Au cours de la conférence de presse d’Emmanuel Macron en amont des sommets du G7 et de l’OTAN, le président français a fait une suggestion étonnante sur la manière de financer le plan de sauvetage économique de l’Afrique.
M. Macron s’est dit prêt à vendre des réserves d’or pour financer le sauvetage des économies africaines.
« Le rendez-vous du G7 doit permettre d’obtenir cet accord historique avec comme objectif d’avoir au moins 100 milliards de droits de tirage spéciaux qui vont vers l’Afrique. C’est un début essentiel. Ce mécanisme devrait être complété par un accord pour vendre aussi une partie de nos réserves d’or et financer ses investissements. Pourquoi ? Parce que les réserves d’or du FMI ont augmenté en valeur au bénéfice de la crise. Parce que l’or a été une valeur refuge. Utilisons ce surprofit pour justement le donner aux pays les plus pauvres, en particulier africains, qui en ont aujourd’hui besoin. Pas dans 20 ou 30 ans, aujourd’hui », a déclaré le président Macron.
Nul doute que beaucoup de Français durement affectés économiquement par les mesures Covid apprécieront modérément ces largesses du Président de la république.
Notons qu’à l’inverse, la Russie et la Chine choisissent d’augmenter leurs réserves d’or
Depuis que la population réalise peu à peu que l’épidémie a quitté la France, la demande vaccinale stagne, inquiétant les marchands de vaccins. Leurs représentants prétendent maintenant qu’il faudrait vacciner les enfants et atteindre un taux de couverture vaccinale de 70 % pour créer une immunité de groupe susceptible de protéger les aînés.
.
La vaccination anticovid des enfants ne peut leur apporter aucun bénéfice
Nous avons largement rappelé que les enfants ne risquent rien du covid et qu’ils ne transmettent pas cette maladie, ni aux autres enfants ni aux adultes.[1][2]
Une vaccination expérimentale[3] « pour protéger les autres » est contraire aux règles éthiques de l’Association Médicale Mondiale[4] et au serment d’Hippocrate.
Le comité national d’éthique a critiqué la décision « précipitée » du gouvernement d’élargir la vaccination aux enfants et adolescents alors que l’épidémie est en décrue et s’interroge : « est-il éthique de faire porter aux mineurs la responsabilité, en termes de bénéfice collectif, du refus de la vaccination d’une partie de la population adulte ? »
« un consentement libre et éclairé est nécessaire pour vacciner, a rappelé le Comité consultatif national d’éthique dans un avis paru une semaine après l’annonce par Emmanuel Macron de démarrer la vaccination des plus jeunes.
L’immunité de groupe post vaccinale ne paraît pas exister avec les vaccins covid actuels
Les résultats actuels des pays qui ont atteint une couverture vaccinale de plus de 70 % montrent que l’immunité de groupe créée par les pseudos vaccins actuels n’est pas capable d’empêcher la transmission du covid19.
Quelques exemples de pays qui ont atteint des couvertures vaccinales proches ou supérieures à 70 %
Les Seychelles sont un petit pays d’environ 100 000 habitants dont la ressource principale est le tourisme. Ils avaient été relativement épargnés par l’épidémie et ne comptaient, après 9 mois d’épidémie, que 502 cas confirmés et un décès. La vaccination a commencé début janvier 2021 et après l’injection de près de 140 millions de doses le taux de couverture vaccinal global dépasse les 70 % et atteint 90 % chez les adultes.
Ainsi 6 mois après le début de la vaccination, le bilan est passé à 12 466 cas confirmés (+2500 %) et 42 morts, et le nombre de nouvelles contaminations hebdomadaires reste deux fois plus élevé qu’avant vaccination.
Gibraltar (34 000 habitants) a commencé la vaccination en décembre 2020, alors que l’agence sanitaire locale recensait seulement 1040 cas confirmés et 5 morts. Après une campagne de vaccination éclair et très complète, obtenant une couverture vaccinale de 115 % (la vaccination a été étendue à de nombreux visiteurs espagnols) le nombre de nouvelles contaminations a été multiplié par 4 (passant à 4302) et celui des morts par 19 (atteignant 95), mais les responsables de la vaccination nient tout lien causal.
Une évolution post vaccinale comparable a été observée sur l’Île de Man
Les Émirats Arabes Unis sont les champions arabes de la vaccination anticovid qui a été généreuse et autoritaire. Ce pays de 10,5 millions d’habitants accueille neuf millions d’étrangers, dont une majorité de petits employés et de cols bleus, des Philippines ou du sous-continent indien. Officiellement la vaccination n’est pas obligatoire. Mais en réalité, cette population précaire n’est pas en position de refuser un vaccin proposé par l’employeur.
Entre début janvier et le 6 juin les 13 315 751 de doses injectées assurent une couverture vaccinale globale de 80 % chez les adultes.
Mais depuis la vaccination, le nombre total de cas confirmés a triplé, le nombre de morts attribuées au covid a augmenté de 180 % et le nombre de nouvelles contaminations quotidiennes reste nettement plus élevé qu’avant la vaccination.
Le Bahreïn est un émirat d’à peu près 1 million d’habitants. La campagne de vaccination a commencé le 7 décembre 2020 alors que le pays comptait 87 929 cas confirmés et 341 morts. Au 8 juin 2021, un total de 1 838 561 doses vaccinales a été injecté assurant une couverture vaccinale globale de près de 60 % et dépassant les 80 % chez les adultes.
Ainsi, depuis la vaccination les nombres de nouveaux cas et de décès ont considérablement augmenté avec un total de 253 819 cas et 1161 décès recensés au 10/6/2021 (le triple d’avant vaccination). 6 mois après le début de la vaccination, le nombre de contaminations quotidiennes reste beaucoup plus élevé qu’avant la vaccination.
Dans tous ces pays, une couverture vaccinale élevée se révèle donc incapable de prévenir l’extension de la maladie
Les « victoires » à la Pyrrhus d’Israël et de la Grande-Bretagne
Ces deux pays sont partout cités comme exemples de l’efficacité de la vaccination par les médias et leurs gouvernements qui ne parlent jamais des hécatombes post vaccinales précoces qui ont suivi les vaccinations ni des résultats globaux attestés par l’OMS.
Examinons les faits, les chiffres officiels de l’OMS.
Israël
En termes de personnes vaccinées, le succès de la campagne israélienne de vaccination est indéniable avec 63 % de la population israélienne qui auraient reçu au moins une dose de vaccin.
La vaccination commencée le 19 décembre 2020 a été suivie d’une augmentation considérable des contaminations journalières, dépassant les pics de la vague précédente malgré un confinement strict. Durant le mois de novembre 2020, 18 000 nouveaux cas confirmés avaient été enregistrés. Les mois de janvier (218 000 cas, soit onze fois plus) et février (134 000 cas, soit 7 fois plus) ont établi les records mensuels de contaminations depuis le début de l’épidémie.
La vaccination a aussi été suivie par une forte augmentation de la mortalité attribuée au Covid. En décembre 2020, le pays avait recensé 453 morts attribuées au Covid, mais en janvier ce chiffre mensuel a bondi à 1359 et en février à 965, établissant ainsi les records mensuels de mortalité covid depuis le début de l’épidémie.
Cet accroissement de la mortalité attribuée au Covid se traduit par une augmentation de la mortalité globale.
Les mois de janvier et février 2021 ont été ceux avec les taux de mortalité globale, toutes causes confondues, les plus élevés par rapport aux mois correspondants des dix dernières années.[5] Le Comité populaire israélien constate que
« dans le groupe d’âge des 20-29 ans, l’augmentation de la mortalité globale a été la plus spectaculaire. Dans ce groupe d’âge, on constate une augmentation de 32 % de la mortalité globale par rapport à l’année précédente ».
Le 18 décembre 2020 (veille du début de la vaccination) après dix mois d’épidémie, Israël comptait 366 000 cas confirmés et 3053 morts attribuées au covid. Les six mois suivant la vaccination ont vu ces chiffres plus que doubler avec 473 000 cas et 3373 morts de plus. La victoire proclamée par les responsables de la vaccination et les médias ressemble donc pour l’instant à une victoire à la Pyrrhus.[6]
La Grande-Bretagne est le champion européen de la vaccination.
La campagne de vaccination a commencé le 8 décembre 2020 et a touché plus de 62 % de la population. Mais, après la vaccination, les mois de janvier et février 2021 ont eux aussi établi les records de mortalité mensuelle totalisant près du quart de la mortalité britannique attribuée au Covid depuis le début de l’épidémie.
Le faible taux de contamination actuel dont se flattent les responsables de la vaccination et le gouvernement anglais ne signifie pas que la vaccination a été efficace, car l’épidémie a également très fortement reculé dans toute l’Europe (- 85 % depuis avril 2021) dans les pays vaccinés, comme dans les pays très peu vaccinés. De plus, malgré son taux record de vaccinés une nouvelle augmentation des contaminations journalières est observée en Grande-Bretagne depuis trois semaines.
Les avocats de la vaccination prétendent que ces augmentations post vaccinales ne seraient pas dues à la vaccination, mais seulement à des coïncidences malencontreuses de flambée épidémique. Mais comment des poussées épidémiques dues au hasard surviendraient juste après la vaccination dans tous les pays qui vaccinent beaucoup ?
Le faible taux de mortalité actuel semble lié à la fin spontanée de la vague épidémique en Europe, mais aussi à la disparition prématurée (post vaccinale) d’une grande partie des patients les plus à risque. Les personnes fragiles dont la fin a été hâtée par le vaccin en janvier et février n’étaient plus à risque en mars, avril et mai. On ne peut pas mourir deux fois !
Un autre argument des pro vaccins est que la vaccination n’a pas eu le temps d’agir, mais les exemples des Émirats Arabes Unis, des Seychelles et du Bahreïn montrent que même cinq mois après le début de la vaccination, le nombre de contaminations hebdomadaires reste plus élevé qu’avant vaccination.
L’analyse des faits avérés publiés par l’OMS montre qu’une couverture vaccinale élevée ne protège pas la population de l’épidémie.
Cette incapacité des pseudo vaccins actuels à prévenir les transmissions virales a d’ailleurs été reconnue récemment par O. Véran devant le Conseil d’État
Proposer la vaccination des enfants pour protéger les adultes est donc totalement illogique. Rappelons son caractère non éthique et dangereux en plus d’être inutile.[7]
Inutile et à risques pour les enfants, elle ne protégerait pas les adultes, car l’immunité de groupe ne paraît pas pouvoir être atteinte avec les vaccins covid actuels, même avec des taux de couverture vaccinale dépassant les 70 %
On ne peut qu’exhorter nos dirigeants à suivre les conseils de Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus directeur général de l’OMS[8]:
« renoncez à vacciner les enfants et les adolescents contre le Covid-19 et donnez les doses ainsi libérées au système Covax »
[6] Pyrrhus, roi d’Épire combattait les Romains avec une armée plus nombreuse et des éléphants. Il accumula les victoires à Héraclée puis à Ausculum, mais en perdant à chaque fois plus de soldats que les Romains. Et à la fin, ses troupes épuisées furent vaincues.[]
Well, here we go. This entire “woke” movement is made up of a bunch of hypocrites. They are demanding that Columbus statutes and Columbus Day be changed to Indigenous People Day. This has all come to a head in New Jersey where the school board of Randolph Township in Morris County removed ALL holiday names from their academic calendar. Some students protested Columbus Day and demanded it is renamed Indigenous People’s Day on their school calendar. Quite frankly, they are not indigenous and I would say you are expelled from school and you should return to the country of your origin. If you want to protest a day’s name while enjoying the space that was once indigenous before Columbus, you are an absolute hypocrite.
One board member responded: “If we don’t have anything on the calendar, we don’t have to have anyone [with] hurt feelings or anything like that.” Everything seems to offend someone. I would pass a law saying anyone who protests “Columbus Day” should forfeit their citizenship and be transported back to the country of their origin.
An estimated 1.9 million people in the USA are members of one of over 500 federally recognized Indian tribes. However, taxpayers and tax professionals are often confused about taxes on tribal benefits – and whether they’re taxed at all. The Supreme Court settled this dispute in 1956 when the Court declared that Native Americans “…in ordinary affairs of life, not governed by treaties or remedial legislation … are subject to the payment of income taxes as are other citizens.”
(Natural News) The global vaccine suicide cult is very real, and it’s a product of mass hypnosis combined with a widespread desire for self-annihilation. Driven to the point of insanity by crazed culture and the psychological terrorism of the mainstream media, many people are now either consciously or unconsciously seeking to end their own lives — global suicides have skyrocketed since the covid lockdowns began — and now they’ve stumbled upon their final solution: The covid vaccine.
Heaven’s Gate was a California cult that ended in the 1990s when nearly all its members committed suicide after having faith that their leader — a man named Applewhite — would bring them to salvation.
In much the same way that Heaven’s Gate cult members thought they could achieve ascension and rise above humanity by consuming poison that they believed would teleport them to an “alien mothership” waiting for them on the far side of Haley’s Comet, today’s vaccine suicide cultists believe they can achieve ascension by injecting themselves with a deadly biological weapon that will transform them into a “free” human being and give them VIP status in society (thanks to their vaccine passports).
In exactly the same way that Heaven’s Gate cultists committed suicide in search of ascension to a false god, today’s vaccine worshipers are killing themselves as they pay homage to the false god of “science.” And the outcome will be the same: Mass death and shattered delusions.
When people turn their backs on God, they no longer recognize their own self-worth
Sadly, many people no longer have any sense of self-worth because they have turned their backs on God and instead worship technology, science, money or fame. Thus, they have nothing to live for other than more money and fame. When those aren’t fulfilling enough, they seek self-annihilation, not realizing that every human being is a miracle of the divine, created in the image of God.
To inject yourself with a deadly biological weapon that was engineered to terminate human lives is an affront to God and an act of spiritual and physical annihilation. I believe most people taking the vaccine, at some level, know it is potentially deadly, but they welcome the chance at self-annihilation because that’s far better than the alternative, which is being ostracized by society and rejected by their peers. Most people would rather die than be rejected, and so the vaccine propagandists are paying off social media “influencers,” celebrities and false authority figure to attempt to equate vaccine obedience with social acceptance.
This preys upon the weak-willed who define their own self-worth by the way others view them (or accept them). To reject the vaccine today, amid all the propaganda and coercion, takes an act of real self-actualization, courage and faith in God. Relatively few people possess that capacity today because they have rejected the very God that granted them life and consciousness.
Thus, those taking the vaccine are literally participating in a grand, global suicide cult that’s being carried out with mass hypnosis, brainwashing and social engineering. Just like Heaven’s Gate cultists, these people are more than happy to take the poison and end their own lives as long as it means they were “accepted” by society in the process.
The reason I mention all this is because we must understand the twisted psychology of these cultists in order to survive their mass suicide, which will impact even those of us who avoid the bioweapons injections. As mass death sweeps across economies and nations, it will have horrifying consequences to the functioning of society, including collapsing supply lines and extreme personnel disruptions in industries like finance, energy, telecom and agriculture.
Watch this shocking short video from an energy industry Human Resources professional, warning of how large oil businesses are already planning “replacement” strategies to replace their own executives who have been vaccinated. “Succession planning” is what it’s called, and according to this woman, oil executives expect that about half of those who took the vaccine will die in the coming years.
FROM YELLEN’S TWEETS TO BASEL III, GOLD CAN ONLY TREND NORTH AS CURRENCIES CAN ONLY GO DOWN
June 14, 2021
By Egon von Greyerz
In this 20-minute MAMChat, Matterhorn Asset Management principals Egon von Greyerz and Matthew Piepenburg address the current and ever-evolving inflation narrative as well as its inter-relationship with interest rates. This relationship has a direct impact upon gold pricing in a global backdrop of rising and unsustainable debt levels. Matt begins with a brief “translation” of Yellen’s most recent comments on increased fiscal spending, reminding viewers that such serial stimulus from DC has massive inflationary implications despite the meme out of DC that current inflationary tailwinds are merely “transitory.” Egon reminds, of course, that inflation is ultimately about currency expansion (and debasement), and discusses the conditions for a hyper-inflationary future.
Gold, as we all know, favors negative real rates, and with inflation rising and rates falling, the scope of increasing/continuing negative real rates in favor of gold’s trend north is openly clear. Toward that end, Matt and Egon share thoughts on the sustainability of continued rate suppression. Matt’s near-term view (citing Yellen and the IMF) is that rates will be forced to the basement in order to service staggering debt levels and policies going forward. Egon addresses the issue of whether such a “plan” is sustainable.
Sustainable or unsustainable, rate suppression and fiscal stimulus costs lots of fiat dollars, which means further debasement of currencies going forward, and hence further reason to preserve and measure one’s wealth in precious metals rather than not-so-precious paper money. As for paper money vs. physical gold, Egon touches as well upon the Basel III rules which will require the banks to show more of physical rather than paper evidence of their own gold holdings, all of which has implications on gold pricing in the years ahead.
US Senate passes bill to give billions of dollars in funding for human-animal hybrid experiments
‘We shouldn’t need to clarify in law that creating animal-human hybrids or « chimeras » is ethically unthinkable, but sadly the need for that very clear distinction has arrived,’ said Senator James Lankford. Mon Jun 14, 2021 – 11:53 am EST
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
WASHINGTON, D.C. June 14, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Senate has passed a bill which will allocate billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with some of the funds expected to go toward a disturbing form of research whereby tissue from aborted babies is spliced with animal cells to create mixed-species organisms called “chimeras.”
Introduced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA), also called the “Endless Frontier Act,” was passed by the Senate in a 68-32 vote June 9.
Supposed to address growing Chinese technological competition by increasing investment in American innovation in science and technology to the tune of $250 billion, the bill had been hotly debated on the Senate floor for weeks, with over 600 amendments being proposed before last week’s vote.
Although the measure passed with significant bipartisan support, it had drawn fire from Senate Republicans concerned about the possible ethical implications of some of the bill’s intended spending.
One of their concerns had to do with the bill’s proposed funding for the National Institutes of Health, which has long considered lifting its moratorium on conducting chimeric experiments pending new guidelines from the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
In response to concern that the NIH will shortly lift its stay on the unethical research, Senators Mike Braun, Steve Daines, and James Lankford proposed an amendment to the bill which would criminalize the creation of animal-human hybrid organisms.
“We shouldn’t need to clarify in law that creating animal-human hybrids or ‘chimeras’ is ethically unthinkable, but sadly the need for that very clear distinction has arrived,” said Senator Lankford (R-OK), who recently observed the 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade by giving a 20-minute biology lesson on the Senate floor demonstrating the personhood of unborn babies to pro-abortion Democrats.
“In trying to compete with China, we shouldn’t become like them,” Senator Daines (R-MT) warned. “It’s critical that we draw a bright line against unethical forms of research that fail to recognize the distinct value of humans over animals.”
The NIH’s chimeric research plans had been stymied by a 2019 Trump Administration policy which had shut down the acquisition of human fetal tissue from elective abortions for research and instituted an ethics board to review any such research at labs and universities.
But in April 2021 the NIH announced it was reversing the policy, permitting the acquisition of new fetal tissue from abortions for research and abolishing the ethics board requirement.
Just a month later the ISSCR put out its much-anticipated new guidelines which explicitly allow and provide guidance for chimera research. The NIH is expected to adopt the new guidelines.
To date the NIH has not lifted its moratorium, and it does not directly fund chimera research. However private chimeric research is actively underway in American universities, producing a number of disturbing results. In May 2020 a mouse embryo composed of 96% animal cells and 4% human cells was created by researchers from the State University of New York at Buffalo and the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
In April 2021 researchers with the Salk Institute in California injected 25 induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells) from humans into macaque monkey embryos in a grotesque Frankenstein-like chimeric experiment resulting in the creation of human-monkey embryos.
“Currently the National Institutes of Health does not do this research and we need to keep it that way,” Sen. Lankford said, “Researchers who are attempting these horrific once-science-fiction experiments should focus on valuing the dignity of human life, not trying to genetically merge and manipulate humans and animals.” — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Demand US Senate REJECT Anti-Life, Anti-Christian ‘Equality Act’!
38,505 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 40,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
But despite the best efforts of Senators Braun, Daines, and Lankford, their proposed amendment, which had been endorsed by a bevy of pro-life organizations including the Family Research Council, March for Life Action, National Right to Life, and the US Council of Catholic Bishops, was struck down in a 49-48 vote.
Without the amendment that would have criminalized dystopian chimera research, “The Endless Frontier Act,” which is now on its way to the House of Representatives, will grant billions of dollars to the NIH while leaving the door wide open to morally repugnant research which exploits the bodies of aborted babies at tax-payer expense.
COVID vaccine makers have a disturbing track record of criminal and civil liability
Vaccine manufacturers have a history of ‘aggressive marketing of inappropriate drugs, kickbacks to doctors, claims of testing drugs on children without proper consent,’ and more. Mon Jun 14, 2021 – 12:04 pm EST
June 14, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Politicians and corporate CEOs offering clever incentives to encourage people to roll up their sleeves for COVID-19 vaccines tend not to talk about the vaccine companies’ troubling history of illegal business practices including fraudulent marketing, patent infringement, and failing to notify consumers about toxic ingredients.
Between 1991 and 2017, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca — three vaccine makers whose COVID vaccines are widely used across the world — have together paid out a total of $8.62 billion to resolve civil and criminal allegations in 67 state and federal settlements. Moderna, a relative newcomer, has come under scrutiny for secrecy about its funding and the results of its clinical trials. The fraught legal history of the corporations tends to grant legitimacy to the skepticism many feel about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines they have produced.
In a December 2020 report published by U.K.-based social justice organization Global Justice Now, Director Nick Dearden and Dr. James Angel wrote that “the current pharmaceutical model is actually deeply flawed, delivering outcomes which are poor value for money for the public sector, which exacerbate global inequality and which are driven by the objective to make sky-high returns to shareholders, not a healthier population.”
The report by Global Justice Now, which has criticized the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for “unaccountably skewing the direction of international development,” went on to describe the pharmaceutical model as one which grants incentives for “the most appalling behaviour including aggressive marketing of inappropriate drugs, kickbacks to doctors, claims of testing drugs on children without proper consent, massive price hikes on essential medicines, profiteering, blocking competition, and secrecy … Some of this behaviour has given rise to serious legal challenges and even some of the largest fines in history.”
In a recent example of just such behavior, Johnson & Johnson is likely to pay a multi-billion dollar settlement after the Supreme Court rejected an appeal earlier this month to reverse a 2018 decision by a Missouri Circuit Court which awarded a $4.7 billion payout to 22 women who developed ovarian cancer which they claimed was caused by asbestos present in the company’s talc baby powder.
In June 2020, a Missouri Appeals Court reduced the verdict to $2.12 billion, but maintained the finding of “significant reprehensibility” in J&J’s actions, saying the pharmaceutical company failed to warn consumers of the danger. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
This year, Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout was temporarily paused in April after six cases of potentially life-threatening blood clots associated with the vaccine were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Civil and criminal litigation for dangerous and illegal practices aren’t new for the vaccine companies.
In 2013, Johnson and Johnson was ordered to pay over $2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega, and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider,” according to the Department of Justice.
Back in 2009, in the largest pharmaceutical settlement in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice at the time, Big Pharma titan Pfizer, which manufactured an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine last year in association with German biotechnology company BioNTech, was forced to pay a $2.3 billion settlement “to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.”
According to the DOJ, Pfizer misbranded an anti-inflammatory drug which had been pulled from the market, promoting its sale “for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns.”
Pfizer’s subsidiaries pleaded guilty to a felony for misbranding the drug “with intent to defraud or mislead,” and the company was ordered to pay a criminal fine totaling $1.3 billion, “the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter.” Pfizer paid out another $1 billion “to resolve allegations” related to the illegal promotion of three other drugs.
Similar to the Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson cases, fellow vaccine manufacturer AstraZeneca agreed to pay $520 million in 2010 to resolve allegations that it “illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration.”
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Michael L. Levy said of the AstraZeneca settlement, “People have a legal right to know that pharmaceutical companies are marketing their drugs only for uses approved by the FDA and that their doctors’ judgment has not been affected by misinformation from a pharmaceutical company trying to boost revenues.”
Covering a wide range of criminal and civil violations, Big Pharma’s legal troubles also include patent infringement and failure to disclose information regarding government funding and clinical trials. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Fire Fauci and investigate him now!
57,892 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 60,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
In October 2020, San Diego-based Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a lawsuit against Pfizer and BioNTech, claiming the companies used Allele’s patented “fluorescent protein to help analyze blood drawn from clinical trial patients without Allele’s permission.”
Last month a U.S. District Judge rejected Pfizer and BioNTech’s efforts to dismiss the action, giving the lawsuit the green light to go forward.
Meanwhile, the Gates Foundation-funded pharmaceutical corporation Moderna, which last year underwent an investigation by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for allegedly running afoul of federal law by failing to disclose government support for its patents and applications, “has been criticised for the way it releases its research,” according to the Global Justice Now report.
According to the report, “After the company announced it had seen positive results from its Phase I trial in May 2020,” scientists “raised questions about the company’s claims, suggesting that no significant data had been released to evidence them. Moderna disclosed early results from just 8 of its 45 trial participants.”
The report cited a concern expressed by Anna Durbin, a vaccine researcher at Johns Hopkins University, who said, “It’s a bit of a concern that they haven’t published the results of any of their ongoing trials that they mention in their press release. They have not published any of that.”
Moderna’s secrecy has been called “highly problematic” by former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officials, and “worthy of investigation for potential market manipulation.”
In an article published by Transparency International, Professor Jillian Kohler, director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Governance, Transparency and Accountability in the Pharmaceutical Sector, wrote, “Now more than ever, pharmaceutical companies need to uphold standards of social responsibility.” Kohler added that “shareholders are not the only ones to whom pharmaceutical companies are accountable; the general public are also key investors.
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
June 11, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — One week after the French government announced that youth between ages 12 and 18 will be able to receive the experimental COVID vaccines starting June 15, the National Ethics Advisory Board (CCNE) published an answer to a question submitted by the Ministry of Health regarding the ethics of giving the jab to minors, stating in an official notice published Wednesday that the CCNE “regretted” that the decision to vaccinate adolescents had “been made so quickly” without waiting for its opinion.
The 19-page notice poses many questions regarding the benefits, or absence thereof, of the “vaccine” for young people and also underscores the imperfect knowledge both of the disease the jab is supposed to protect against and of its effects on young people because the phase III testing of the experimental vaccines is incomplete, and particularly so regarding teenagers.
The report also states that while parental consent is required for minors to receive the jab, adolescents should receive proper information about the benefits and risks in a form adapted to their own capacity of understanding. It also warned that COVID restrictions and the fear of further lockdowns could “pressure” them into accepting the vaccination.
Such a show of caution is almost unheard of from public governing bodies since the beginning of the COVID crisis, making the fact that the government has not overturned its hasty decision regarding vaccinations for adolescents appear all the more reckless.
Ironically, CCNE president Jean-François Delfraissy, who was reappointed to that position last April, is also the head of the so-called “Scientific Council” that has been steering government responses to SARS-CoV-2, including lockdowns, masking mandates and vaccine policy. To be sure, he decided to reserve his position on this particular question within the Ethics Advisory Board because of his role in public choices, including vaccinating the young. Be that as it may, he is now in a place where he is formally contradicting the advice of the Ethics Board he presides over. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
The report makes clear that there are two types of benefits from vaccines: the personal benefit of the receiver and the collective benefit where vaccination aims at protecting the population at large (in this case, the elderly, through what it calls “intergenerational solidarity”). Interestingly, it recalls that the collective benefit can be invoked when vaccination protects the larger population from serious illnesses of which there is good medical knowledge. “We can agree that this is not the case for Covid-19, for which new characteristics are being discovered every day,” he said.
In the report, the CCNE underscores that if “collective immunity” can only be reached when 80 percent to 85 percent of the population have received the experimental vaccine (no clear studies exist regarding this proportion), the fact that only 78 percent of the population is over 18 years old and that some 20 percent of adults have said they will not take the vaccine, according to recent surveys, means that vaccination will not suffice.
At present, approximately 52 percent of the adult population in France have received the jab, and reports suggest that while more vaccines are available, there are now fewer appointments being made to receive the first shot than in recent weeks.
The report also affirms that “natural immunity” after an infection is a factor that favors collective immunity – something that is rarely stressed in official communications – even if it says its duration and efficacy are at present uncertain. However, it adds that in the group of 20- to 49-year-olds, seropositivity after a natural infection is higher than in the older groups, reaching more than 30 percent instead of 22.7 percent in the total population, and that this higher rate is probably also true for adolescents.
The CCNE even talks about “cross-protection” from other seasonal coronaviruses.
According to its report, it is necessary to take into account that very few youngsters actually die from COVID-19. The risk only exists in children over 10, and then, in the rare cases that it did occur, usually at least one serious underlying condition is present. There is a “very limited” personal benefit associated with coronavirus vaccinations for teenagers, it states. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
1,039,983 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1,050,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
The CCNE then goes on to describe the multiple negative effects of COVID restrictions that particularly affected young people and adolescents. It adds that the adverse psychological effects are lasting and will probably not disappear with the pandemic. “Children are vulnerable members of society who will possibly have new forms of post-COVID,” the report warns. Already, “anxiety, suicidal thoughts, depression and sleep disorders” were higher during the long months when older teenagers followed classes at home on their computer screens. The report adds that masking and social distancing are not natural to children and teenagers, and states:
“The deleterious repercussions on the pediatric population of all the measures taken needs to trigger a reflection on the preservation of global health that cannot be limited to the imperative of non-contamination, especially since this specific population represents the reserve of energy, commitment and initiative for the common future.”
It even asks whether “the policy of prevention applied to the whole population could not be considered as excessive regarding the young.”
In another section, the CCNE stresses that while the phase III and IV trials of the “vaccines” are benefiting from the feedback related to “millions” of vaccinations, pharmacovigilance has not reached the same kind of precision for children, stressing that vaccinal reactions can be different in newborns, children, adolescents and adults. It adds that as young people have less severe forms of COVID, it is difficult to correctly evaluate the efficiency of the vaccine in preventing those severe forms in the adolescent population.
“The existing experience does not allow ensuring the full safety of these new vaccines in adolescents (…) and in children no data is available, although it can be noted that several tens of millions of adolescents have been vaccinated in the USA,” it notes, adding that “a few cases of mild, post-vaccination myocarditis in adolescents are beginning to be published.”
Do children and adolescents actually spread coronavirus? The CCNE warily replies, “The decision to vaccinate children and adolescents must therefore take into account their role in the spread of the virus. Although controversies persist, more and more publications show that children, especially those under 10-12 years of age, are not the most frequent source of contamination.” The risk is higher in teenagers, it remarks. It also stresses that infections most often occur at home in the adolescent population, even though schools have been at least partially open throughout the second and third lockdowns in France.
It then comments that “keeping schools, colleges and high schools open ensures equal access to education and a balanced diet for some, and allows for the social ties that are essential to the construction of the individual, especially for adolescents. These arguments could be in favor of opening vaccination to 12- to 18 year-olds. However, if vaccination were presented to them as their only chance to return to a normal life, this effective pressure would raise the question of the validity of their consent.”
Elsewhere, the report worries that “pressure on the part of society can implicitly oblige adolescents to receive vaccination” even though it is of no particular benefit to themselves. Refusing the jab may lead adolescents to be “stigmatized,” it underlines.
That is true, but also what is what is happening in many countries with pressure put on the adult population to get the vaccine so as not to be “anti-social” and to enjoy the “reopening” of society.
In its ethical considerations, the CCNE stresses that the well-being of the young is every bit as important as the protection of the old, even suggesting that it is more so:
“The vast majority of the adolescents showed real self-sacrifice in respecting the successive confinements, which were nevertheless the cause of a significant loss of opportunity for them in terms of learning at school, but also of a deprivation of social relations.
“After more than a year of constraints weighing on their morale and their psychic health, the question of their own vulnerability emerges and deserves increased attention. A society that leaves its youth in a situation of long-term suffering is a society that runs the risk of damaging its energy, its hopes and its future. It is in the light of this singular context that one of the ethical questions of the extension of vaccination to minors arises.”
It then asks, unfortunately, whether it is “ethical” to make the young bear the brunt of the refusal of adults to receive the “vaccine,” suggesting in substance that there should be more government propaganda in favor of adult vaccination.
But the French CCNE is conscious of the uncertainties surrounding the experimental jabs:
“Compulsory vaccination, especially in the adolescent population, is not a relevant issue at this time, but the motivation induced by the possible freedom regained through vaccination, particularly in the adolescent population, must ensure that such a practice is not harmful in the short, medium and long term. It also questions the notion of free consent.”
The CCNE also warns against possible future contamination in widely-vaccinated populations because of variants and less vaccinal prevalence in other countries, adding:
“Adolescents, like the general population, are at risk of being re-confined even though they will be vaccinated. This information must be made known to the young people who choose to be vaccinated and is at the heart of the process of obtaining their consent.
“The risk here is significant: if adolescents go for vaccination with the certainty that it will allow them to return to normal life and this motivation ends up being disappointed in reality, it is their trust in institutions that risks being shaken in the long term.”
Or perhaps even faster than that …
The CCNE concludes that it’s clearly advisable to avoid vaccination of children under 12, and given the absence of personal benefit, is wary of the vaccinating 12- to 16-year-olds, repeating that the American FDA greenlighted the practice based on its faith in only one study and that possible harmful long-term effects will only be known after the vaccination of “several million adolescents.”
It adds:
“Is it ethical to solicit the participation of young people in order to achieve a collective benefit, knowing that this benefit concerns them, but that other measures could avoid it? According to the CCNE, it seems desirable, given the difficulties encountered and the specific issues related to a population for which social ties and learning are essential resources for life, to agree to vaccinate adolescents who request it against Covid-19, but after having received clear information adapted to this age group on the uncertainties related to the disease, to the vaccine itself and to its medium- and long-term effectiveness, as well as on the other alternatives available for preventing the disease.”
In a clear warning to the government regarding future restrictions, the CCNE concludes:
“Ensuring that adolescents over 12 years of age have free and informed consent to the vaccine implies assuring them at the same time that other strategies are implemented, in the event of an epidemic rebound, taking into account the evolution of the health situation, so as to spare their way of life, education, relationships and freedom, which, as all French people, whatever their age, they need for their vitality, and which are then considered to be proportionate with regard to the risk posed by the virus in this section of the population.
On Thursday evening, an “Independent Scientific Council” created in France by medical professionals and academics held its ninth online conference during which Dr. Eric Menat, a general practitioner, welcomed the CCNE’s official advice to the government and commented on the unethical nature of giving the experimental jab to young people “up to age 30” in his opinion.
Menat recalled that by May 18, 2021, of the more than 100,000 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in France, only 88 occurred in people below age 29, of which four in the 0 to 9 age group and nine in the 10-19 age group. The overwhelming majority of cases involving young people who died had congenital malformations, severe cancer or other serious diseases. No healthy teenager died of COVID, he insisted, concluding that “vaccination of the young is of no benefit to them, while its benefit for public health has absolutely not been demonstrated.”
On the other hand, public health statistics reveal a large number of severe adverse reactions. More than 600 deaths after the Pfizer jab alone, and thousands of serious side effects, with more than 1,100 of these affecting people in the 16-49 age group, even though they have received 10 times fewer jabs in absolute numbers than the elderly population, according to Menat, leading him to fear that the number and gravity of adverse reactions will be higher in the younger age groups than in the rest of the population.
Menat added that widespread vaccination of those younger than 30 would probably lead to some deaths of otherwise healthy individuals who are at no risk whatsoever of dying of COVID-19.
He concluded with a question: “Is it ethical to sacrifice people whose life is in front of them, to save the lives of people aged over 84?”
In Germany during December 1922, the last straw that broke the back of the German economy was a forced loan of 10% of all your assets. This destroyed the confidence that remained in the Weimar Republic and thereafter people withdrew the money from banks and started to convert to other currencies and to buy whatever tangible assets they could. The hyperinflation took off in 1923.
History repeats BECAUSE human nature remains the same. In an interview with The Hill, of course, it was a Democrat from New York Thomas Suozzi who said he’s in the early stages of looking at what he called a “patriot tax” which is really a WEALTH TAX that he is proposing to impose as a one-time surcharge of 2.5% wealth between $50 million and $100 million and a 5% on wealth above $100 million.
This is NOT income – this is on assets. It will require full disclosure of all assets held globally with penalties of imprisonment and confiscation of assets if you lie. Not this is how that introduced the income tax in 1913. They always put the initial level above the average person. In 1913, the average annual wage was about $1,500. Making the income tax starting at $3,000 was to ensure the people would not worry about the rich. They are doing this once again. True, I would not care if Bill Gates or Soros had to pay 5% of their net worth. Nut they throw that into their foundations which will not be taxed. My real concern is once they push this through, then it is one small step for the government to lower that to $1 million or $500,000.
Still, many people will say anyone with $1 million can afford to pay 5%. But that includes all assets – the value of your home or business. He says they will give them 5 years to pay it. Why? Because this is on all assets that they will then appraise. They can say your home is now worth $1 million so you have to pay 5% of that as well. We are talking about assets that not LIQUID meaning you then must sell things to pay the tax.
So you wanted to know how to destroy an economy as fast as possible? All you have to do is impose a wealth tax and watch what happens! You can gain in the stock market, they want 5% to the total value. They could easily tax you on the maximum value of Bitcoin holdings during a given period. Do not count on any federal judge ruling in your favor. That will NEVER happen!
Le Danemark abandonne le #PassSanitaire et le masque Le gouvernement danois a conclu un accord avec tous les partis parlementaires, sauf un, pour mettre fin lundi à l’obligation de porter un masque facial dans tous les domaines, à l’exception des transports publics
Le Danemark abandonne le #PassSanitaire et le masque Le gouvernement danois a conclu un accord avec tous les partis parlementaires, sauf un, pour mettre fin lundi à l’obligation de porter un masque facial dans tous les domaines, à l’exception des transports publics
By Ashley Sadler
By Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
naufrage/sauvetage 