close to 0). But the UK data clearly showed that vaccinating kids younger than 20 years old is insane. Arguing whether it is 117 or 1600 is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Just say “no.”
Here’s a simple example to illustrate the difference between the ACM ratio and the risk benefit analysis:
Suppose 100 people per 100,000 die per year normally in a particular age group.
We have a vaccine that saves 1 life per person, but kills 10. That’s a lousy intervention because it kills 10 times more people than it saves.
But if we compare the ACM rates of the two groups, we’d have 100 in the unvaccinated group and 109 dead people in the vaccinated group. So the ACM ratio would only be 1.1, a 10% increase. But the risk/benefit is 10:1 more risk than benefit.
So that’s why the risk-benefit ratio is the number to look at, not the ratio of the ACMs of each group.
Attempts To Debunk This
Daniel Wilson, aka “Debunk the Funk,” cited Morris’s article (UK death data artifacts: “Stragglers” who delay vaccine doses a select group with higher death risk) when I asked him to debunk this article. No other explanation provided.
Morris claims that people who vaccinate late have higher death rates.
First of all, I wasn’t impressed with Morris’ analysis, but even I believed it, it’s completely irrelevant because the category I chose weren’t “stragglers” (since the biggest contributors got their second dose long long ago) and as I noted earlier, it is the single hardest row to see a signal. These people survived COVID and survived two shots so their ACM should be way lower than the average unvaccinated person. Basically, people in this category got shot early with two bullets and are still alive.
So much for the hand-waving debunk attempt.
My result is very consistent with other reliable independent data points that I know. If you want to debunk me, show us how, using exactly the same dataset, you can get a more accurate estimate of the “true” value. I’m skeptical anyone can do that, but I’m open to being shown a better way.
It turns out Table 6 wasn’t the best table to have used.
Take a look at Figure 6 above. After a startup period, the data all settles out and all dose 1 and dose 2 curves show higher ACM than the unvaccinated. No cherry picking or sanity test needed. A raw, untouched data.
So that’s an independent look at the data showing very visually that “whoops, these vaccines are killing more people than they save.”
You Can Do Worse Than This Analysis; That’s Easy
For example, this table from Morris’ article is from the UK dataset as well, and it indicates you are way better off if you got the vax.
Figure 5. Table from Morris article
The problem is death rates that are as low as 20% of the unvaxed death rate (as noted in this table) doesn’t match reality such as the up to 21X increase athlete deaths (Jan 2021 vs Jan 2022) that we can see in plain sight. Nobody has been able to explain away the athlete data, not even Professor Glen Pyle. While government data can be manipulated, athlete deaths cannot be manipulated because they are public. Which do you trust more? Clearly, the data that is in full public view.
Also, in Table 3 of the UK data, it says if you’ve been vaccinated with COVID, you have close to half of the non-COVID ACM death rate as the unvaccinated (compare E23 with E31).
In other words, according to UK government data, the vaccine is a fountain of youth because it will reduce your non-COVID ACM by a factor of 2. It’s just not believable. There is no mechanism of action that can do that and you’d expect the VAERS reports (and individual doctor reports) would all be lower than previous vaccines in all categories rather than off the charts.
Furthermore, if the COVID vaccines reduced non-COVID ACM by 2X, the government would be shouting this from the rooftops as a miracle cure for all diseases. They aren’t. They are silent. What does that tell you? It tells you the UK government is smart enough to realize the data is confounded and you can’t make such assessments: you can’t say it is safe, and you can’t say it is dangerous.
Figure 5 above is also inconsistent with Canada’s high rate of fully vaccinated deaths, the huge number of VAERS reports, reports by individual doctors of 100X or more increase in adverse events after vaccination, Facebook groups with hundred of thousands of vaccine victims, the huge spike in athlete deaths, the 75% of radiologists at UCSF/Marin who refused the booster, etc.
Limitations
Here are some limitations of using the UK data courtesy of Martin Kulldorff, the most important one being the first one.
Does this cause me to doubt the results? No. I specifically chose the row I did to minimize these confounders. These limitations mean my results are conservative (because the seasonality skew of the vaccinated increases their non-COVID ACM). We also have way too many real-world confirmation points that could not be explained if the vaccine were beneficial.
Seasonality: In England, all-cause mortality is highly seasonal, as is COVID mortality as well as COVID vaccinations. This creates a bias in the analysis. There is much more unvaccinated person time during the early part of 2021, while there is much more D2 6+ month person time in the later parts of 2021 and January 2022. To adjust for this bias, in whichever direction it goes, it is necessary to adjust for calendar time. Depending on the data, that can be done in different ways. Note that this bias affects the results differently for different age groups, both because the rollout of the vaccine varied by age group and because the seasonal mortality patterns may differ by age.
Negative efficacy on COVID: The negative efficacy on COVID mortality in the 30-34 and 40-44 age groups (the * rows) may seem counter intuitive, but there is a likely explanation. The same phenomena was seen an a recent New York State analysis of COVID vaccines in children. In that study, the vaccine was effective at preventing symptomatic COVID during the first few weeks after vaccination, but for 5-11 year old children, the efficacy we negative after seven weeks, so that there were more COVID in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. The likely explanation for this is that the vaccine provides temporary protection during the first few weeks, so after 7 weeks we are comparing unvaccinated children with a high proportion of natural immunity from having had COVID with vaccinated children with a lower proportion with natural immunity. This phenomenon will be seen with any vaccine that only gives short-term protection, and it could potentially also affect COVID mortality statistics. Suppose that the vaccine does not prevent COVID deaths, but just postpone them until a later date. Then there may be a vaccine benefit seen 0-6 months after vaccination, but a vaccine harm 6-12 months after vaccination. When Pfizer and Moderna only evaluated the vaccines for a few months, that give incomplete and potentially misleading information about the efficacy of the vaccines. The same is true if we only look at a subsequent tie interval of e.g. 6-12 month after the vaccination. There are ways to overcome this issue, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the English data to know if it can be extracted from that.
Prior COVID infection: The unvaccinated group consists of two sub-groups,(i) those who have recovered from COVID and who hence have natural immunity to COVID, which is superior to vaccine induced immunity, and (ii) those who have never had COVID. People with natural immunity have minuscule if any benefit from the vaccine on COVID disease and should not be vaccinated. To determine whether those without a prior COVID infection benefit from vaccination, it is necessary to compare the vaccinated without a prior COVID infection with the unvaccinated without a prior COVID infection.
Risk metrics: Although both are worth calculating, I agree that risk/benefit is a more relevant number of vaccine efficacy than vax/unvax ACM rates. The best metrics to evaluate the vaccines is not a risk ratio though, but attributable risk. That is, for every 1,000 people who get the vaccine, or for every 1,000,000, how many deaths are prevented by the vaccine or how many deaths are caused by the vaccine.
Could The Underlying UK Data Be Wrong?
There are always going to be studies that contradict other studies.
There are always going to be compromised data sources, the DMED data being another recent example.
There are always going to be seemingly credible sources of data that are not as credible as they seem at first glance.
So yeah, as I noted in the section above, the ONS data provided was less than ideal.
Our job is to sort out the reliable data from the unreliable data. We do that by using multiple pieces of independent evidence from credible sources and doing sanity checks on the data we use.
My results agreed with other data I’m aware of so I’m reasonably happy with the quality of the data, e.g., the risk/benefit went down with increasing age in a way that matched my expectations.
“Show Me The DATA”
All my analysis here serves one purpose which is to highlight the point that you can make a very legitimate case that these vaccines do nothing and at worse, make things worse. I’m hardly alone in this belief. Showing us different rows in the ONS data shows a different result, but doesn’t cause the red flag to disappear.
The only way you can trump the red flag I pointed out is to do a PROPER analysis.
Remember the movie Jerry Maguire where Rod Tidwell advises Jerry that to keep him as a client all Jerry has to do is “Show me the money!”?
We should all be asking the same thing of the CDC but instead of money, we should be asking them to “Show me the DATA!”
Why isn’t the CDC showing us the ACM study that we need? Namely:
We want to see two matched groups, one who took the intervention, the other that didn’t, and see who is standing at the end of the 1 year period.
Where is that study? The data exists.
There is a reason the proper study does not exist. Because it would make it clear to everyone that nobody should get jabbed.
Without seeing that study and the underlying data, nobody of any age should get the jab or recommend it.
I’ll go even further and say:
It is irresponsible for the CDC to keep that data hidden from public view.
It’s irresponsible for the medical community to not demand to see this data.
It’s irresponsible for the medical community to encourage anyone to get vaccinated without seeing this data especially in light of the alarming data in VAERS and other sources.
Summary
Based on this new UK government data, we can estimate a true risk-benefit ratio for each age group. For all groups, it’s negative. The younger you are, the less sense it makes to take the vaccine. Figure 6 is a visual way to see this. All the dose 1 and 2 curves are above the unvaccinated line.
It shows clearly that our governments have been publicly killing us with these vaccines and vaccine mandates.
The data was used is fully reported data right from the UK government and the math is straightforward. The row I used was not normalized or manipulated. It was the hardest row to prove my point. The only way to explain the results is that the vaccines kill more people than they save. But you can also look at Figure 6 too.
At a minimum, this result should cast serious doubt about the safe and effective narrative. I took a dataset that was clearly biased to show a positive vaccine result and found a hugely negative signal hidden inside by selecting data that should have shown the opposite. No tricks were used. That shouldn’t have been possible if the vaccine was really safe.
We need to see a proper analysis on the data and we need to see it now.
The medical community has never demanded to see a proper risk-benefit study before recommending the vaccines. To this day, they continue to this day to keep their head in the sand and not demand to see the ACM data. It’s deplorable.
Until we see the data and the study and validate both showing the vaccines are safe and effective, the vaccines should not be used.
When will Covid reporting start to tell the truth?
TWO and a half years into the Covid saga, the public is still faced with an information blackout. The data is very concerning indeed, but no one in parliament or the MSM wants to get in front of it. Instead many are still stuck stoking the fear factor. As Professor Vinay Prasad, an American haematologist-oncologist and health researcher, wrote a few days ago: ‘Legitimising irrational anxiety is bad medicine’.
Early on in our efforts to publicise the dangers of biotechnology medicine, I had an email exchange with Jesse Mulligan, a popular commentator with RNZ Afternoons. His perspective on Covid vaccination was as follows.
December 6, 2021: ‘I feel like anybody aiming to critique such an obviously positive public health measure should begin and end their messaging reminding people that any risks/flaws in the vaccine are minor compared to the horrific impacts of getting Covid . . . I don’t have the time to correspond with you on this at length but, for what it’s worth, if you’re putting people off getting a largely safe vaccine by what you’re writing about it, I think you need to review how you approach writing these messages.’
Mulligan quoted from Ministry of Health directives and had also read some questioning scientific articles, but he could not get past the conclusion that vaccination was an obvious public good and for this reason he declined to have me on his show.
The ‘obvious public good’ narrative has come in for some recent criticism. The BMJ printed an opinion piece in July entitled Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? Or try this referenced substack article which reports that the negative harm/benefit ratio in the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine trials has been acknowledged in a scientific journal article. In other words there is more harm than benefit.
For me, the central early point of pandemic misinformation has been the underlying assumption that biotech medicine interventions could be safe. There really was little or no evidence to justify such an attitude, in fact, as I have discussed, there was a great deal of published pre-pandemic evidence to justify caution.
Given the central role of DNA in human physiology, altering its function was from the outset potentially catastrophic. We are now facing Covid vaccine outcomes which not only involve serious individual adverse effects, but also potentially affect whole populations into the longer term. These outcomes include:
· Elevated excess all-cause death rates and lowered longevity
· Lowered birth rates and fertility
The evidence for these is patchy because governments are not rushing to publish data, but it is still very convincing. So concerning in fact, that the Israeli government has covered up key data and scientific conclusions.
The latest comprehensive evidence for Covid vaccine-induced excess all-cause mortality can be found in this analysis: Excess mortality in Germany 2020-2022.
It is extraordinary that this perilous new normal has found its way into advertising messages, but not into serious commentary. Today I watched a TV ad for a funeral home which arranges alternative and appropriate funerals for those dying young, whilst a British Heart Foundation appeal featured a young woman collapsing on the football field. It did so to encourage donations.
Sudden deaths among all ages are being normalised in the public’s mind because they really are happening at a rate that dwarfs the past, as insurance data confirms. However here in New Zealand we are still being subjected to puerile government advertising devoid of scientific caution. Like this Ministry of Health promotion which turned up this morning:
GET YOUR SECOND BOOSTER – I’ve had three shots, do I really need another booster? Current evidence shows your protection against severe infection slowly decreases over time – GET YOUR SECOND BOOSTER
No mention of safety, no mention of efficacy, and the term ‘current evidence’ used as if this advert is scientifically up to date and reliable. It isn’t.
Why is it so unfashionable to be concerned about rising death rates and lowered birth rates? You might find a clue in this frightening pre-pandemic article from the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Medically assisted deaths could save millions in health care spending: Report. Are higher death rates good news for people with this kind of perspective? We hope not.
We are clearly on a learning curve here. The poor vaccination outcomes were not anticipated, the adverse effects were initially disbelieved on principle and blamed on misinformation.
It is understandable that in the uncertain early days of Covid, people the official MoH narrative, but continuing to do so now doesn’t fit the published scientific narrative or the public data. Caution was and is a very scientific strategy, it never deserved bad press.
Those offering advice to the public need to be more discerning if they wish to contribute to the well being and longevity of our society. MSM language has become extreme, and it is increasingly polarising without foundation in science.
There is still a chance for journalists to cover the pandemic with an open mind. It is happening elsewhere. GB News for example has gained one of the largest prime-time news audiences in the UK. Why not initiate a more open public debate? Cooling rhetoric and decreasing polarisation can only lead to better outcomes. Fresh air never harms anyone – it can save lives.
The following featured article it gives you a useful insight into the monetary shenanigans behind the Covid psyop.
The basic on all this the underlying banking fraud, hidden by a smokescreen of complexity, whereby our means of exchange is created by the banking cartels as interest-bearing debt, a fraud that underpins the globalist power and and the removal of which would finish their crime syndicate utterly.
This article looks at how the covid psyop was engineered to further bolster the international money-lending cartels who made massive profits from the orgy of government borrowing, the door to which the”pandemic” psyop was launched to kick open.
The article is also interesting for the predictions in its closing paragraph concerning the creation by us of our new civilisation at the grass roots. This theme is appearing in the writings and postings of an increasing number of free-thinking groups and starting to happen in reality – hardly surprising as it is the way forward.
How we can all fight the Covid money-launderers
‘IF WE can face it we can fix it,’ said American investment banker and former Washington official Catherine Austin Fitts when she participated in the first Doctors 4 Covid Ethics symposium in July 2021 to assert that Covid-19 is a monetary event.
Fitts explained that in recent decades trillions of dollars had been ‘disappeared’ from the US Treasury’s funds, and it was essentially bankrupt, along with the treasuries of Western governments. She provided an insight into how one illusion, that of a staged pandemic, was part of the cover-up strategy of another illusion, that of an international financial system now on very thin ice.
The aim of creating a pandemic was to corral populations and render them powerless, because the international banking clearing system pegged to the US dollar was in free fall in 2019. She said that a new system was in preparation, to be slid in under the radar, but ‘if people knew what it was, no one would want it’. In the face of this situation, the public needed to be ‘disabled’ politically, judicially, financially and practically.
In 2008 we got a glimpse of this murky world of finance following the collapse of Northern Rock, the Tyneside building society which turned itself into a bank in 1997, when it was revealed that it had been issuing mortgages of up to 110 per cent. We further learned that the practice of lending to borrowers with little or no chance of servicing, let alone repaying a loan (sub-prime lending), was not only widespread, but that lenders packaged their bad debts into bundles with a few serviceable debts in the mix to disguise the toxic nature of the financial product, and sold them on the financial markets as ‘assets’. Terms such as ‘derivatives’ and ‘credit default swaps’ were beyond the average understanding, but what we knew was that the financial institutions with their Ponzi schemes had played the tables with our savings, our pensions, and our future, and lost. So come 2019 the public had to be rendered senseless.
So what are Fitts’s recommendations? She is confident that the nefarious system designed to strip out individual assets and control humanity can be thwarted. She suggests we need radically to increase our cash transactions. Draw as much cash as you can, she urges. Support local retailers, and avoid restaurants and shops which refuse cash. You can ask your bank for a card that is not contactless. Don’t buy from Amazon, don’t purchase smart gadgets, get old ones repaired, nurture local relationships with small businesses. All this has been said before, but the cash aspect is vital. Convenience has been the bait to entrap society into tapping a card, a wrist-watch, and then the wrist itself into total surveillance and tyranny. We can and must obstruct its onslaught on our privacy and freedoms.
Also worth reading are two well-written posts on this subject by a writer calling himself Allen on Celia Farber’s The Truth Barrier: Covid Is Not An Epidemiological Story; Covid Is A Crime Story (substack.com) ‘If you view this whole “pandemic” situation through the lens of health, safety, science and saving lives, then most of it makes little sense. If you view it through the lens of money, power, control, and wealth transfer, then all of it makes perfect sense. Covid is not an epidemiological story. Covid is a crime story. Covid-19 is the biggest money-laundering scheme in the history of the world . . . governments know full well that “Covid” is being used as a cover for crashing the economies in the Western world. There is not now and never has been a “pandemic” – that is all Kabuki theatre to disguise the reality of the rapid economic decline brought on by the Ponzi schemes of financial institutions over the past few decades.’
As the months progress, and despite at times a sense of weariness, it is hugely encouraging to observe just how many valuable voices are contributing to blowing up the fraud. The tapestry of lies is clearly unravelling in the US and this cannot but fan out across the world. The regeneration and creation of new structures of commerce, education, healthcare, justice, and governance will spring from grass roots up, at first in parallel, then as replacement to the old crumbling systems, because as Einstein said: ‘No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.’
Ultimate-Survival 