Jump to content

Recommended Posts

in one of my health related newsletters was this information:

Dr. Francis Boyle,  who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act (BWATA) of 1989, has raised an important question – “Is the mRNA vaccine actually a bio-weapon?” (This requires some research by the reader to determine the answer to this question.) He points out that in the context that this is an untested vaccine, according to the traditional safety protocols for testing for vaccine use in humans. In this context, it specifically violates the Nuremberg Code on forced medical experimentation for which the Nazis were tried and found guilty. He points out that according to the Nuremberg Code, “following the orders of your superiors” if it is an action in violation of the Nuremberg Code, cannot be used as an excuse. This includes those who choose to follow FDA regulations even if regulations violate the Nuremberg Code. In other words, those who choose to follow FDA regulations in violation of the Nuremberg Code would be considered guilty of crimes against humanity. Many medical leaders and lawyers are also concerned about the dangers of this untested vaccine being rushed to market to supposedly “save” us. 
For example, Wolfgang Wodarg, chairman of the EU Health Commission and International Advisory Board, came out against the use of the Covid-19 vaccine because it creates infertility by creating antibodies to the placenta as well as for other potential dangers. Because of this, he is issuing a lawsuit against the release of the Covid-19 vaccines. Apparently, there is also a sterilant in the vaccine. It’s unclear what else is being put into the vaccines under the name of “adjuvants”, but from a medical perspective, the vaccine doesn’t seem very safe for humans. The FDA has actually compiled a list of serious side effects which include: 
  1. Death
  2. Transverse Myelitis - the attack of the nervous system and the brain and spinal nerves (I once completely healed a person who developed transverse myelitis and was paralyzed from the neck down for two years, before I saw him.)
  3. Arthritis
  4. Joint pain
  5. Variety of auto-immune diseases, including disseminated encephalomyelitis (a major inflammation of the brain and spinal cord)
  6. Sterility
  7. Negative pregnancy and birth outcomes (secondarily to our immune cells) after the Covid-19 injection attacking syncytin-1, which has been shown to lead to potential miscarriages, birth defects, and infertility.
  8. Guillain Barre Syndrome
  9. Damage to our peripheral nervous system leading to abnormalities in heart rate and blood pressure
  10. Thrombocytopenia (low platelets and thus easy bleeding)
  11. Increased tendency for venous thrombosis, which is the opposite of point #10.
  12. Acute myocardial infarction
  13. Stroke
  14. Seizures and convulsions
  15. Multi-stage inflammatory syndrome in children, including inflammation of heart, lung, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, and of the gastrointestinal tract. (As children are highly immune to Covid-19, the risk-benefit ratio does not justify children being vaccinated against Covid-19.
  16. Kawasaki’s disease, which is higher in children under five years old
  17. Bell’s Palsy
  18. UK government warns pregnant women not to take the vaccination and women not to try to become pregnant until two months after the vaccination.
One of Canada’s top pathologists and virologists and CEO of Western Medical Assessments (a biotech company that manufactures PCR tests), Dr. Roger Hodkinson asserts that the COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the public. One of Hodkinson’s points is that the PCR test can’t diagnose infection and that mass testing should cease immediately. A variety of studies have suggested that the PCR tests are presenting up to 96% false positives. Dr. Hodkinson also pointed out, as have I in previous newsletters, that the research shows that social distancing and universal mask-wearing are completely ineffective. For example, he further states the virus spreads as an aerosol up to 30 feet (not 6 feet). 
Another scientist raising red flags about the Covid-19 vaccine is Michael Yeadon, MD, former VP and scientific advisor for Pfizer and founder and CEO of biotech company Ziarco. He has pointed out how the false PCR test is being used to create the illusion of a pandemic that doesn’t exist, and others have pointed out that the 90-95% success rate claimed by vaccine companies can easily be created by manipulating the PCR test to give specific results. The PCR test creates an asymptomatic “case-demic”, which further perpetuates needless fear. “Rising cases”, which are up to 90% of false positives are being used to promote unnecessary lockdowns and mask mandates as well as fear and hysteria. The point here is to understand that “positive” tests have nothing to do with documenting an actual clinical Covid-19 infection. Citing “positive” test results is not an indication of Covid-19 infection and certainly unrelated to the rate of Covid-19 deaths, which are decreasing even though “rates of positive testing” are rising.
As I pointed out previously, recent research from John Hopkins shows that the death rates for different age groups have been unaffected by Covid-19. CDC statistics show that there has not been an increase in total deaths this year furthering the point that the Covid pandemic cannot be a pandemic because there’s been no change in the overall death count in the populations of all ages. 
Portuguese and German courts have now ruled that the PCR tests are inaccurate. A group of German lawyers, who founded the Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss (ACU), also known as the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee,” are preparing to launch mass class-action lawsuits regarding the vaccine and the state pandemic. They are currently preparing the biggest class-action lawsuit in history, in which they seek to prove that the inaccurate PCR tests are being used to create the appearance of a pandemic. These lawyers, besides challenging the validity of the PCR test, seriously raise the question of whether they are even connected to the SARS-COVID-2 infection. They challenge, as I have also pointed out, the misbelief that lockdowns, mask mandates, and quarantines are effective at all because there’s no difference in Covid 19 death statistics between regions that have lockdowns and those that don’t. It appears that Covid-19 has not created an excess mortality rate anywhere on earth. 
Why is this important?
When we use medical treatments, we have to ask, “What is the risk-to-benefit ratio?” The actual risk of COVID is low compared with the risks associated with the vaccine, which Bill Gates publicly stated may maim or kill up to 700,000 people worldwide. Even some of the manufacturers have stated that it neither prevents, stops the spread, nor treats Covid-19. The mRNA vaccine actually deprograms and changes the DNA of the individual receiving the vaccination, which may lead to untold complications and side effects over the longterm, and which also goes against God’s plan, and is a violation of our essential humanity. 
Subjecting the whole world to an untested unproven vaccine that doesn’t even prevent the transmission or infection of Covid-19 leads us to the potential of a major calamity with many deaths and many more being permanently injured, and having their DNA altered for life. It’s important to understand as different from a traditional vaccine side-effect, which may be reversed, altering of DNA by an mRNA vaccine is irreversible. Mandating and giving these untested vaccines is explicitly a violation of the Nuremberg Code and is a violation of our sovereign right to life and freedom of medical choice. This is particularly troublesome because there is no scientific evidence justifying such an extreme approach. 
I’m giving you this data so that you can make an informed choice of whether to be vaccinated or not. It’s interesting that over 93% of Americans don’t want to be vaccinated for Covid-19. This data may give you a hint as to some of the larger implications of a questionable rushing of an untested, potentially mandatory, potentially life-changing, life-harming, and even deadly vaccine to the public. I urge you to do in-depth research on the questions I’ve raised. 
This video from Doctors Around the World significantly supports my message in this newsletter. Please take the few minutes it takes to see it. Its main points made by doctors around the world are:
  • There is no real medical pandemic or medical emergency, and no accurate test to indicate the presence of covid-19 infection and therefore no need to risk your health and life by taking an experimental phase three untested vaccine.
  • The real pandemic is fear and hysteria.
  • The covid vaccines have not been proven safe or effective for short term and long term safety.
  • Approximately 18 to 20 years of covid vaccine research has not solved the long and short term side effects including female sterility, cancer, and a variety of auto-immune disorders,
  • The mRNA vaccines will Irreversibly alter and change our God-given genetic code.
  • Mandated vaccinations are a violation of body autonomy, freedom of medical choice, and prevention of information that prevents us from having enough scientific information to make an informed choice.
  • The use of nanobot and nano lipid technology in the Covid-19 can potentially “control” our consciousness and negatively transform us to lose our humanity.
  • The vaccine represents the penetration of the body, mind, and spirit by the State.
Health comes from connecting to our soul and what it means to be human plus enough vitamin D, zinc, and vitamin C in specific for Covid-19 protection plus basic good nutrition and health. 
Blessings to your health and spirit, 
Gabriel Cousens, MD
although I don't believe nanobots have been implimented this time as the site of the injections is not on forehead or back of hand they definately have put sterlizing agents in .
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hospital accused of faking Covid vaccine for TV after viewers spotted syringe plunger that didn’t move. 😂

LOL Couldn't they have used a fake needle thingy?

The world is being gripped by the coronavirus. Yet the media of the UK want to paint a picture of panic and mass hysteria. Ie they want to exaggerate to create fear in order to get people to wash hand

1 hour ago, Premi5 said:

Surprised he admitted that. Would the CEO have just had it done anyway

fear and hysteria probably suppress immune system so it would be no surprise of more people are getting infectious illness 

They're blue in the face from telling us that mankind is at the mercy of a ruthless and unforgiving virus; that nobody regardless of their station in life and background is safe, yet this incredibly well-connected and wealthy individual who has open access to a vaccine that, they say, will save lives, and let things return to normal hasn't taken it. His response? "Nah, you're alright, mate. YOU plebs first." They're having a laugh.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think not as many people are willing to have the vaccine as ‘they’ want. Joe Biden and Mike Pence have been having the vaccine on live TV.


Millions more could get Covid vaccine if first doses were ‘aggressively’ rolled out, says Professor David Salisbury

Tony Blair has also called for a ‘radical acceleration’ of mass vaccinations


Millions more people could get the Pfizer jab more quickly if the vaccination programme was dramatically speeded up by giving just one dose in a first wave, an immunisation expert has said.

Professor David Salisbury, in charge of immunisation programmes at the Department of Health until 2013, said on Wednesday by just using one dose the vaccine could be administered much more “aggressively” to combat coronavirus.

He insisted it would only reduce protection from 95 per cent of people to 91 per cent.


His comments were echoed by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who set out a series of suggestions to prevent the “colossal damage” that would be caused by delayed mass vaccination.

<p>Tony Blair has also called for the rapid rollout of first doses of the jab</p>
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

This Scottish doctor is sceptical about the effects of COVID


How deadly is COVID19?

17th February 2021

I have spent large chunks of my life trying to untangle medial data and research. COVID19 has long since defeated me. I have been unable to make any sense of the information we are bombarded with daily. So, I decided to go back to basics.

At the start of the COVID19 saga, I was interested to know what the infection fatality rate (IFR) was likely to be. I felt I could then have a go at comparing it to other diseases, primarily influenza.

The infection fatality is the number of people infected with the virus who then die. This is very different to the case fatality rate (CFR), which is the number of people infected with the disease who become unwell enough (sometimes, but not always) to be admitted to hospital – the ‘cases’. Who then die.

Before COVID19 appeared, there used to be a reasonably clear distinction between the infection fatality rate (IFR), and the case fatality fate (CFR) and it is important that they should not get mixed up. Because the case fatality rate is almost always far higher than the infection fatality rate – as you would expect. People who are ill enough to go into hospital are far more likely to die than people who do not suffer any symptoms. Bear this in mind.

Another thing to bear in mind is that, at the start of any epidemic it is simpler to establish the case fatality rate, because most people who are seriously ill end up in hospital and/or will have tests to see if they have the disease in question. Those with no symptoms may never cross the path of a medical professional and are very unlikely to be tested.

What is the ratio between the two? It depends on the virus. With Ebola the infection fatality rate and case fatality rate are closely matched – more than fifty per cent of people who are infected, die. With the common ‘coronavirus’ cold, the spread is far wider, maybe a hundred to one, or a thousand to one – perhaps more.

The fact that most infections are never noted, is one of the reasons why the infection fatality rate for previous flu epidemics can vary so wildly from paper to paper. However, with influenza the CFR/IFR ratio has generally been estimated to be about ten to one. By which I mean that, for each ten infections, one will be severe, and it is amongst the severe infections that you get the deaths.

Armed with such knowledge, and assuming COVID19 had a similar case: infection ratio to influenza you could have a go at working out the infection fatality rate. Always bearing in mind that people with no symptoms, who are not tested, are very unlikely to appear in any figures.

You are always guessing – to some degree or another.  

However, you always know three things:

1: The infection fatality rate must always be lower than the case fatality rate.

2: The case fatality rate will appear to fall as less severely infected people are tested.

3: The infection fatality rate will also appear to fall as more people with no symptoms are found to have had the infection.

For example, in China, at the start of the COVID19 pandemic, the infection fatality rate was reported to be three to four per-cent. This rapidly fell. Then it went up a bit, then it fell, then it went up. Then, everyone started giving different figures. The highly influential Imperial College group, led by Professor Neil Ferguson, decided to use an infection fatality rate of 0.9% for their modelling.

Somewhat later on, John Ioannidis, an influential figure in the world of medical research, estimated the infection fatality rate to be 0.27%. This was a couple of months after the Imperial College figure was published 1.

Peter Gotzsche, who established the highly regarded Nordic Cochrane collaboration, put the figure even lower than this. He looked at a study in Denmark, where blood donors were tested for antibodies. Using these data, the researchers established an infection fatality rate of 0.16% 2. Other figures came in higher, some lower.

The most tested population in the World – per head of population – is Iceland. Last time I looked, Iceland had 6,033 ‘cases,’ and twenty-nine deaths. This represents a case fatality rate of 0.5%, which suggests an infection fatality rate of 0.05% 3.

However, these figures I am quoting from Iceland come from a time after everything changed. At some point, difficult to put an exact date on this, it was decreed that if you had a positive PCR COVID19 test, with or without symptoms, you were to be defined as a case. No matter if you had symptoms, or not. This had the result of making the infection fatality rate, and case fatality rate, the same thing. Suddenly, all cases are infections, and all infections are cases.

Which means that any comparisons of the infection fatality rate with COVID19, and other diseases became virtually meaningless. The infection fatality rate suddenly shot up to match the case fatality rate, which point I gave up trying to work out the infection fatality rate. I doubly gave up when I tried to find out the accuracy of the PCR tests. Were these tests over-diagnosing, or under-diagnosing?

So, I thought I would turn my attention to the population fatality rate instead. That is, how many people has COVID19 killed in a population, or country. This figure is the bald, unvarnished, death rate. It does not, necessarily, tell you how many people have been infected. It does not tell you the percentage of cases, that die. It simply tells you how many people have died… with COVID19 written somewhere on their death certificate. [Or even not written on their death certificate]

At present, in the UK, the total number who have died is one hundred and seventeen thousand. This represents a population death rate of 0.17%. if you knew how many people had been infected, in total, you could work out the infection fatality rate from this. But we don’t know how many people were infected, and now we never will. Because so many people are now being vaccinated. They will show antibodies, and it will not be known if that is because of an infection, or due to vaccination.

So, where to turn to next. If you look at the entire world, the current figure of COVID19 deaths, on the fourteenth of February, stood at 2,406,689 3. Which is a little over one in three thousand, or 0.033%. How many people in the world have been infected? Nobody knows that answer to this question. There are some countries that have done very little testing, others far more.

On the basis that there are so many questions, with very few clear-cut answers, I thought I would try to compare the two point four million figure with previous influenza epidemics.

A study was done in 2016, looking at the influenza epidemic of 1957 – one of the worst in recent history. They extrapolated the mortality figures from 1957 to 2005, because the World’s population doubled during that time period (I am not entirely sure why they chose 2005). Their conclusion was that a flu epidemic of similar magnitude to that of 1957 could kill two point seven million people.

‘In conclusion, our study fills a gap in the availability of global mortality estimates for historical influenza pandemics, which can help guide pandemic planning. Our model extrapolates 2.7 million influenza-related deaths (95% CI, 1.6 million–3.4 million deaths) should a virus of similar severity to the 1957 pandemic influenza A(H2N2) virus return in the 2005 population, which is intermediate between global estimates for the 2009 pandemic (0.3 million–0.4 million deaths and a devastating 1918-like pandemic (62 million deaths; range, 51 million–81 million deaths)’ 4.

Extrapolating onwards to 2020, where the population is significantly greater than in 2005, then the figure from the 1957 epidemic would now be just over three million deaths. Which means that, up to this point COVID19 has been thirty per-cent less deadly than the influenza epidemic of 1957 – per head of population.

If the Imperial College infection fatality rate of 0.9% is accurate, once around eighty per cent of the world’s population has been infected [at which point population wide immunity would be reached] we should see fifty-four million deaths. We are currently nowhere near that figure, and at the current rate of deaths, per year, it will take twenty-two and a half years to reach the fifty-four million figure.

Of course, people will argue that this outbreak is far from over, and millions more will certainly die. Yes, more people will die, but the current number of new cases and deaths is falling pretty rapidly worldwide, rather than rising. We may reach three million, we may not. It is exceedingly hard to believe we would ever have reached fifty-four million even without any vaccines.

So, how deadly is COVID19? It seems, so far, to be equivalent to a bad flu pandemic. Worse than most in recent times. However, it seems to have had an extremely variable impact.

In Singapore, there have been nearly sixty thousand ‘cases’ and twenty-nine deaths. A case fatality rate of around one in two thousand, or 0.02%. The UK has had four million cases and one hundred and seven thousand deaths. A case fatality rate of 3%. Therefore, if you get COVID19 you are one hundred and fifty times more likely to die of it in the UK, than in Singapore 3.

Yes, I went back to basics and the figures still didn’t make any sense.


  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Premi5 said:

Not a single case of influenza has been detected by public health officials in England for the past seven weeks, with infection rates at historic lows amid the ongoing Covid-19 restrictions.

probaly the same for deaths from pneumonia too ...people are hospitalised with flu/pneumonia but they breathe in viral particulates and the PCR test are cycled highand therefore falsely attributed deaths to Covid 19. Monkeying around with numbers to scare the oppressed masses

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


Dr Lucy Owen testing coronavirus on fabricsIMAGE COPYRIGHTDE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
image captionDroplets of the virus were tested on fabrics commonly worn by health workers

Scientists have found viruses similar to the strain that causes Covid-19 can survive on commonly-worn fabrics for up to three days.

The study by De Montfort University in Leicester tested a model coronavirus on polyester, polycotton and 100% cotton.

The results suggested polyester posed the highest risk.

Microbiologist Dr Katie Laird, who led the study, said the materials, commonly used in healthcare uniforms, posed a transmission risk.

The study saw droplets of the virus added to the fabrics.

The scientists then monitored the stability of the virus on each material for 72 hours.

The results showed polyester posed the highest transmission risk, with the virus still present after three days and with the ability to transfer to other surfaces.

On 100% cotton, the virus lasted for 24 hours, while on polycotton, the virus only survived for six hours.

"When the pandemic first started, there was very little understanding of how long coronavirus could survive on textiles," said Dr Laird, who is head of the university's infectious disease research group at DMU. 

"Our findings show three of the most commonly-used textiles in healthcare pose a risk for transmission of the virus.

"If nurses and healthcare workers take their uniforms home, they could be leaving traces of the virus on other surfaces." 

image captionThe virus was completely eliminated on cotton fabric when washed with detergent at a high temperature

The study also looked at the most reliable wash method for removing the virus from 100% cotton fabric.

Water was enough to remove the virus in all of the washing machines tested when it was added in droplets but not when scientists soiled the fabric with an artificial saliva containing the virus.

In these cases, only when detergent was used and a temperature of 40°C or above was the virus completely eliminated.

Using temperature alone, 67°C was required to eliminate the virus.

The study found there was no risk of cross-contamination when clean items were washed with those that had traces of the virus on.

However, Dr Laird said guidance published at the start of the pandemic by Public Health England (PHE) and the NHS regarding uniform washing was based on "outdated literature".

PHE's guidance said where it was not possible for uniforms to be industrially laundered, staff should wash them at home, but Dr Laird advised against this.

She said: "This research has reinforced my recommendation that all healthcare uniforms should be washed on site at hospitals or at an industrial laundry.

"These wash methods are regulated and nurses and healthcare workers do not have to worry about potentially taking the virus home."

PHE said the guidance is from UK Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) and was developed with the NHS.

NHS England has been contacted for a comment.

Dr Laird said textile and laundry associations around the world were using the study results in their guidance for healthcare laundering.

The full project and methodology has been submitted to a journal and is currently under peer review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use