Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Evidence Shows Top al Qaeda Operative Who Aided 9/11 Hijackers Was Working for the CIA

For decades, state officials in nations like Iran and Syria have publicly held that Al Qaeda, ISIS and other Salafist terrorist groups are agents of chaos trained and armed by the United States and Israel. Now finally, there’s a smoking gun.


Facebook goes full Big Brother, kills Lara Trump interview with Donald


President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump pose for a photo in front of the statue of Saint John Paul II before participating in a wreath laying ceremony Tuesday, June 2, 2020, at the Saint John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C. (Official White House photo by Andrea Hanks)

Facebook was among the social-media giants that imposed a blackout on posts by President Donald Trump in January.

Now its gone further, censoring postings of an interview with the former president by his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, a new Fox News contributor.

A Facebook employee, in an email to Trump officials, threatened "additional limitations" on "accounts" that include such material.

"Hi folks, We are reaching out to let you know that we removed content from Lara Trump's Facebook Page that featured President Trump speaking," the email said. "In line with the block we placed on Donald Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts, further content posted in the voice of Donald Trump will be removed and result in additional limitations on the accounts."

Fox News said Lara Trump posted an image on Instagram of her sitting across from her father-in-law asking viewers to "Join us tonight!"

Lara Trump speaks at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2020 (RNC video screenshot)

The Facebook employee said, "This guidance applies to all campaign accounts and Pages, including Team Trump, other campaign messaging vehicles on our platforms, and former surrogates."

Fox News reported Facebook did not respond to a request for comment.

Facebook banished Donald Trump after the riot in January at the U.S. Capitol, when CEO Mark Zuckerberg said his company officials "believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great."

Twitter, Snapchat and YouTube joined in the censorship.

Trump senior adviser Jason Miller has said Trump will be back on social media, likely bypassing the existing companies.

"I do think that we're going to see President Trump returning to social media in probably about two or three months here, with his own platform," Miller told Fox News' #MediaBuzz earlier this month. "And this is something that I think will be the hottest ticket in social media, it's going to completely redefine the game, and everybody is going to be waiting and watching to see what exactly President Trump does."

Miller said meetings regarding the plan already were underway, and "numerous companies" had approached Trump.

"This new platform is going to be big," Miller said.

Newsweek reported Donald Trump said in the 18-minute video interview with his daughter-in-law that his supporters should have "hope" he will run for the White House again in 2024.

But he did not make a formal announcement.

Lara Trump asked about a possible third run for the presidency, with pollling showing Trump is favored among Republicans for the 2024 nomination.

"The other question people all want to know — and I know you're not ready to answer it yet — but do we have hope that there's a possibility to see Donald Trump run again in 2024?" Lara Trump asked.

"You do have hope, that I can tell you," Trump said. "You do have hope. We love our country—this country. We all owe a lot to our country but now we have to help our country."

He said he's thinking about holding a rally, "just to let everybody know that there's hope in the future."

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact


The post Facebook goes full Big Brother, kills Lara Trump interview with Donald appeared first on WND.


Salon Keeps Lying about Capitol Protest, Weapons, Double Standards


Cross-posted from TGP FactCheck

  • “Armed Insurrection” is a lie
  • Salon calls Sen. Johnson a racist for fearing BLM and Antifa more than Trump supporters
  • Factual lies continue to make their way into leftist stories of the event
  • Skolnik gives erroneous “context” to make Johnson’s comments appear racist

OUR RATING: Trash Journalism, aka the Daily Beast.

Indicted Outlet: Jon Skolnik | Salon | Link | Archive writer Jon Skolnik labels the events of Jan. 6 as an “insurrection” citing incorrect information. He does this so as to smear Sen. Johnson’s comments as insensitive and racist. Furthermore, Skolnik attempts to downplay the violence of Black Lives Matter protests to further discredit Johnson. 

Major Violations:

  • Bad Sources
  • Superficial Investigation
  • No Evidence to Support Claims
  • Misrepresentation
  • Lying

The three facts easily disputed within Skolnik’s article are 1] that the event of Jan. 6th is an “insurrection,” 2] that this “insurrection” saw five people die, including a police officer, and 3] that these were “rioters” who “brought a house of weapons to the rally, including guns, smoke bombs, stun guns, knives, brass knuckles, as well as other items that could be fashioned into makeshift weapons.” 

“Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. is facing blistering backlash after admitting that he didn’t feel threatened by the pro-Trump rioters at the Capitol insurrection but would have if they had been Black Lives Matter protestors. 

Five people died during the insurrection, including one police officer. Some 140 law enforcement officers were injured, and two officers died by suicide following the riot. Over 315 people have been charged in connection to the Capitol riot, and about forty have been arrested. Rioters brought a host of weapons to the rally, including guns, smoke bombs, stun guns, knives, brass knuckles, as well as other items that could be fashioned into makeshift weapons.”

These three can be handled systematically. First, Skolnik’s only evidence for calling the protest an insurrection is one Politico “fact check” that says the Jan. 6th protest was an “armed insurrection” because people showed up to “stop the vote confirmation and keep Trump in office despite the election results” and because they showed up carrying a “weapon” of some sort. Obviously, there are a great many problems with this being a simple factual claim. 

There is absolutely no mention that millions of these protesters believed that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. So it wasn’t despite the election results that they showed up. It was because the election results were reasonably suspicious that Trump supporters showed up to pressure Senators to postpone validating the election. Whether or not they were armed will be addressed shortly. In order to prove this claim on a plausible basis, Skolnik must include more than one measly source, who at best is clearly biased

As well, it seems clear that these people were armed with primarily defensive devices anticipating unchecked violence from members of Antifa. Violence from Antifa, which has included shooting a pro-Trump man Aaron Danielson in the street in Portland last October. [17] Also that month, another Trump supporter Lee Keltner was shot and killed by the media in broad daylight in Denver, [18] by an individual who was originally suspected to be a member of Antifa as well. [19][20] Notably, Keltner’s killer is free on bond, has not yet been arraigned, and his judge has made sure that he now doesn’t even have to worry about the minor inconvenience of GPS tether monitoring. [21]

So it was not at all unreasonable for the conservatives attending the January Capitol protest to expect that violence would be exacted against them, and the official police response would be to do nothing.

In fact many city police officials have quietly let it be known that ‘stand down’ orders have been given to give left-wing activists legal free reign to do as they wish. [22][23][24]

According to Webster’s Dictionary, the definition of an insurrection is “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” If this is an insurrection, it is an extremely small and unarmed one. Of the 100,000 people who came to see Trump’s speech that day, fewer than 1,000 “stormed” the Capitol. [25] And as we have discussed elsewhere, it’s also not clear whether it was Trump-supporters who instigated the violence and property damage and destruction at the Capitol, or if they were merely walking into the building after the doors had been broken open.

The second factual claim is that five people died, including a police officer. The officer Skolnik refers to is Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whose death the New York Times originally, wrongfully, blamed on a fire-extinguisher wielding Trump supporter due to their egregiously sloppy and shoddy reporting. The Times relied on official statements and did not verify the death during one of the most contentious news stories of the past decade, with any reliable source other than gossip. It took them a month to update their story, [26] which is now being presented in court as a claim that a form of tear gas known as ‘bear spray’ was used on Sicknick and others, causing him to later have a medical episode while at home. 

Since then, the Times has retracted the original Officer Sicknick story since they lacked sufficient evidence to make such a claim. This is a clear and blatant lie. Authorities have still not released an autopsy, toxicology or cause of death for Sicknick. Furthermore, the two men indicted by the grand jury have been charged with assault on an officer with a dangerous weapon, not manslaughter. So, not only do we not know the cause of death, no one is being currently charged with the death of Officer Sicknick and therefore it’s very disingenuous to blame his death solely on the protesters. 

The other four deaths were Trump supporters, with only one dying from deliberate violence: unarmed Ashli Babbitt who was shot while posing no serious physical threat. So, the only person who died from deliberate violence during this supposedly armed insurrection was a pro-Trump protestor. At best, Skolnick has done a superficial investigation on the topic. At worst, he is continuing to push a lie

As for whether or not these were armed protestors, there is no evidence to support the claim. Julie Kelly reports that of the 200 people arrested from that day, only 14 defendants face any sort of weapons charge. However, the most crucial part of this claim is that “Not one person has been charged with possessing or using a gun inside the Capitol. Further, no one has been identified as carrying a gun inside the building,” according to Kelly. So any “armed insurrectionists” were a tiny percentage of the 100,000 protestors, and they “stormed” the capital unarmed and hurt no one. This is a clear misrepresentation of the kinds of people who came to the Capitol on the 6th. 

The crowd was present to hear Trump speak, and agitators confronted the Capitol Police, whose overreaction led to the situation spiraling out of control.

Finally, Skolnik, as many leftists have done before him, attempts to paint the BLM protests in contrast as largely peaceful. Sen. Johnson cites a study from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, saying that he would fear a BLM riot more than the rally of Jan. 6th because “Out of 7,750 protests last summer associated with BLM and Antifa,” he said, “570 turned into violent riots that killed 25 people and caused $1-$2 billion of property damage.” 

Sam Jones, a senior communications manager from ACLED said Johnson’s claim lacks the context of the whole study that “determined that of the 10,600 demonstrations that swept the country from May 24 to Aug. 22, nearly 95 percent of them were entirely peaceful.”   Jones also blamed the level of force used by the police and aggressive intervention from counter-protest groups as a cause of the violence. 

Unfortunately, none of these explanations make the 570 riots that turned violent any more peaceful nor do they make Johnson’s claims seem unreasonable. As we’ve already proved, the “armed insurrection” of Jan. 6 was neither armed nor an insurrection with almost no real violence inflicted on either side. Even if you accept the inflated left-wing figures that only 5% of BLM rallies turned violent, that stands in contrast to the 0% of Trump rallies that turned violent even though Trump supporters waiting for the President to speak were being tear gassed, shot with paintballs in the eyes, struck, clubbed and more.

If the Trump protesters were armed insurrectionists intent on stopping the peaceful transfer of power, why didn’t they execute Ashli Babbit’s killer? Why didn’t they shoot the Capitol Police? Why didn’t they execute Senators or then-Vice President Mike Pence who had lied to the public about taking voter fraud seriously and then, at the last moment, claimed that he lacked the authority to stop an election certification he had expressed doubts about? These grievances may not be legitimate to a Salon writer living in Brooklyn, but they were not just a massed Trump crowd waiting for their moment to end democracy, and to portray the situation that way is fundamentally dishonest.

OUR RATING: Trash Journalism, aka the Daily Beast.


1 ]

2 ]

3 ]

4 ]

5 ]

6 ]

7 ]

8 ]

9 ]

10 ]

11 ]

12 ]

13 ]

14 ]

15 ]

16 ]

17 ]

18 ]

19 ]

20 ]

21 ]

22 ]

23 ]

24 ]

25 ]

26 ]


The post Salon Keeps Lying about Capitol Protest, Weapons, Double Standards appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.


Study: 55 Formerly Unknown Chemicals Found in Pregnant Women


The phrase “better living through chemistry” is a variation on an advertising campaign used by the DuPont Chemical Company1 in the mid-1930s until the early 1980s.

In 2014,2 it became the title of a “comedy” that portrays the life of a man bullied by his father and wife, and his subsequent “rebirth” through chemical use. However, the Hollywood and public relations versions of “better living through chemistry” are not the reality.

For instance, recent data from the University of California San Francisco revealed that 55 chemicals previously not found in humans were found in the bodies of pregnant women and their babies.3

Chemical-laden plastic has become such a ubiquitous part of modern-day life that is hard to imagine a world without it. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, it's a relatively new invention4 and there's still a lot we don't know about how it impacts human and environmental health.

The chemicals in plastic are intergenerational endocrine disruptors5 for which there is not enough evidence to demonstrate plastic is safe for current and future generations. These chemicals have widespread use in plastic products and are similar in nature to natural sex hormones, which earns them the designation of endocrine disruptors.

But the chemicals in plastics are just one of the enormous number of chemicals being released into the environment through human use and disposal in waste products, including human waste. For example, according to the Environmental Working Group,6 every day women in America use an average of 12 personal care products, including cosmetics, that contain up to 168 different chemicals.

And those are just the chemicals the manufacturers have told the public is in those products. Many of these are applied to the skin, which allows ingredients to be absorbed directly into the bloodstream. This is only one of the ways chemicals are absorbed in the body.

For example, food can introduce chemicals in the body, either through its ingredients or through its packaging. The fast-food industry was valued at $647.7 billion in 2019 and is estimated to grow 4.6% by 2027, reaching $931.7 billion.7 Yet, despite the fact that it has been identified as a significant source of hormone-disrupting chemicals, the market continues to grow as consumer demand increases.

Scientists Find 42 ‘Mystery Chemicals’ in Pregnant Women

In the featured study, researchers8 found 109 chemicals using high-resolution mass spectrometry on blood samples from pregnant women and their babies. The study was done to develop a screening workflow for the identification and prioritization of chemical exposure in maternal and cord blood samples as a development for the future evaluation of health risks.

In a small sample of 30 women and their babies’ cord serum samples, they discovered 55 previously unreported chemicals in human blood. In addition to this, they also found 42 “mystery chemicals” with sources and uses that were unidentified by the researchers.9 The scientists wrote that the majority of the 55 compounds had “limited to no information about their sources or uses.”10

However, the source of the chemicals is believed to be from consumer products and other industrial sources, as written in a press release from the University of California.11 Since they were found in both the pregnant woman and their newborn children, evidence suggests the chemicals are able to pass across the placenta.

Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., is a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California San Francisco and senior researcher on the study. She commented in the press release:12

“These chemicals have probably been in people for quite some time, but our technology is now helping us to identify more of them. It is alarming that we keep seeing certain chemicals travel from pregnant women to their children, which means these chemicals can be with us for generations. It’s very concerning that we are unable to identify the uses or sources of so many of these chemicals.”

Woodruff spoke to a journalist from Live Science,13 expressing her concerns that exposure during pregnancy is dangerous since it's at a vulnerable time of development, potentially leading to lifelong consequences. Two of the newly detected chemicals in the human body were polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFASs), used in products such as pizza boxes and nonstick cookware.

Ten were plasticizers, such as phthalates, but the majority of the newly detected chemicals the researchers had no information about. Another author, Dimitri Abrahamsson, told Live Science that the number of chemicals discovered should signal a sense of “alarm,” continuing:14

"We're being exposed to chemicals that we have very little information about. And these chemicals could potentially have harmful health effects that we don't know and can't predict.”

Phthalates and Plasticizers Pose Health Dangers

Data from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health discovered 90% of the people tested from 2016 to 2017 had eight different plasticizers in their urine.15 These colorless, odorless chemicals, composed mostly of phthalates, are used to change the elasticity of materials during the manufacturing process.16

Although you can probably name shower curtains, takeout containers and storage bags as plastic products, did you know clothing, paper coffee cups, tea bags and chewing gum are also made with plastic?17 Because the chemicals are not tightly bound to the products, they can dissipate into the surrounding environment, including the food you eat and the water you drink.

While the National Toxicology Program18 believes phthalates are “reasonably considered to be a human carcinogen,” politics and regulations have allowed plastics to remain in many of the products you use today.

In addition to the passage of chemicals from mother to child, ingestion of plastic particles can start in infancy. Globally, the baby bottle industry was valued at $2.6 billion in 2018, and the plastic segment accounted for 44.1% of the overall share.19 Researchers20 found that microplastics are released from plastic baby bottles into the contents, sometimes up to 16 million plastic particles per liter.

In this study, researchers tested only the number of particles released by the bottle as they use purified water and not standard drinking water. Since standard drinking water also contains microplastics,21 this means the number may have been significantly underestimated when the bottles are used at home.

Phthalates are powerful hormone disruptors that can cause males in many species to develop feminine characteristics.22 By disrupting the endocrine system they can also increase the risk of testicular cancer, low sperm count and infertility, which researchers have found in animal species including whales, deer, otters and bears.

A peer-reviewed article published in the American Journal of Public Health23 used data from longitudinal birth cohort studies to show associations between exposure to phthalates in utero and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, lower IQ, impaired social communication, poor psychomotor development and adverse cognitive development.

EPA and FDA Responsible for Your Toxic Exposure

Woodruff and her team were able to tentatively identify some of the chemicals used in chemical libraries. However, confirmation is made by comparing them to the pure chemicals known as “analytical standards,” provided by the manufacturer. Manufacturers do not always provide the samples. Woodruff continued her statement in the press release from the University of California, saying:24

“EPA must do a better job of requiring the chemical industry to standardize its reporting of chemical compounds and uses. And they need to use their authority to ensure that we have adequate information to evaluate potential health harms and remove chemicals from the market that pose a risk.”

During the UCSF study, researchers found chemical manufacturer Solvay halted access to a chemical standard for one of their perfluorooctanoic acid compounds they have used as a replacement for those that have been phased out. The researchers had been applying this chemical standard as a comparison, looking for the presence and toxicity of the replacement chemical.25

It may seem odd that a regulated industry would have the option of withdrawing its chemical composition, but as Sharyl Attkisson from Full Measure26 revealed in an investigative report, the industry is self-regulated. When the law was passed in 1938, it was missing a section that would have given the FDA the authority to impose sanctions.

Melanie Benesh of the Environmental Working Group told Attkisson that the FDA does not have jurisdiction to recall products or “to do a systematic look at their ingredients and what their long-term effects are.”

While the FDA has no teeth, the EPA is not using its regulatory prerogative in many cases. According to their website, the EPA “gathers health, safety and exposure data; requires necessary testing; and controls human and environmental exposures for numerous chemical substances and mixtures. EPA regulates the production and distribution of commercial and industrial chemicals ...”27

Yet, as I have covered in the past, the EPA has been sued for its mercury policy, allowing dental offices to continue to discharge nearly 5.1 tons of mercury each year into publicly owned water treatment plants, most of which are subsequently released into the environment.28

The EPA has also been accused of colluding with Monsanto, which you can read more about in “Evidence EPA Colluded With Monsanto to Dismiss Cancer Concerns Grows Stronger.” They have blocked warning labels about glyphosate, and they promote the use of sewage sludge, which they dubbed “biosolids.”

This sludge is spread as fertilizer on U.S. agricultural lands, golf courses, parklands and cemeteries. As described in “BioSludged,”29 biosolids can contain dioxins, pharmaceuticals, surfactants, hormones and heavy metals, as well as disease-causing pathogens.

The persistence of these toxins in the treated soil means they may be absorbed by food crops that end up on your plate. Yet, high-profile PR companies, some funded by the EPA, spin biosolids as environmentally friendly and a form of recycling.

The EPA’s Environmental Dumping Ground

According to the World Wildlife Federation,30 between 1930 and 2000, there was a 400-fold increase in the production of man-made chemicals across the world, rising from 1 million to 400 million tons each year. These man-made chemicals produce widespread environmental contamination during their manufacture, use and disposal.

Chemicals can travel vast distances through the air or water and have been found to contaminate nearly every environment and type of wildlife, including birds, alligators, polar bears and panthers. There has been a widespread decline of mink in the Great Lakes, otters in Canada and other species across North America and Western Europe.31

Experts believe it is the environmental contamination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins, which is supported by studies using laboratory mink. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is classified by the U.S. EPA as a cancer-causing agent. It has been found in the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea.

In 1979, it was tested on monkeys and they all died within weeks. Scientists have found caimans, an alligator species native to South America, with sex reversals caused by environmental contamination from bisphenol A. The chemical was also responsible for reproductive malformations in quail and chicken embryos.

Consider Your Daily Choices

It doesn't appear that the EPA or FDA has plans to take broad steps to warn the public about dangerous environmental chemicals now or in the near future. On the contrary, in some cases, they're working with the companies to remove warning labels that could have alerted consumers to their risks, such as the incident in California where the EPA stepped in to remove warning labels about glyphosate.32

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary,33,34,35 to date the EPA continues to insist that there is “No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”36 Governmental regulatory agencies do not appear willing to go against large manufacturers in order to protect the health of their citizens.

Instead, it's up to you to vote with your pocketbook and keep an eye on the products and services that you use. For example, one way to promote change in the cosmetic industry is to participate in tracking adverse events37 from any chemical or product you use.

Instead of buying the newest celebrity-endorsed personal care product or cosmetic, consider making your own bath and handwashing products without preservatives. Seek out safe products that are free of potentially dangerous chemicals by using the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Database.38

The easiest way to steer clear of glyphosate is to buy locally and organically grown food from a trusted source. For a list of ways to help reduce your exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, see “Why Your Hormones Have Been Hijacked.”



COVID-19 Vaccines Likened to ‘Software Updates’ for Your Body


I've discussed why COVID-19 vaccines are in fact gene therapies and not vaccines in several previous articles, including "COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines," "COVID-19 'Vaccines' Are Gene Therapy" and "How COVID-19 'Vaccines' May Destroy the Lives of Millions."

However, despite being a recognized form of gene therapy since its inception, vaccine makers are now frantically trying to deny that this mRNA technology is gene therapy. One reason for this, suggested by David Martin, Ph.D.,1 might be because as long as they're considered "vaccines," they will be shielded from liability.

Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. Another reason might be because they fear people won't line up for experimental gene therapy. It has a very different connotation in people's minds (as it should).

A third possibility is that they know full well that you cannot, ethically, mandate gene therapy in the way you can mandate vaccines. Mandatory public health measure directives are typically based on the idea that it's acceptable for some individuals to be harmed as long as the measure benefits the collective.

Well, the COVID-19 "vaccines" are only designed to lessen symptoms of COVID-19. They do not prevent infection or spread, and since the vaccinated individual is the only one receiving a potential benefit, "the greater good" argument falls apart.

Who knows, there may be other factors at play that we've not realized as of yet, but whatever the reason, they really do not want you to think of these injections as gene therapy. They want you to accept them as any other conventional vaccine.

mRNA-Based Medicines Designed to Not Irreversibly Alter DNA

Try as they might, though, they cannot get rid of mRNA's gene therapy label. For starters, Moderna describes its product as "gene therapy technology" in its SEC filings. On page 70, they also provide the following specifics:2

"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism."

In other words, it's a form of gene therapy, but one that doesn't enter and permanently alter your actual DNA. Instead, the mRNA stays in the cellular fluid where ribosomes read the code and create the protein per the mRNA's coding.

The difference between vaccine mRNA and your natural mRNA is that your natural mRNA resides in the nucleus of the cell where your cellular DNA resides — it can be likened to a reverse photocopy of your DNA — and exits the nucleus when a protein needs to be made.

This is in stark contrast to mRNA from vaccines, which is synthetic and enters the cell from the outside and is not designed to enter the nucleus. Additionally, your own mRNA is rapidly degraded by enzymes, but the one from the vaccine is protected in a liposome that will protect it from degradation and keep on producing spike proteins. How long? No one knows because it has never been tested.

Can Vaccine mRNA Reverse-Transcribe Into Genome?

However, some doctors still worry that mRNA injections might be able to reverse-transcribe into your genes and alter your DNA on a permanent basis. One is Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist, who shared his concerns on a December 2020 episode of The Shepard Ambellas Show.3,4

He claimed the mRNA of retroviruses (which are part of our genome) have been shown to have the ability to transcribe into your DNA, and if it can do that, vaccine mRNA might be able to do this as well. According to Urso, if this turns out to be correct, the result of mRNA vaccination might be lifelong COVID-19.

A new study by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA. This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. ~ Dr. Doug Corrigan

Another skeptic is Dr. Doug Corrigan, who in a March 16, 2021, blog reviewed the findings of recent research5,6 showing SARS-CoV-2 RNA can reverse-transcribe into the human genome:7

"In my previous blog, 'Will an RNA Vaccine Permanently Alter My DNA?'8 I laid out several molecular pathways that would potentially enable the RNA in an mRNA vaccine to be copied and permanently integrated into your DNA.

I was absolutely not surprised to find that the majority of people claimed that this prospect was impossible … After all, we've been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because 'RNA doesn't work that way.'

Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, 'RNA does work that way'… Specifically, a new study9,10 by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA.

This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome.

They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.

And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized …

To be fair, this study didn't show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps."

A January 2020 article,11 "Modified RNA Has a Direct Effect on DNA," also notes that "it has now been revealed that RNA has a direct effect on DNA stability," and this too may or may not play a role in mRNA therapy for COVID-19.

Vaccine Makers Fear Negative Perception of Gene Therapy

Getting back to Moderna's SEC filing, in it, they also admit that public perception of other types of gene therapy may negatively impact perception of mRNA medicines. The problem, they admit, is that irreversible gene therapies have side effects, and knowing this, people might shun mRNA medicines too. The SEC filing goes on to note:12

"Because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products."

Well, the pandemic allowed them to sneak mRNA gene therapy under the proverbial radar so that they don't have to conduct more stringent gene therapy safety testing. Instead, they were handed the global population for the largest testing imaginable, and all without liability when something goes wrong — provided it's viewed as a "vaccine," that is.

mRNA Therapies Classified as Gene Therapy in Europe and US

The SEC filing13 for BioNTech (BioNTech's mRNA technology is used in the Pfizer vaccine) is equally clear, stating on page 21: "Although we expect to submit BLAs for our mRNA-based product candidates in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products, other jurisdictions may consider our mRNA-based product candidates to be new drugs, not biologics or gene therapy medicinal products, and require different marketing applications."

So, in the U.S. and Europe, mRNA therapies, as a group, are classified as "gene therapy medicinal products." The crux here, again, appears to be the idea that mRNA therapy does not cause permanent DNA alterations. On page 35 of the BioNTech SEC filing, they further clarify the alleged difference between other, irreversible, gene therapies and mRNA gene therapy:

"There have been few approvals of gene therapy products in the United States and other jurisdictions, and there have been well-reported significant adverse events associated with their testing and use.

Gene therapy products have the effect of introducing new DNA and potentially irreversibly changing the DNA in a cell. In contrast, mRNA is highly unlikely to localize to the nucleus, integrate into cell DNA, or otherwise make any permanent changes to cell DNA.

Consequently, we expect that our product candidates will have a different potential side effect profile from gene therapies because they lack risks associated with altering cell DNA irreversibly."

Hacking the Software of Life

Company executives and scientists familiar with mRNA technology have, for years, been referring to this new technology as gene therapy. The video above features a TED Talk by Dr. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna, given in 2017, more than two full years before COVID-19.

In it, he points out that they were, at that time, already working on a variety of vaccines, including an mRNA vaccine for influenza and individualized cancer vaccines based on the genetic sequence of the patient's tumor, stressing that this vaccine would not act like any previous vaccine ever created.

"We've been living this phenomenal digital scientific revolution, and I'm here today to tell you that we are actually hacking the software of life, and that it's changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease," Zaks said.

"In every cell there's this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we're all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will actually do. So, we think of it as an operating system ...

So, if you could change that … if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer …

Imagine if instead of giving [the patient] the protein of a virus, we gave them the instructions on how to make the protein, how the body can make its own vaccine," he said.

How mRNA Vaccines Work

Zaks further differentiates conventional vaccines and mRNA vaccines by explaining that when using a conventional vaccine, you have viral protein floating around outside the cell, whereas the mRNA approach reprograms the cell to create that viral protein inside of itself.

"What's more alarming?" he asks. "A stranger prowling the neighborhood, or somebody who just broke into your ground floor and tripped the alarm? That's what happens with an mRNA vaccine. You've tripped the alarm wire and now the cell is dialing 911, it's calling the police — at the same time that it's making the protein, saying 'That's the bad guy.' That's how an mRNA vaccine works."

Zaks also refers to the company's mRNA shots as "information therapy," which is just another way of saying gene therapy because mRNA is a carrier of genetic code. (For clarification, code in your natural mRNA matches your DNA, whereas vaccine mRNA has no equivalence inside your genome since it's coming from the outside. Vaccine mRNA still carries "genetic code," though, just not anything found in your body before.) As explained on

"Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene. The mRNA is an RNA version of the gene that leaves the cell nucleus and moves to the cytoplasm where proteins are made.

During protein synthesis, an organelle called a ribosome moves along the mRNA, reads its base sequence, and uses the genetic code to translate each three-base triplet, or codon, into its corresponding amino acid.

mRNA, are one of the types of RNA that are found in the cell. This particular one, like most RNAs, are made in the nucleus and then exported to the cytoplasm where the translation machinery, the machinery that actually makes proteins, binds to these mRNA molecules and reads the code on the mRNA to make a specific protein.

So in general, one gene, the DNA for one gene, can be transcribed into an mRNA molecule that will end up making one specific protein."

mRNA Technology Ushers in Transhumanism

In true technocratic, transhumanist Fourth Industrial Revolution fashion, Zaks and other mRNA pushers view the body as your hardware, your genetic code as software and these mRNA injections as software updates. As noted by Patrick Wood in a recent Technocracy News article:15

"Pure and simple, this is unvarnished, raw transhumanism … Scientists think they can rewrite the genetic code [his words, not mine, for all you out there who still don't believe these mRNA vaccines change the genetic code just because some 'fact checker' says they don't], believing they can improve on a person's God-given genetic makeup is entering dangerous territory …

These scientists truly believe that the human body is nothing more than a machine that can be hacked into and reordered according to some programmer's instructions … Who's to say they won't correct one problem and create something far worse?"

What Is Transhumanism?

What exactly is transhumanism? Technocracy News describes16 it as "a twisted philosophy that believes in the use of high technology to transform humans into immortal beings … Furthermore, they seek to use genetic engineering to create a new master race of sorts, that will shed all of the 'unseemly' characteristics of humans." Britannica defines17 it as a:

"… social and philosophical movement devoted to promoting the research and development of robust human-enhancement technologies. Such technologies would augment or increase human sensory reception, emotive ability, or cognitive capacity as well as radically improve human health and extend human life spans.

Such modifications resulting from the addition of biological or physical technologies would be more or less permanent and integrated into the human body."

Great Reset Is a Transhumanist Agenda

Miklos Lukacs de Pereny, research professor of science and technology policy at the Peruvian University San Martin de Porres, has given presentations18 and interviews19 in which he warns that transhumanism is part and parcel of the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution agendas, which are being rolled out at a furious pace under the auspices of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported by Life Site News, November 10, 2020:20

"The COVID-19 pandemic was manufactured by the world's elites as part of a plan to globally advance 'transhumanism' — literally, the fusion of human beings with technology in an attempt to alter human nature itself and create a superhuman being and an 'earthly paradise,' according to a Peruvian academic and expert in technology.

This dystopian nightmare scenario is no longer the stuff of science fiction, but an integral part of the proposed post-pandemic 'Great Reset,' Dr. Miklos Lukacs de Pereny said at a recent summit on COVID-19.

Indeed, to the extent that implementing the transhumanist agenda is possible, it requires the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a global elite and the dependence of people on the state, said Lukacs.

That's precisely the aim of the Great Reset, promoted by German economist Klaus Schwab, CEO and founder of World Economic Forum, along with billionaire 'philanthropists' George Soros and Bill Gates and other owners, managers, and shareholders of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Finance who meet at the WEF retreats at Davos, Switzerland, contended Lukacs.

Transhumanists … seek to 'relativize the human being' and 'turn it into a putty that can be modified or molded to our taste and our desire and by rejecting those limits nature or God have placed on us' …

Indeed, WEF's Schwab has been promoting the Great Reset as a way to 'harness the Fourth Industrial Revolution' … which, he declared in January 2016, 'will affect the very essence of our human experience.' Schwab described the Fourth Industrial Revolution then as 'a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines among the physical, digital and biological spheres' …

Those technologies include genetic engineering such as CRISPR genetic editing, artificial intelligence (A.I.), robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, and quantum computing. 'The Fourth Industrial Revolution is nothing other than the implementation of transhumanism on a global level,' emphasized Lukacs."

mRNA Technology Is Still Gene Therapy

In "COVID-19 'Vaccines' Are Gene Therapy" (hyperlinked above), I provide even more background information showing that mRNA "vaccines" are in fact gene therapy, and how this technology has been viewed and presented as gene therapy in the past.

The fact is, everywhere you look, mRNA technology, mRNA therapy and mRNA medicines — anything mRNA — have been, for years, treated as a form of gene therapy. Take the 2015 paper21 "mRNA: Fulfilling the Promise of Gene Therapy" in the journal Molecular Therapy. In this paper, the authors point out that in vitro-transcribed mRNA has the potential to play a role in gene therapy previously only envisioned for DNA.

Back in 2009, the paper22 "Current Prospects for mRNA Gene Delivery" in the European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics noted that while "replication-deficient viruses have been used most successfully in the field of gene therapy … mRNA has … emerged as an attractive and promising alternative in the nonviral gene delivery field," and a 2019 paper23 in Frontiers in Oncology discussed the therapeutic prospects of "mRNA-based gene therapy for glioblastoma."

If they want to call it "temporary gene therapy," I'm OK with that — provided they can prove that it is in fact temporary, how long the effects last, and that vaccine mRNA cannot reverse-transcribe into the human genome like SARS-CoV-2 RNA apparently can.

But to deny that it's gene therapy altogether and insist that it's simply an updated form of vaccine technology is simply impossible, as it does not perform any of the functions of an actual vaccine (i.e., prevent infection and spread).

Do You Want to Update Your Software?

Now, if our genetic makeup is to be viewed as "the software of life," as Zaks puts it, then should we not have the sole authority to decide for ourselves whether we actually want a "software update," be it temporary or permanent?

"If we truly live in a free society, wouldn't it stand to reason that we would want to have an energetic debate over how to answer that question?" Wood asks.24

"Contrary to what some scientists believe, we are not machines. We are human beings with bodies, souls and free wills. Anyone who tries to mandate the acceptance of an experimental gene-altering treatment is going against the international Nuremberg Codes, which require informed consent of any experimental treatment."

What to Do if You've Had a Change of Heart

If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you'd use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of "Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce."

Last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children's Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:25

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the CHD website


How conspiracy theorizing may soon get you labelled a ‘Domestic Terrorist’

If you are starting to feel like forces controlling the governments of the west are out to get you, then it is likely that you are either a paranoid nut job, or a stubborn realist. Either way, it means that you have some major problems on your hands.


Covid Vaccine Nonsense

P Jerome The efforts to require every American to be injected with an experimental vaccine for Covid-19 are based on the false notion that vaccination will protect recipients from becoming infected with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, or protect them from passing along the infection to


Tuesday, March 30, 2021

The "Unvaccinated" Question

The "Unvaccinated" Question

Authored (somewhat satirically) by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

So, the New Normals are discussing the Unvaccinated Question. What is to be done with us? No, not those who haven’t been “vaccinated” yet. Us. The “Covidiots.” The “Covid deniers.” The “science deniers.” The “reality deniers.” Those who refuse to get “vaccinated,” ever.

There is no place for us in New Normal society. The New Normals know this and so do we. To them, we are a suspicious, alien tribe of people. We do not share their ideological beliefs. We do not perform their loyalty rituals, or we do so only grudgingly, because they force us to do so. We traffic in arcane “conspiracy theories,” like “pre-March-2020 science,” “natural herd immunity,” “population-adjusted death rates,” “Sweden,” “Florida,” and other heresies.

They do not trust us. We are strangers among them. They suspect we feel superior to them. They believe we are conspiring against them, that we want to deceive them, confuse them, cheat them, pervert their culture, abuse their children, contaminate their precious bodily fluids, and perpetrate God knows what other horrors.

So they are discussing the need to segregate us, how to segregate us, when to segregate us, in order to protect society from us. In their eyes, we are no more than criminals, or, worse, a plague, an infestation. In the words of someone (I can’t quite recall who), “getting rid of the Unvaccinated is not a question of ideology. It is a question of cleanliness,” or something like that. (I’ll have to hunt down and fact-check that quote. I might have taken it out of context.)

In IsraelEstoniaDenmarkGermanythe USA, and other New Normal countries, they have already begun the segregation process. In the UK, it’s just a matter of time. The WEF, WHO, EU, and other transnational entities are helping to streamline the new segregation system, which, according to the WEF, “will need to be harmonized by a normative body, such as the WHO, to ensure that is ethical.”

Here in Germany, the government is considering banning us from working outside our homesWe are already banned from flying on commercial airlines. (We can still use the trains, if we dress up like New Normals.) In the village of Potsdam, just down the road from Wannsee (which name you might recall from your 20th-Century history lessons), we are banned from entering shops and restaurants. (I’m not sure whether we can still use the sidewalks, or whether we have to walk in the gutters.) In Saxony, we are forbidden from attending schools. At the Berliner Ensemble (the theater founded by Bertolt Brecht and Helene Weigel, lifelong opponents of totalitarianism and fascism), we are banned from attending New Normal performances.

In the USA, we are being banned by universities. Our children are being banned from public schools. In New York, the new “Excelsior Pass” will allow New Normals to attend cultural and sports events (and patronize bars and restaurants, eventually) secure in the knowledge that the Unvaccinated have been prevented from entering or segregated in an “Unvaccinated Only” section. The pass system, designed by IBM, which, if history is any guide, is pretty good at designing such systems (OK, technically, it was Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft, IBM’s Nazi-Germany subsidiary), was launched this past weekend to considerable fanfare.

And this is only the very beginning.

Israel’s “Green Pass” is the model for the future, which makes sense, in a sick, fascistic kind of way. When you’re already an apartheid state, what’s a little more apartheid? Here’s a peek at what that looks like …

OK, I know what the New Normals are thinking. They’re thinking I’m “misleading” people again. That I’m exaggerating. That this isn’t really segregation, and certainly nothing like “medical apartheid.”

After all (as the New Normals will sternly remind me), no one is forcing us to get “vaccinated.” If we choose not to, or can’t for medical reasons, all we have to do is submit to a “test” — you know, the one where they ram that 9-inch swab up into your sinus cavities — within 24 hours before we want to go out to dinner, or attend the theater or a sports event, or visit a museum, or attend a university, or take our children to school or a playground, and our test results will serve as our “vaccine passports!” We just present them to the appropriate Covid Compliance Officer, and (assuming the results are negative, of course) we will be allowed to take part in New Normal society just as if we’d been “vaccinated.”

Either way, “vaccine” or “test,” the New Normal officials will be satisfied, because the tests and passes are really just stage props. The point is the display of mindless obedience. Even if you take the New Normals at their word, if you are under 65 and in relatively good health, getting “vaccinated” is more or less pointless, except as a public display of compliance and belief in the official Covid-19 narrative (the foundation stone of the New Normal ideology). Even the high priests of their “Science” confess that it doesn’t prevent you spreading the “plague.” And the PCR tests are virtually meaningless, as even the WHO finally admitted. (You can positive-PCR-test a pawpaw fruit … but you might want to be careful who you tell if you do that.)

In contrast to the “vaccine” and the “test” themselves, the forced choice between them is not at all meaningless. It is no accident that both alternatives involve the violation of our bodies, literally the penetration of our bodies. It doesn’t really matter what is in the “vaccines” or what “results” the “tests” produce. The ritual is a demonstration of power, the power of the New Normals (i.e., global capitalism’s new face) to control our bodies, to dominate them, to violate them, psychologically and physically.

Now, don’t get all excited, my “conspiracy theorist” friends. I haven’t gone full QAnon just yet. Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab are not sitting around together, sipping adrenochrome on George Soros’ yacht, dreaming up ways to rape people’s noses. This stuff is built into the structure of the system. It is a standard feature of totalitarian societies, cults, churches, self-help groups, and … well, human society, generally.

Being forced to repeat a physical action which only makes sense within a specific ideology reifies that ideology within us. There is nothing inherently diabolical about this. It is a basic socialization technology. It is how we socialize our children. It is why we conduct weddings, baptisms, and bar mitzvahs. It is how we turn young men and women into soldiers. It is how actors learn their blocking and their lines. It is why the Nazis held all those rallies. It is why our “democracies” hold elections. It is also basic ceremonial magic … but that’s a topic for a different column.

The issue, at the moment, is the Unvaccinated Question, and the public rituals that are being performed to make the New Normal ideology “reality,” and what to do about those of us who refuse to participate in those rituals, who refuse to forswear “old normal” reality and convert to New Normalism so that we can function in society without being segregated, criminalized, or “diagnosed” as “sociopathic” or otherwise psychiatrically disordered.

For us “conspiracy-theorizing reality deniers,” there is no getting around this dilemma. This isn’t Europe in the 1930s. There isn’t anywhere to emigrate to … OK, there is, temporarily, in some of the US states that have been staging rebellions, and other such “old normal” oases, but how long do you think that will last? They’re already rolling out the “mutant variants,” and God only knows what will happen when the long-term effects of the “vaccines” kick in.

No, for most of us denizens of the global capitalist empire, it looks like the New Normal is here to stay. So, unless we are prepared to become New Normals, we are going to have to stand and fight. It is going to get rather ugly, and personal, but there isn’t any way to avoid that. Given that many New Normals are our friends and colleagues, or even members of our families, it is tempting to believe that they will “come to their senses,” that “this is all just a hysterical overreaction,” and that “everything will go back to normal soon.”

This would be a monumental error on our parts … very possibly a fatal error.

Totalitarian movements, when they reach this stage, do not simply stop on their own. They continue to advance toward their full expressions, ultimately transforming entire societies into monstrous mirror-images of themselves, unless they are opposed by serious resistance. There is a window at the beginning when such resistance has a chance. That window is still open, but it is closing, fast. I can’t tell you how best to resist, but I can tell you it starts with seeing things clearly, and calling things, and people, exactly what they are.

Let’s not make the same mistake that other minorities have made throughout history when confronted with a new totalitarian ideology. See the New Normals for what they are, maybe not deep down in their hearts, but what they have collectively become a part of, because it is the movement that is in control now, not the rational individuals they used to be. Above all, recognize where this is headed, where totalitarian movements are always headed. (See. e.g., Milton Mayer’s They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45.)

No, the Unvaccinated are not the Jews and the New Normals are not flying big Swastika flags, but totalitarianism is totalitarianism, regardless of which Goebbelsian Big Lies, and ideology, and official enemies it is selling. The historical context and costumes change, but its ruthless trajectory remains the same.

Today, the New Normals are presenting us with a “choice,” (a) conform to their New Normal ideology or (b) social segregation. What do you imagine they have planned for us tomorrow?

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/30/2021 - 23:25


Deadly Blood Clots Caused by COVID-19 Vaccine

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.


How Bill Gates Premeditated COVID Vaccine Injury Censorship

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.


Monday, March 29, 2021

Miscarriages skyrocket 366% in six weeks due to Covid vaccines



This article first appeared on Natural News.

Official data released by the British government shows that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) injections are killing unborn babies at an astounding rate.

The latest Medicines and Healthcare produce Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Yellow Card Scheme report, dated Dec. 9, 2020, through March 7, 2021, reveals a whopping 366 percent increase in the rate of miscarriage thanks to Chinese virus jabs.

This is the seventh such report to be released by the MHRA and it clearly shows that Wuhan flu shots are extremely deadly, especially for pregnant women who, for whatever reason, decide to get jabbed.

It is important to note that there is no scientific data to suggest that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) injections are safe or effective for pregnant women, and yet doctors and health authorities are still administering the shots to expectant mothers, resulting in many of them losing their unborn children.

The British government already warned pregnant women that they might not want to take the jab due to “no or limited” data showing its safety or efficacy in pregnant women.

“Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed,” the government admitted, adding that Wuhan flu shots are “not recommended during pregnancy.” Even so, the injections are still being administered to pregnant women in the United Kingdom.

“For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination,” the government added, clearly deterring pregnant women against getting the injection.

“In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.”

To keep up with the latest news about injuries and deaths caused by Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) injections, be sure to check out

Chinese virus injections could taint breast milk, cause infertility

The U.K. government also warned women who have already given birth but are still breastfeeding to avoid the jab because it is currently unknown whether or not the experimental gene therapy chemicals are excreted into their milk.

“A risk to the newborns / infants cannot be excluded,” the warning states. “COVID-19 mRNA (messenger RNA) Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.”

Similarly, the government warned against women taking the jab if they hope to get pregnant any time soon. This is due to the fact that it is unknown whether Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) injections turn a person sterile.

Still, untold numbers of pregnant women in the U.K. chose to get injected anyway, and now they no longer have their babies. This amounts to genocide of the unborn.

“We are still unable to answer why these women were given one of the Covid vaccines against the government’s own advice,” reported the Daily Exposé, a British news outlet.

“But what is truly shocking is how much this number has increased in the six weeks that have unfolded since.”

A closer look at the data in the MHRA’s seventh report actually shows that there has been a 475 percent increase since Jan. 24 in the number of pregnant women who lost their babies after receiving the Chinese virus injection from Pfizer and BioNTech, which permanently alters human genes.

Since the same date, there has been a 150 percent increase in miscarriages due to pregnant women receiving AstraZeneca’s Wuhan flu shot, which is also linked to deadly blood clots.

As it turns out, the U.K. government later “updated” its recommendations for pregnant women to suggest that some of them may still want to get injected despite a total lack of associated science.

Pregnant women should only consider Chinese virus injections “when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and the foetus,” British authorities now claim, leaving it up to pregnant women who are not scientists or doctors to make this critical determination.

Sources for this article include:

The post Miscarriages skyrocket 366% in six weeks due to Covid vaccines appeared first on Intellihub.


'Highly Probable' Military Developed COVID, Leaked From Lab

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.


Sunday, March 28, 2021

Dartmouth-Brown Study Documents Media's Stoking "Vicious Circle Of Fear" On COVID

Dartmouth-Brown Study Documents Media's Stoking "Vicious Circle Of Fear" On COVID

Authored by Brian McGlinchey via Stark Realities,

If you’ve felt the media has heavily emphasized bad news throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, your judgment now has some scholarly corroboration. Dartmouth College and Brown University researchers have analyzed tens of thousands of Covid-19 articles and found major US media outlets have overwhelmingly pushed negative narratives about the virus.

"The most striking fact is that 87 percent of the U.S. stories are classified as negative, whereas 51 percent of the non-US stories are classified as negative," according to the study by Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth’s Ranjan Sehgal and Brown University’s Molly Cook.

Thwarting Public Clarity About Covid-19

Though the study doesn’t delve deep into the societal implications, there’s little doubt excessive media negativity has contributed to public misunderstanding of the nature of the disease and the actual risk it poses to various segments of society.

Consider one of study’s most glaring findings: Even when Covid-19 cases were falling nationally between April 24 and June 27, major media discussed rising caseloads 5.3 times as frequently as falling ones.

The impact was evident: A June CBS News poll found a record number of Americans felt the fight against coronavirus was going badly. Of course, news of the poll was itself another negative story, feeding a media-facilitated vicious circle of fear.

In July, a Franklin Templeton-Gallup poll found Americans had a poor understanding of the risk of Covid-19 death for different age cohorts:

  • Participants said people aged 55+ accounted for a little over half of the deaths, when the actual share was 92%.

  • Those under age 25 accounted for just 0.2% of deaths—participants overestimated the share by a factor of 50.

The results aren’t surprising, given the media’s compulsion to report rare occasions when teens and twentysomethings do fall victim to the virus.

In June, CNN served up a particularly flagrant example of Covid scaremongering: an article titled Healthy teenager who took precautions died suddenly of Covid-19.

The many who skimmed the headline received an anecdotal infusion of fearful misinformation. The minority who made it to the tenth paragraph would finally learn that doctors treating the purportedly "healthy" yet visibly obese teen found he had Type 1 diabetes with a blood sugar level 10 times the norm.

Two months earlier, the Centers for Disease Control announced that about 90% of those hospitalized with the virus had one or more underlying conditions. Among the most common were obesity (48%) and diabetes (28%). Rather than using this teen’s grim story to enlighten the public about who is at greatest risk, CNN aggressively pushed a perception that nobody is safe.

The media’s failure to foster understanding of Covid-19 also seems evident in the many people still seen today wearing masks while alone outdoorsAccording to Dr. Muge Cevik, an infectious diseases and virology scientist at the University of St Andrews, "outdoor risk is negligible unless it involves close interaction or you are in a crowded or semi-outdoor environment."

Perceptions of the Virus Influence Policy Opinions

Overly-negative Covid-19 reporting has implications well beyond individual feelings and practices: Those who’ve been led to an exaggerated perception of their personal risk are more prone to supporting strict government policies to counter the virus.

A Pew Research poll released earlier this month confirms that individuals’ perception of the pandemic heavily influences their opinions about various government interventions.

For example, Pew asked if limiting restaurants to carry-out service has been necessary to counter the virus. Among those who think Covid-19 represents a minor threat to the U.S. population, 21% agreed. Support soars to 66% among those who deem the virus a major threat.

Many are likely opining from a position of ignorance: How many know that a New York contact tracing study attributed less than 2% of Covid-19 case transmission to bars and restaurants? (Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any polls that test Americans’ understanding of the virus other than the earlier-referenced Franklin Templeton-Gallup poll.)

Negative About Positives

The Dartmouth and Brown researchers found "the negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive developments, including school re-openings and vaccine trials."

When schools reopen to in-person teaching—a move validated by the experience of European schools—U.S. media has been quick on the scene with a wet blanket: The study found 86% of US mainstream media articles about school reopenings are negative.

The easing of government restrictions reliably attracts negative media. Iowa governor Kim Reynolds’s lifting of the state’s mask mandate in early February sparked a wave of negative reporting and opinion pieces, and the Washington Post actually ran a piece titled "Welcome to Iowa: a state that doesn’t care if you live or die."

In September, similar derision was heaped on Florida governor Ron DeSantis when he lifted major statewide restrictions. However, when neither Florida nor Iowa experienced negative consequences, there was little media reporting of the good news that government restrictions and mandates may not be so necessary after all.

We see a similar pattern with the media’s never-ending cycle of warning that various holidays and special events will bring a surge in contagion. From Thanksgiving to Christmas to the Super Bowl and spring break, we’re constantly presented headlines stoking fears these occasions will cause major virus spikes.

When predicted surges don’t happen, the media gives little attention to the happy news that their alarms proved false. Instead, they’re apparently hard at work drafting warnings about whatever’s next on the calendar.

It’s as if mainstream journalists feel duty-bound to stoke Covid-19 fear, while paternalistically shielding us from welcome facts that could lead us to "let our guard down." In doing so, they negligently disregard the collateral harm they do to mental health and our quality of life.

Hope for Greater Media Balance?

The Dartmouth-Brown study on U.S. media negativity prompted The New York Times’ David Leonhardt to call for introspection: "If we’re constantly telling a negative story, we are not giving our audience the most accurate portrait of reality. We are shading it."

That’s a welcome acknowledgment: Until recently, Leonhardt’s own Times email newsletter has mirrored the negative slant found across U.S. media.

There are hints of a growing balance. For example, in recent weeks, major outlets have finally started acknowledging that Florida’s post-reopening experience conflicts with the media-reinforced notion that shutdowns are an essential counter-virus strategy.

Concluding his review of the study, Leonhardt expressed gratitude to researchers Sacerdote, Cook and Sehgal for "holding up a mirror to our work and giving us a chance to do better." Let’s hope his sentiment proves highly contagious.

Read more and subscribe at

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/28/2021 - 14:30