explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Bill Gates & The COVID Crazies

Professor PopulistMar 29, 2021, 5:24:52 PM

We are still in the midst of one of the greatest instances of collective delusion ever seen. We are held hostage by fear of an invisible and everpresent enemy who has been imbued with characteristics more at home in the realms of serial killers and supernatural monsters.

"One year ago, the entire non-thinking population of the planet—the people who walk through life without questioning much, viewing reality through a warped prism distorted by unimpressive cable news anchors of average intellect—banded together to do what they do best: take orders.

They’re called the Branch Covidians, and as with all other cultists, it doesn’t matter how many false prophecies are spewed by their leaders. In their own minds, they still manage to justify following the directions of the people in charge.


The Branch Covidian cult only differs from typical cults in one way: its leaders are remarkably uncharismatic. Unlike most cults, whose leaders have magnetic personalities, the Branch Covidians are led by losers who are too mundane and uninspiring to lead a knitting club. Perhaps that’s a fortunate silver lining. If Dr. StrangeFlu had the personality of, say, Bono, the Branch Covidians would be begging for even more ritual humiliation." [*]

Thank heavens that in our society the best do not generally rise to the top. With a more competent ruling elite we might be in even more trouble than we already are. Instead we get a more bumbling group of fools, who while certainly dangerous and capable of inflicting great harms, are still inept enough to be comically impotent at times. But the path the past 12 months have put us on is certainly no laughing matter.

"In this epidemic, the danger is not the coronavirus but the people who instrumentalise it and who are the real virus to fight.

The virus is completely innocent of what is happening (impoverishment, job losses, suicides, deaths, economic recession, unemployment, etc.) and the real culprits are those who have pushed the world to use these measures and the governments that continue to implement these measures despite alerts and warnings."[*]

Fear has been used as a tool of control by elites throughout history. Fear overpowers the logical mind. It makes people more malleable. A fearful people will accept & engage in behaviors an unafraid individual will not. Around the world, especially in the West, freedoms have been curtailed and authoritarian tendencies have been allowed to flourish.

"New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has urged obedient members of the public to call out violators of coronavirus rules, as it emerged people have been concealing Covid-19 contacts.

Speaking on Monday about recent Covid-19 cases that are linked to breaches of anti-coronavirus restrictions, Ardern aimed mighty jabs at rule breakers.

"Even with the full understanding of human fallibility, it is not appropriate, and it is not okay for members of a team of five million to let the rest of us down."

Ruling out punishments for the violators handed out directly by the government, and citing the separation of police and state, the PM urged the public to take the matter into their own hands and “call out” any rule-breakers they spot, family and friends included.

“If there is any question mark right now over there being consequences, you know, those individuals are facing the full judgment of the entire nation. There are consequences, undoubtedly,” Ardern stated."[*]

Even if these policies worked such rhetoric would be inexcuseable. Even if these polices worked they would be unacceptable infringements upon human rights. But they do not work, which makes their implementation all the more odious.

"The latest study to show the weakness of the pro-lockdown position appeared this month in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, authored by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, and John P.A. Ioannidis. Titled “Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19,” the authors compare “more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions” (mrNPI) and “less restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions" (lrNPI). More restrictive interventions include mandatory stay-at-home orders and forced business closures. Less restrictive measures include “social distancing guidelines, discouraging of international and domestic travel, and a ban on large gatherings.” The researchers compare outcomes at the subnational level in a number of countries, including England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. This is then compared against countries with less restrictive measures, primarily Sweden and South Korea, where stay-at-home orders and business closures were not widely implemented.

The conclusion:

We find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country….In none of the 8 countries and in none out of the 16 comparisons (against Sweden or South Korea) were the effects of mrNPIs significantly negative (beneficial). The point estimates were positive (point in the direction of mrNPIs resulting in increased daily growth in cases)."[*]

Lockdowns don't work. Nor do masks:

"The CDC has admitted face masks do little to prevent the spread of COVID-19 amid mounting pressure to lift mask mandates across the U.S. In a new study, the CDC found face masks had a negligible impact on coronavirus numbers that didn’t exceed statistical margins of error.


The CDC added it still recommends wearing face masks, although it admitted such mandates do not make any statistical difference. In the meantime, some states across the nation have slowly returned to normalcy by putting an end to mask mandates."[*]

The flaws & limitations of PCR testing are also ignored:

"An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control pandemic.


A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate. In short, media and public health officials have conflated “cases” — positive tests — with the actual illness.

Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA.

The research is unequivocal when it comes to who’s infectious and who’s not. You cannot infect another person unless you carry live virus, and you typically will not develop symptoms unless your viral load is high enough.

As it pertains to PCR testing, when excessively high CTs are used, even a minute viral load that is too low to cause symptoms can register as positive. And, since the test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead viral debris, you may not even be carrying live virus at all."[*]

A more technical analysis reveals even more flaws:

"Many errors are presented by the ICSLS. The concentration of primers used in the development of the PCR tests are “far too high” for “optimal specific amplifications of target genes.” The variations of primer pairs used in the CD paper mean, “The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related.” Thus, various laboratories could assume they have detected a positive COVID case, using a formula that does not actually detect COVID.

In order for a PCR test to be reliable, “amplification from 3 different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required.” Yet the ICSLS found in the CD paper that “in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.”

Continuing, the ICSLS notes that the proposed PCR test contains “severe design errors,” and since the test is unable to distinguish between “the whole virus and viral fragments” it “cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.” A positive test, as mentioned in the CD paper, cannot determine if one is infected with the virus, but “merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules.”


The proposed PCR tests also ignore the “essential scientific gold standard” which is to have a positive control and a negative control, by which to identify COVID-19 from other coronaviruses. Furthermore, the CD paper itself notes the gene used in the tests is not specific to COVID-19, and thus detects “a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.”"[*]

RT has even created a "Freedom Index":

"Our new Covid-19 Freedom Index will track the world’s leading economies, and major territories within them, to see if they are restricting their citizens, either by limiting basic rights, such as freedom of movement, essential functions, like the ability to go to school or operate a business, or freedom from technological surveillance."[*]

In times of crisis (or perceived crisis) there is often little time or inclination to develop truly new plans and solutions. Instead, what usually occurs is that the ideas that are already available, the ones already developed & fleshed out, these are the ideas which are offered up and adopted as "solutions." This is why so much time, effort, and money is spent to engage in games of fantasy, like Event 201.

"...a cabal of powerful individuals did indeed begin planning the mass eviction of vaccine skeptics from social media in October 2019, a week or two before COVID began circulating. That month, Microsoft founder Bill Gates organized an exercise of four “table-top” simulations of a worldwide coronavirus pandemic with other high-ranking “Deep State” panjandrums. The exercise was referred to as Event 201.

Gates’ co-conspirators included representatives from the World Bank, the World Economic Forum (Great Reset), Bloomberg/Johns Hopkins University Populations Center, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, various media powerhouses, the Chinese government, a former Central Intelligence Agency/National Security Agency director (there is no such thing as a former CIA officer), vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson, the finance and biosecurity industries and Edelman, the world’s leading corporate PR firm.

At Gates’ direction, these eminences role-played members of a Pandemic Control Council, wargaming government strategies for controlling the pandemic, the narrative and the population. Needless to say, there was little talk of building immune systems, off-the-shelf remedies or off-patent therapeutic drugs and vitamins, but lots of chatter about promoting uptake of new patentable antiviral drugs and vaccines.

But the participants primarily focused on planning industry-centric, fear-mongering, police-state strategies for managing an imaginary global coronavirus contagion culminating in mass censorship of social media."[*]

These simulations and conferences allow the elite to game out actions & responses, as well as network, to ensure the smoothest route to their goals. These goals are made easier to accomplish as the role of governments is increasingly outsourced, either officially or unofficially, to private organizations.

"The common thread seen in the United States is the delegation of state policy to prediction modeling forecasts from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), a Washington State-based institution that is wholly controlled and funded (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In March and early April, politicians were informed by the modeling “experts” at Gates-funded IHME that their hospitals were about to be completely overrun by coronavirus patients. Modelers from IHME claimed this massive surge would cause hospitals to run out of lifesaving equipment in a matter of days, not weeks or months. Time was of the essence, and now was the time for rapid decision making, the modelers claimed.


These models, and the policy decisions that were made by relying on them, set off a chain of events that led to indefinite lockdowns, complete business closures, statewide curfews, and most infamously, the nursing home death warrants.

States across the nation went to extremes, resorting to full bunker mode while waiting for bodies to start dropping in the streets, but the IHME modeling never panned out. Hospital capacity was never threatened. Most states that had created “surge capacity” pop-up health care centers never even used these facilities. IHME, for its part, regularly “adjusts” its models, and has never acknowledged their routine failures to forecast outcomes."[*]

Often these organizations have financial interests in the areas of policy which they advise:

"An increasingly clear feature of the covid-19 pandemic is that the public health response is being driven not only by governments and multilateral institutions, such as the World Health Organisation, but also by a welter of public-private partnerships involving drug companies and private foundations.


Revelations of the Wellcome Trust’s financial conflicts of interest follow news reports that another charity, the Gates Foundation, is also positioned to potentially benefit financially from its leading role in the pandemic response. An investigation by the Nation revealed that Gates had more than $250m (£179m; €206m) invested in companies working on covid-19 and cited civil society groups expressing alarm with the outsize influence the billionaire charity wields in the pandemic response, which they see as elevating the role of the drug industry.

Yet charities such as Gates and Wellcome—and even drug companies—have generally been praised in the news media during the pandemic for their efforts to solve the public health crisis, with relatively little attention paid to their financial interests and with few checks and balances put on their work."[*]

However, making money in such a direct fashion is not the only way the elite seek to profit from crises:

"Having squeezed every last drop of “value” from the earth, and with no more land to settle or markets to discover, capital’s approaching apotheosis finds it looking for a lifeline by creating a virtual copy of itself, where intellectual property supplants physical property and human biological and behavioral processes are recast as a grotesque form of human labor.

Efforts are now underway to “translate” the real world into a digital counterfeit that can provide financial markets with the figures and statistics it needs to execute the contracts of the incipient human capital markets – an insidious new form of capital assembled from our genetic code and other kinds of data that will form the basis of a financialized wonderland, enforced by blockchain technology and constantly monitored and updated through the burgeoning biosecurity state.

Led by the world’s most powerful hedge funds and transnational corporations, the so-called Great Reset amounts to little more than a campaign to turn humanity into datasets, which they can use to create more profits for themselves and their clients."[*]

Media manipulation & censorship is used heavily to advance elite goals. For example, how long was this storyline buried by the mainstream press before it finally became so big that even they could not contain it:

"According to the New York State Attorney General’s Office, the N.Y. State Department of Health’s published nursing home data “may have been undercounted by as much as 50 percent.”

The Associated Press reported last May that the Cuomo administration mandated that more than 4,300 recovering COVID patients be sent back into nursing homes, despite the likelihood that some of those patients were still contagious and could spread the virus throughout the facilities."[*]

The media also aids in acts of intimidation:

"So, within two weeks of The Guardian publishing a Gates-sponsored article calling for something to be done about President Magufuli, he has disappeared, allegedly due to Covid. Funny how that works out.

Even if Magufuli miraculously survives his bout of “suspected Covid19”, the writing is on the wall for his political career. The Council on Foreign Relations published this article just yesterday, which goes to great lengths arguing that the President has lost all authority, and concludes:

"a bold figure within the ruling party could capitalize on the current episode to begin to reverse course.”

It’s not hard to read the subtext there, if you can even call it “subtext” at all.


Last summer Pierre Nkurunziza, the President of Burundi, refused to play along with Covid and instructed the WHO delegation to leave his country…before dying suddenly of a “heart attack” or “suspected Covid19”. His successor immediately reversed every single one of his Covid policies, including inviting the WHO back to the country."[*]

Of course since the above was written we know that Magufuli did not survive his "heart problems".

Elite-friendly propaganda has gotten increasingly blatant:

"In the last few weeks the media has demonstrated one of the clearest, most concise displays of true-life doublethink I’ve ever seen. It truly is the perfect exemplar.

The dichotomy is in “covid deaths” vs “vaccine related injuries”.

As we all know by now, countries all around the world define “Covid deaths” as “people who die, of any cause, within 30 days of a positive test result” (the number of days changes by country, it’s usually between 28 and 60). This trend was started in Italy last spring, and spread all around the world.

Globally, with a few notable exceptions, a “covid death” is a death “from any cause” following a positive test.


What’s hilarious is those same journalists and “experts” preaching against “Covid denial”, are now literally employing our own arguments against us in the name of defending the vaccines.


You see, it’s important not take deaths out of context. After all, many of the people who die after being vaccinated are old and frail and already seriously ill. We need to be “careful about causation”, just because event B happened after event A, does not mean A caused B to happen.

In other words: There is a difference between with and from."[*]

Or consider 5 ways the media & "experts" attempt to trick you into getting the vaccine:

"1. Bribery


Important to remember: “Getting back to normal” is a lie. As much as people repeat the mantra in soundbites and social media posts, the “experts” are clearer – many have said we will NEVER be going back to normal, and others have said we need to maintain anti-Covid measures until at least 2022. The “vaccine” itself does not even claim to limit transmission, even those vaccinated are still being ordered to follow the restrictions.

2. Celebrity Endorsements


Important to remember: Celebrities – especially actors and TV personalities – are simply paid to repeat lines. Even if their intentions are correct, there’s no reason to assume any of them have any understanding of what they’re talking about. And none of these people has anything to lose should you or a loved one suffer any harm from taking an untested vaccine.

3. Forced “scarcity”


Important to remember: It’s all total nonsense. They are not in any danger of “running out” of vaccines. And even if they are, scarcity is a marketing ploy, not an argument.

4. Fake “popularity”


Important to remember: An opinion poll is no measure of reality, popularity is no measure of quality, and it is in the establishment’s interest to make all dissenters feel they are in a tiny minority.

5. “Resistance is useless”


Important to remember: vaccine passports will only ever become “inevitable” once the vast majority of people have had the vaccine. If enough people refuse to take part, the program will never work."[*]

Do not be mistaken, this is no ordinary vaccine, even though those too have potentially grave issues. Instead this is an entirely new technology.

"Studies of licensed vaccines have identified many problems with these secondary ingredients — adjuvants like aluminum, preservatives like thimerosal and stabilizers like gelatin — not to mention highlighting the presence in vaccines of residual DNA from cell lines used in the manufacturing process as well as disclosed and undisclosed contaminants.

With the advent of three experimental COVID injections approved for emergency use in the U.S., manufacturers have introduced new primary ingredients to the U.S. vaccine stage — messenger RNA (mRNA) in the Pfizer and Moderna injections and an adenovirus vector in the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) injection.

Not only that, but vaccine makers have bundled these new primary ingredients with  “inactive” excipients in unprecedented ways — polyethylene glycol (PEG) in the case of the mRNA vaccines and polysorbate 80 in the J&J shot."[*]

But don't just take my word for it, here's Tal Zaks:

"...Moderna’s “top scientist,” Dr. Tal Zaks, said the firm’s mRNA technology in use for covid mass-jabbing is “hacking the software of life.”

He revealed the above on a 2017 talk show, saying that for over the past 30 years:

“(W)e’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,” adding:

“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 do.”

“So we think about it as an operating system” — that irreversibly alters human DNA with unknown, potentially devastating consequences.

“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.”"[*]

Some argue that the new vaccines do not even meet the definition of "vaccine". Their arguments seem to rest on solid foundations (for now):

"...According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is:

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

Immunity, in turn, is defined as:

“Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

That’s the medical definition. The legal definition, in the few cases where it has been detailed, is equally unequivocal:

  • Iowa code2 — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.”
  • Washington state code — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” The statute also specifies that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”

These definitions, both medical and legal, present problems for mRNA “vaccines,” since:

  • mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
  • They do not inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine."[*]

With increasing frequency however, dictionaries have become Orwellian tools, redefining terms based on the fads of the day:

"...As of February 2019, Merriam-Webster defined “vaccine” as “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” By February 26, 2021, they had updated the definition of “vaccine” to:

“A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease:

a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated … pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)

b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”"[*]

As argued above, these "vaccines" do not meet the medical or legal definition of vaccines. Instead, it would be more accurate to describe them as a "gene therapy":

"...here’s how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gene therapy:

“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

  • Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
  • Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
  • Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease”"[*]

Not only are the "vaccines" likely a gene therapy, they are an experimental one at that. And, due to the extensive media & "expert" misinformation campaigns, it can be reasonably argued that the principle of informed consent is being violated.

"Covid mortality is a reflection of increased mortality with age, more so than influenza/pneumonia of previous years. The median age of Covid deaths (86) exceeds average life expectancy in Canada. Tragically, 70% of the deaths in the province of Ontario took place in care homes. The mortality rate from Covid in Canada under 59 years of age is 0.0017%.

According to the CDC, the survival from Covid (with inflated stats) is as follows: (under 20) 99.997%, (29-49) 99.98%, (50-69) 99.5% and (over 70), 94.6%.


To exercise informed consent, any recipient of this SGT must be made aware that they are now participating in a clinical trial. There is no claim about reduction of transmission. All risk-benefit analysis must be focused on the individual, as is treatment with a drug therapy.

Therefore, the potential trial recipient must understand IFR, the absolute risk reduction in symptoms, and potential side effects, including ADE as well as efficacious alternatives for treatment if the need arises.

If the potential trial subject is not relayed this information, or does not comprehend the information, it is a blatant violation of Nuremberg code.

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential…This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment."[*]

So, if you're trying to decide for yourself (or help someone else decide) whether to take the vaccine, these 5 questions may be useful:

  1. "Did you know that we have NEVER successfully vaccinated against ANY coronavirus?
  2. Did you know it usually takes 5-10 years to fully develop a vaccine?
  3. Did you know that the Covid “vaccine” is based on new technology, which has never been approved for use on humans before?
  4. Did you know that the pharmaceutical companies can’t be sued if the vaccine hurts or kills someone?
  5. Did you know 99.8% of people survive Covid19?"[*]

You will also want to consider reports of whistleblowers like this:

"James reports that in 2020 very few residents in the nursing home where he works got sick with COVID, and none of them died during the entire year of 2020.

However, shortly after administering the Pfizer experimental mRNA injections, 14 died within two weeks, and he reports that many others are near death."[*]

An analysis of the history of these pharmaceutical companies would be the bare minimum of due diligence on the mainstream media's part. Yet they fail to clear even this low bar as information like the excerpt below will not be found in their pages or on their programs:

"As one of the world’s leading medical device companies, J&J has had its share of recalls for faulty products including contact lenses and hip implants  In 2013, it paid nearly $2.5 billion to compensate 8,000 recipients for its flawed hip implants  Again in 2016, another $1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs injured from this device.

One particular dubious activity the company became involved with in 2008 was to launch a “phantom recall.”  When its Motrin IB caplets were discovered to not properly dissolve, it hired outside contractors to buy up store supplies in order to avoid making public declaration. No one would have known of this activity and it would have gotten past the eyes of FDA inspectors had the deception not been exposed during a Congressional investigation.


...we might ask why a 140 year old company, with no history whatsoever in vaccine development, has now become among the heroes in the immunological war against Covid-19?  J&J is not a household name in the vaccine industry. It is utterly absent, let alone ranks among the world’s 20 major vaccine makers. Among the 53 vaccines for other infections approved and licensed by the CDC, not one is manufactured by the nation’s leader in mouthwash and baby powder.  It is therefore no surprise that the company had to partner with Merck to manufacture its Covid vaccine to meet demand. It has no history or expertise in this medical field.


...How is it that a drug and household health product company, with no prior history in vaccine development, can develop and rush to market its first vaccine against a viral strain that was only identified 14 months ago?  Developing a vaccine requires many years and necessitates the establishment of an R&D infrastructure vastly different than conventional drug development.  The other major companies developing Covid-19 vaccines have been in the business for decades. But not J&J. There is something more to this story that demands investigation.  And if the company’s long rap sheet offers any warning, it is that we must be wary of any claims J&J publicly states about the efficacy and safety of its products.  Especially when the pandemic promise to increase the profits of numerous shareholders."[*]

Despite all these valid criticisms & concerns, it is full speed ahead with the vaccination campaign, which must not be stopped at any cost. Of course, the media is not alone in pushing their falsehoods. Individuals in positions of authority across industries and governments have gotten in on the action. For example, consider the case of Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg's speaking about COVID vaccine safety at a Texas Air Force base:

"But by far the most inexcusable part of Hogg’s presentation, which neither upholds the ethics of “Do No Harm” with pregnant women nor follows informed consent guidelines, is that a general officer is using her position with undue influence, patriotic coercion and emotional manipulation to persuade airmen that it is their duty to participate in a Phase 3 clinical trial of an experimental medical intervention:

“Those of us in uniforms have taken oath to protect the country against all enemies. But this virus isn’t just a threat to our country but to the world. It’s our duty to do everything possible to protect not just ourselves, but our fellow countrymen. I encourage you to make the best educated decision for yourself and for your family. A choice is yours if you choose to decline. But change your mind later, we’re standing by to vaccinate you when you are ready. Our goal is to simply give you the information to make an informed decision. This is our shot to save our loved ones, friends and family. The more people that get vaccinated, the safer we are. Choosing to vaccinate protects your community, your unit, your mission and, most importantly, your family. What choices will you make to help get back to normal?”"[*]

The US military can't yet force its members to take the vaccine. In the meantime expect them to continue their propaganda efforts to gain "voluntary" compliance. This despite surveys indicating a large percentage of indivuals do not wish to take the vaccine, like this one:

"A survey conducted in December 2020 by the Blue Star Families, a non-profit military advocacy organization, found that 53 percent of U.S. military families do not want to get the experimental COVID-19 vaccines being distributed under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Of the of 53 percent of military families who responded to the survey indicating that they would not get the vaccine, nearly three-quarters cited a distrust of the development process or timeline."[*]

Biden now plans to launch a campaign to reach vaccine-hesitant groups:

"Set to kick off in the coming weeks, the White House will spend money on television, radio and digital advertising across a multitude of platforms to combat any skepticism Americans may have about getting the shot. The ultimate goal of the campaign: get people vaccinated as quickly as possible. According to Stat News, Congress and the Biden administration have set aside over $1.5 billion to carry out their plan.

During a call with Newsmax, Biden aides said conservatives are one of the target groups. They said they have realized that the government isn’t always the best messenger. So, the Biden administration is using the campaign to turn factual information provided by government agencies — including Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other public health agencies — to other outlets and organizations that people may be more inclined to trust.


The Biden administration is looking to see trusted on-air talent talk about their vaccine experience, and even get one live on air. The administration is partnering with outlets to hold town-hall style events where viewers can ask experts questions and address any misinformation.

The Biden aides describe the planned approach as both a paid media outreach and grassroots effort. At the end of the day, they are hoping to create an opportunity for people to receive the information they need to make an educated decision about receiving a vaccine."[*]

The French have adopted a similar posture with their healthcare workers, perhaps with a bit more stick:

"The French government has said that the level of Covid-19 vaccine uptake among those working in healthcare settings "is not acceptable" and said it could make the jab compulsory if vaccination rates don't improve.

"For the last year our health workers have been heroic, but the vaccination rate among them today is not acceptable," Gabriel Attal, the government spokesman, told Le Parisien newspaper on Sunday.


Attal added that the government would continue to encourage those working in healthcare settings to come forward and get the jab but, if that didn't work, making it obligatory "remains a possibility.""[*]

Most governments, though thankfully not all, ignore the increasing number of reports of deadly side-effects:

"Denmark’s health authority has confirmed the country is extending the temporary suspension of the use of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine for three more weeks, as it can’t rule out a connection between the jab and blood clots.

Speaking at a press conference, the Danish Medicines Agency’s acting director of pharmacovigilance, Tanja Erichsen, said health officials were extending the prohibition on the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine over concerns about “presumed side effects”.


“It can’t be ruled out that there is a connection between the vaccine and the very rare blood clot cases,” Erichsen said, warning that these are not “ordinary blood clots”."[*]

The mainstream media elevates & amplifies experts which preach certainty, not caution. You won't find the following interview statements at an outlet like CNN or NYT:

"Today, we are nowhere near possessing knowledge that is beyond reasonable doubt concerning infectious viral diseases like COVID-19. Yet, as draconian public health mitigation measures are imposed on society with little proof of effectiveness, and much proof of collateral damage, there is little debate covered in the commercial media about public health issues. In my opinion, public health officials and politicians are under pressure to do something to protect the public, even if they have no idea what actually works. They see an open debate in the media as something that weakens their power and control.


People can’t depend solely on the “approved” experts to tell them if the evidence is sufficient or not. We have so-called public health experts already telling us that now and look at the results. Experts from all sides must be given a fair hearing to present their case to the public and defend their case against the cases presented by other experts. It may be that pieces of evidence must be synthesized together from many sources to arrive at the final truth. That is the method I use to conduct my research. I look for pieces of evidence from a variety of research literature to synthesize together into a logical explanation or evidence-based theory...If someone else presents additional evidence that refutes or proves my theory wrong, then everyone benefits and scientific knowledge advances.


The reduced risk of COVID-19 infection reported by the manufacturers is approximately 95%, which is an accurate relative risk reduction measure. However, missing from the vaccine reports are absolute risk reduction measures which are much more clinically relevant to the reduced risk of COVID-19 infection. The absolute risk reduction of the vaccines in the present critical appraisal is approximately 1%, indicating practically no clinical efficacy or usefulness of the vaccines to reduce COVID-19 infection.


Some people may point out that 1% of a million vaccinated people are still 10,000 prevented symptomatic infections. Fair enough; then report a 1% reduction and see how many people are still interested in getting the vaccine. Furthermore, there is no reliable evidence that even a reported 1% reduction is valid. For example, normal saline solutions used in the placebo groups are associated with fevers and other symptoms common to coronavirus infections. The credibility of the entire enterprise is compromised.


This type of outcome reporting bias violates the public’s legal and ethical right to informed consent about the true efficacy of the vaccines. Regardless if you are provax or antivax or are undecided, you have a right to all the facts to inform your personal opinion and choice. Bottomline: you have before you smoking-gun evidence of a huge public health scandal — if the word ever gets out! This problem has been ongoing for decades and really took off when the pharmaceutical companies were granted permission to advertise directly to consumers in the 1980s. Think of all the systematic reviews of clinical trials that could be compromised by this type of clinical trial outcome reporting bias."[*]

We do not know what the long term effects of these "vaccines" will be. Their clinical studies are not even due to be completed for years. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions, if not billions, will be injected with experimental cocktails. And Big Pharma is showing no signs of slowing down. Instead they see dollar signs:

"“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine,” Bourla [CEO, Pfizer] said. “It’s going to be the same with COVID. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for Covid to be protected,” Bourla told NBC News."[*]

I won't be taking this "vaccine" this year, next year, or any year after that. I recommend you don't either. Your life is too important to waste by being Big Pharma's guinea pig. But don't take my word for it: Do your own research. I don't think you'll like what you find.