COVID vaccines were designed to fail; that’s how they won authorization-Jon Rappoport

COVID vaccines were designed to fail; that’s how they won authorization

For the past year, I’ve been demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a fake. It doesn’t exist. Now let’s enter the bubble where people assume the virus is real, and examine a few of the major crimes and contradictions that exist inside that lunatic bubble.

by Jon Rappoport

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

I wrote and posted this piece almost a year ago, while the clinical trials of the COVID vaccine were in progress. It reveals how and why those trials were doomed to fail. They did fail. Since then, nothing has changed.
The vaccine makers DESIGNED a series of clinical trials that, even on their own terms (“the virus is real, fear the virus”) were destined to be a complete flop.
Here is the piece I wrote in September 2020, before COVID vaccines were authorized for emergency use.
PART ONE:
Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.
They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.
September 22, 2020, the Times: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know”:
“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”
“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”
“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”
“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”
This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.
They are only designed to show effectiveness in preventing “mild cases of COVID,” which nobody should care about, because mild cases (cough, fever) naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.
The leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and deceptive.
Now let’s go deeper. Read the next section from the Times piece, and then I’ll make comments.
“The Moderna and AstraZeneca studies will involve about 30,000 participants each; Pfizer’s will have 44,000. Half the participants will receive two doses of vaccines separated by three or four weeks, and the other half will receive saltwater placebo shots. The final determination of efficacy will occur after 150 to 160 participants develop Covid-19…”
Here’s how it works. The vaccine companies are looking for a total of 150 mild COVID cases to occur, combined, in the two groups— those receiving the placebo and those receiving the vaccine. How would that happen? The researchers believe “the coronavirus is spreading everywhere” and it will pounce on some of the volunteers in the clinical trial.
Let’s say that, during the trial, 100 people receiving the placebo develop mild COVID-19, and only 50 people receiving the vaccine develop mild COVID.
The vaccine companies would say, “We just proved the vaccine is 50% effective in preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to do, in order to win emergency authorization from the FDA. Release the vaccine. Inject the world.”
The outcomes for 150 people equal “let’s shoot up seven billion people.” That’s staggering.
But it gets even worse. The magic number of 150 COVID cases? How is a COVID case defined? The authors of the Times piece have the answer:
“In the Moderna and Pfizer trials, even a mild case of Covid-19 — for instance, a cough plus a positive lab test — would qualify and muddy the results. AstraZeneca is slightly more stringent but would still count mild symptoms like a cough plus fever as a case.”
But wait. The NY Times itself recently published an article stating that up to 90% of US COVID cases could very well be false positives—in other words, not cases at all. Why? Because the diagnostic PCR test, as it is performed by many labs, is too sensitive. It registers “positive for COVID” when it shouldn’t.
So, in these vaccine clinical trials, the whole process of determining that “150 people developed COVID-19” is completely unreliable, useless, absurd, and nonsensical. On the one hand, a positive PCR test is unreliable and means nothing. On the other hand, a cough and fever (“mild COVID”) are nothing to worry about, and don’t require a vaccine at all. We’re talking about 150 cases of “who cares.” That’s what the COVID vaccine is designed to prevent.
“So the magic number is 150? That’s the number that will decide the immediate fate of the planet?”
“Of course.”
“And these 150 people, who you say develop mild COVID-19…no one should care, because those symptoms cure themselves, and no vaccine is needed.”
“Correct.”
“And come to think of it, the people receiving the vaccine in the clinical trials could develop symptoms indistinguishable from mild COVID-19, as a result of the effects of the vaccine.”
“Yes, that’s right.”
“But you’re very confident in the success of the vaccine.”
“Indeed.”
“Why?”
“I have to be confident. If we’re exposed as incompetent frauds, our bottom line will take a huge hit. And we’ll wind up in prison.”
“Thank you, sir. And that’s tonight’s news. Make sure you take the vaccine, everyone. It’s vital. This is Fred J Clown, for CBS-NBC-ABC-CNN-FOX-PBS-AP-Reuters and all official news sources East, West, North, and South. The News, brought to you by Venom-X-2, a medicine that has only 463 adverse effects. Ask your doctor if Venom is right for you.”
PART TWO: THE DEVIOUS TRICK:
Now I’m going to go over the vital information again, but this time I’m going to show you how…
The vaccine companies can use the fatal flaw in their protocol design to…
Actually win approval of their COVID vaccine.
Stick with me. This is big.
Only 150 people are needed to make the major clinical trials of a COVID vaccine look like a success.
Out of 30,000 volunteers in a trial, researchers are waiting for 150 people to “come down with COVID-19.” MILD cases. They assume this will happen because they believe the coronavirus is everywhere, and it’ll infect their volunteers.
Of course, their definition of a mild case of COVID-19 is meaningless. Cough plus fever, and a positive PCR test. The test spits out false positives like a rigged slot machine, and the visible mild symptoms could result from flu, polluted air, or too many candy bars.
Nevertheless, the researchers are waiting for a total of 150 people to “catch a mild case of COVID.” When that number is reached, everything stops.
Now comes the big moment. How many of those 150 COVID cases occurred in the group that received the vaccine, and how many in the group that received the placebo shot of salt water?
Let’s say only 50 COVID cases occurred in the vaccine group, and 100 in the placebo group. The researchers pop champagne corks. They say, “Look, the vaccine is 50% effective at preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to win emergency authorization from the FDA.”
BUT suppose 70 cases occurred in the vaccine group and 80 in the placebo group? No good. No good at all. No way to call the vaccine effective.
Now comes the “reshaping of the data.”
HERE WE GO.
The researchers say, “Wait. Thirty of the COVID cases in the vaccine group were REALLY just adverse reactions to the vaccine. They weren’t cases of COVID. You see, the vaccine can cause symptoms that are indistinguishable from mild COVID. Cough, fever, chills. ACTUALLY, there were only 40 cases of COVID in the vaccine group. Half as many as in the placebo group. The vaccine IS 50% effective. We’re good. We’re golden. We can get emergency authorization from the FDA right now to shoot up everybody.”
Vaccine manufacturers HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG that they could pull this trick.
Why leave things to chance?
Why risk a few hundred billion dollars of profit on a random distribution of mild COVID cases among the volunteers in their clinical trials?
The definition of a mild COVID case is EXACTLY what the vaccine manufacturers needed. It enabled them to hatch a plan, to make sure they didn’t fail.
They could pawn off a MILD case of COVID as a reaction to the vaccine. They could fake that without causing ripples. The FDA would say, “The vaccine reactions aren’t serious. All right, no problem. We’ll approve this vaccine for emergency use.”
However…If the manufacturers designed their clinical trial protocol to prevent serious cases of COVID, they would be waiting to see 150 cases of really sick people to occur. That might never happen.
If it did happen, and the manufacturers had to pull their devious switcheroo trick and blame the vaccine for some of these SERIOUS cases…
They would have to tell the FDA that their vaccine was causing life-threatening pneumonia; and the FDA, under a lot of scrutiny these days, would find it very difficult to overlook that.
FDA: “We can’t approve this vaccine. It could cause a few million cases of dire pneumonia…”
The vaccine companies didn’t make a titanic stupid mistake in their protocol design. In gearing the protocol to prevent MILD COVID cases, they did what they did on purpose. It allows them to “reshape their data” and win FDA emergency approval for their vaccine.
These companies have no intention of failing, starting over, and spending a year recruiting 30,000 new volunteers. They want success and money now. They want to win the race.
And they will win, if the truth isn’t known and shared widely.
EPILOGUE:
The punchline.
Every “expert,” now, in August 2021, is instructed to say the vaccine is definitely protecting people against severe illness and hospitalization. This is their promotional message to the world.
“Yes, even if you’re vaccinated, you could become infected with the virus, you could develop COVID, and you could pass the virus to other people, BUT you must take the shot. It will protect you from becoming severely ill.”
As you can see from what I’ve written above, this is a straight-out lie.
It was always a fantastic lie, from the beginning of COVID vaccine development.

Matthew Piepenburg:COVID Bailouts Have Nothing to Do With COVID

COVID Bailouts Have Nothing to Do With COVID

August 27, 2021

By Matthew Piepenburg

Below, we ask a simple question: Is the war on COVID the needed pretext for even more centralized market “performance?”

After all, who needs free markets when central bank liquidity determines price forces via endless COVID bailouts?

The trend toward centralized controls and centralized markets was in play long before COVID, but has the pandemic given the powers-that-be even more power?

As we discuss below, COVID may just be the final nail in the coffin of free market capitalism.

In this murky light, do traditional market indicators and forces even matter anymore?

Consumer Sentiment: Who Cares?

As stocks reached all-time highs in U.S. markets, consumer confidence recently saw its 7^th greatest collapse in history.

Needless to say, cadres of Wall Street spin-sellers (propaganda specialists?) are already hard at work explaining why such a disconnect between sentiment and equity valuations (i.e., price bubbles) doesn’t matter.

After all, when buckets of QE liquidity pour daily into the financial system in a COVID-induced era of unlimited-QE, today’s central-bank driven markets don’t need consumer confidence or even healthy balance sheets (from free-cash-flows to profits & earnings) to make their zombie-like climb toward 34.6 PE levels on the S&P.

In short, who needs consumer confidence (or even consumers at all), when a central bank airbag sits permanently beneath the S&P, NASDAQ and DOW?

Words Replacing Math & Facts

Over a decade ago, when the first controversial bucket of QE1 began, Bernanke promised it would be a “temporary” measure.

But bear or bull, we are fairly clear by now that words like “temporary” and “transitory” coming out of D.C. are as empty as Nixon’s promise in 1971 that decoupling from the gold standard would be equally short-lived:

And when it comes to words vs. reality, it doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes or even an Inspector Clouseau to see the lighthouse of true motives amidst a fog of false narratives.

Enter COVID—The Ultimate Bailout

Whatever one’s view of the COVID pandemic or its toll on human health and global GDP, one can no longer deny that a virus whose survivability percentage is greater than 99% has been the perfect setting (ruse?) to justify, inter alia, yet another tsunami of Wall-Street bailouts under the guise of a global health crisis.

In short, if Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and other TBTF banks playing with MBS fire justified the 2008 bailout, certainly the optics of a “global health crisis” made trillions worth of more market “accommodation” easier to swallow (or sneak in).

Toward this end, as the needed and all-too important debates continue to rage (despite open censorship) about health passports, nation-wide shutdowns, case fatality rates, vaccine safety/efficiency facts and health ministry fictions in a backdrop of dying civil liberties, free-market forces and governmental trust, one thing is becoming clear…

COVID (and more specifically COVID bailouts) saved the global financial markets.

That is, despite the competing fear-porn vs. “we care for you” narratives from NYC to Sydney, COVID has been Wall Street’s greatest ally since the Geithner-Bernanke-Paulson era of 2008.

Stated even more simply, while millions wonder when they can travel, work or save money again, the markets got another bail-out at the expense of the real economy.

And COVID, whether man-made or bat-made, came just in time to bailout a credit market that was near death’s door by late 2019.

Coincidence? Deliberate? We’ll never find those answers in a carefully/privately censored Google search or YouTube video.

Meanwhile, policy makers (like bees buzzing galvanically around a pot of honey) continue exploiting the COVID narrative to justify an unprecedented era of centralized control over public free markets and individual free choice with a sanctimonious carte blanche the likes (and dishonesty?) of which history has never seen before.

Playing along or following along, companies like Amazon, the NY Times, BlackRock and Wells Fargo continue to push back their return-to-office dates as individual states debate whether mask mandates make sense, despite censored science which suggest that masks stop the spread of viral microbes about as well as chain-link fences stop mosquitos…

Has the world gone mad as a gullible herd following fork-tongued shepherds, or does Big Brother just care a lot about your health?

That’s for each of us to decide, but when it comes to what we can expect from central bankers, my view is clear: COVID will continue to be exploited to justify more liquidity and hence more market “support.”

The Taper or No-Taper Debate

This means investors can expect more market bubbles, volatility, and distortion alongside more inflationary tailwinds, currency debasements and policy double-speak as the taper vs no-taper debate takes on a prominence in the public discourse similar to the mask or no-mask comedy de jour.

That is, as Wall Street continues to debate whether the Fed will begin tapering its magical money printing, the growing volume of Delta variant headlines pouring from the global Ministries of Truth leads me to believe that a narrative is already being telegraphed to justify more rather than less monetary expansion in the near-term.

This may explain why BTC and gold, despite bumpy rides of late, have been recovering rather than hiding in a corner, as more and more investors see the currency debasement writing on the wall, despite such realities never making the headlines or FOMC meeting notes.

We’ve also written elsewhere that the “taper debate” is ultimately (and realistically) a non-debate, as any significant form of tapering means less sovereign bond support, and less sovereign bond support means bond-decay followed by immediate yield (and hence interest rate) climbs.

If interest rates climb in a $280T backdrop of global debt, the market party (i.e., artificial “recovery”) enjoyed since 2009 comes to an immediate end. Period, full stop.

Central bankers and politicos, of course, know this, which explains why more rather than less QE is all that keeps the current risk asset bubble (from stocks to real estate) alive.

In this sad yet seductive light, policy makers—and investors—have two choices: 1) keep the QE going and send inflation to the moon, or 2) taper and send the global markets to the basement of time.

At some point, of course, even unlimited QE becomes unsustainable and the entire house of cards collapses under its own grotesque weight.

When that moment (planned or natural) occurs, the very policy makers who caused this inevitable catastrophe will have the convenient excuse to blame the financial rubble on COVID rather than their bathroom mirrors.

Again, COVID is a very convenient narrative, no?

Near term, the cynical yet realist take on the taper ahead is that it will be postponed rather than embraced. That’s our view.

The Case for Tapering—Michael Burry’s Next Big Short

In fairness to open debate, however, it’s worth noting that far smarter folks have taken other views.

For example, Michael Burry of Scion Capital, the misunderstood genius behind the “Big Short” during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, has been shorting US Treasuries to the tune of $280 million in put options against the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (ticker TLT), which makes him money if bond prices fall rather than rise.

Michael Burry, it seems, is expecting less rather than more FED bond support, and hence rising rather than “repressed” yields on long-term Treasuries.

And Burry, I’ll confess, may be right.

Even the Fed can’t print forever to keep yields and rates artificially suppressed. Hence, they may actually signal actual rather than semantic tapering, which is why all eyes will be on Jackson Hole to look for further signs of Fed tightening by year end.

This brings us back to COVID and the deliberate fear campaign from on high, as Powell has confidence that stoking the COVID narrative will force more investors into buying “safe” bonds, thus taking some of the onus off the Fed to buy the bulk of Uncle Sam’s debt via extreme QE.

If the Fed taper becomes a reality rather than debate, bond prices will fall, which means bond yields could easily and rapidly rise from the current 1.2% range to 1.8% or higher mark.

Rising bond yields, of course, mean rising interest rates, and rising interest rates means a rising cost of debt, which ultimately means that the debt-driven “party” which markets have been enjoying for years will see a genuine “hangover” moment worse in scope to what the rising rate window of late 2018 witnessed.

In short, should the Fed indeed turn naively hawkish and “taper,” this would be a disaster for just about every asset class but the dollar, and would likely be a short-lived and immediately reversed policy, akin to the 2019 reversal after the 2018 Q4 rate hike. We may even get a new variant and COVID bailout to mark the occasion!

Tapering & Gold

As for gold investing, rising rates would send gold lower and the dollar higher if inflation doesn’t rise measurably faster or higher than potentially rising bond yields.

Given the Fed’s primal fear of that anti-dollar known as gold, we can expect more fictionally downplayed bad CPI inflation reporting from DC in the near-term, especially if a dollar-surging taper were to occur.

Longer term, however, the damage created by years of expansionary monetary and fiscal policy will continue to be an inflationary tailwind for precious metals whose patience in the face of drunken fiscal policy is historically confirmed crisis after crisis after crisis…

Real Rates: Deeper Down Seems Inevitable

As all precious metal investors know, gold price moves inversely to real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) rates. That is, as real rates plunge, gold prices rise.

This would explain why gold bought from Switzerland is moving to patient gold investors in zip codes like China and India.

Despite genuine arguments in favor of tapering and the genuine intelligence of traders like Michael Burry, the realists play the long-game. They know, in short, that tapering is a self-inflicted bullet wound to risk assets.

Furthermore, they understand that the massive mountains of debt upon which countries in the West now sit would make rising rates impossible for countries like the U.S. to re-pay.

For this reason alone, I see more rather than less QE ahead, as the only real buyers of government debt needed to keep rates repressed come from central banks, not natural market demand.

As U.S. debt to GDP skyrockets past 100% and now 130% for the twin-deficit USA, the only solution/option available to such a debt-soaked nation is lower rather than higher real rates.

In such a light, tapering, again, is a dangerous option.

Since 2014, when the U.S. lost its external finance base (i.e., when global central banks stopped buying Uncle Sam’s debt on net), the Fed has had no choice but to be the buyer of last resort for its own IOUs.

This means Uncle Sam has a vested interest in keeping rates low while inflating away its debt with higher (albeit mis-reported) inflation rates—the perfect backdrop for falling rather than rising real rates—and hence a clear tailwind for gold.

Despite such realism, many are arguing that the negative 1.1 real rate figure seen last August represents a floor.

Hmmm?

A New War, a New Excuse to Print Money

Returning to that all-too-convenient COVID narrative (scapegoat?), I am of the strong opinion that the “war on COVID” will be the dominant and continued narrative moving forward, as wars are historically confirmed (as well as historically convenient) justifications for further rate repression and even lower real rates.

That’s good for gold.

Be reminded, for example, that the U.S. is no stranger to seeing real rates fall as low as -14%, as was seen in the Civil War, as well as World Wars I and II. In the post-Vietnam 70’s, real rates sank to -7%.

My cynical realism suggests therefore that the -1.1% real rates observed last August were anything but a “floor” and that the War on COVID will be deliberately exaggerated, promulgated, extended and alas conveniently exploited to justify even greater negative real rates ahead—all very good conditions for gold and silver.

As hard as it may be for modern investors lulled into thinking the Fed has actual intelligence and choices when it comes to tapering or managing inflation like a home thermostat, the only means they have for keeping the tragi-comical levels of U.S. debt sustainable is to see real rates closer to -15% not -1.1%.

To achieve this, they will need more COVID bailouts and QE, and hence more liquidity, and hence more dollar-debasing policies to pay their debts cheaply. Again, a very nice setting for precious metals.

But -15% real rates? No way? Crazy, right?

Growing Rather Printing Our Way Out of Debt?

Optimists, of course, will call me crazy, and pundits will say we can “grow our way out of debt.”

Fair enough.

But to “grow” our way out of debt in a normal rather than increasingly more negative real-rate environment would require GDP growth rates of 20% or higher for the next 5 years.

Does anyone actually believe that will happen?

We don’t either.

Taper or no taper, real war or a politically-contrived “COVID war,” pandemic altruism or pandemic scapegoat, the debt reality facing the world in general or the U.S. in particular suggests that COVID will be the politically-correct pretext for more rather than less “accommodation” from the Eccles Building.

Longer term, this means an already grossly debased dollar will become even more so, and that negative real rates can go far lower than expected, thereby ushering in a new yet all-too familiar era for gold.

Let’s wait and see.

Smoking gun: Fauci states COVID PCR test has fatal flaw; confession from the « beloved » expert of experts-Jon Rappoport

Smoking gun: Fauci states COVID PCR test has fatal flaw; confession from the « beloved » expert of experts

The COVID PCR test is a complete fraud

by Jon Rappoport

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

NOTE: I’ve posted this article several times. I post it again because so-called “rising COVID case numbers” are being touted as justification for masking and other restrictions, as well as a reason for taking the destructive COVID vaccine.
This article is part of my series on the COVID PCR test. These articles prove that the test is fatally flawed, gives rise to hugely inflated and false case numbers, which in turn lead to the unnecessary and brutal lockdowns.
I’m hoping readers will spread this information far and wide.
OK, here we go. Smoking gun. Jackpot.
Right from the horse’s mouth. Right from the man we’re told is the number-one COVID expert in the nation. What Fauci says is golden truth.
Well, how about THIS?
July 16, 2020, podcast, “This week in virology”: Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.
Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at the 4m01s mark through to the 5m45s mark (Faucu begins his first answer to the first quesiotns at the 4m20s mark and begins his second answer to the second question at the 5m26s mark)):
“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
Each “cycle” of the test is a quantum leap in amplification and magnification of the test specimen taken from the patient.
Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.
That’s called a false positive.
What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.
Therefore, all labs in the US that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because…
Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and…
The total number of COVID cases in America—which is based on the test—is a gross falsity.
The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.
Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles, in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell.
“Hello, America, you’ve been tricked, lied to, conned, and taken for a devastating ride. On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”
If anyone in the Congress has a few brain cells operating, pull Fauci into a televised hearing and, in ten minutes, make mincemeat out of the fake science that has driven this whole foul, stench-ridden assault on the global economy and its 8 billion citizens.
All right, here are two chunks of evidence for what I’ve written above. First, we have a CDC quote on the FDA website, in a document titled: “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only.” See page 35. This document is marked, “Effective: 07/21/2021.” That means, even though the virus is being referred to by its older name, the document is still relevant as of July 2021. “For Emergency Use Only” refers to the fact that the FDA has certified the PCR test under a traditional category called “Emergency Use Authorization.”
FDA: “…a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCoV [virus] if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles ([less than] 40.00 Ct).”
Naturally, MANY testing labs reading this guideline would conclude, “Well, to see if the virus is there in a patient, we should run the test all the way to 40 cycles. That’s the official advice.”
Then we have a New York Times article (August 29/updated September 17, 2020) headlined: “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” Here are money quotes:
“Most tests set the limit at 40 [cycles]. A few at 37.”
Set-the-limit would mean, We’re going to look all the way to 40 cycles, to see if the virus is there.
The Times: “This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients.”
Boom. That’s the capper, the grand finale. Labs don’t or won’t reveal their collusion in this crime.
Get the picture?
I hope so.
If a lawyer won’t go to court with all this, or if a judge won’t pay attention and see the light, they should be stripped of their jobs and sent to the Arctic to sell snow.

medias-presse.info: Selon un rapport de Health Public England, 64,8% des personnes décédées du variant delta entre le 1/2/2021 et le 2/8/2021 étaient « vaccinées »!

medias-presse.info

Voici le résumé de ce rapport (page 18 et 19):

Nombre de personnes testés positives au variant delta du 1/2/2021 au 2/8/2021: 300 010

dont:

Non vaccinés: 151 054, dont 253 morts de cette maladie, soit un taux de létalité de 0,17%)

Vaccinés: 117 115, dont 481 morts de cette maladie, soit un taux de létalité de 0,41%)

Statut vaccinal non connu: 31 841, dont 8 morts.

Total: 300 010 personnes testées positives, dont 742 morts, soit un taux de létalité de 0,25%.

Ainsi, 64,8% des décédés étaient vaccinés, 34,1% ne l’étaient pas et pour 1,1%, on ne sait pas s’ils l’étaient. Pour les personnes complètement vaccinées (47 008), il y a eu 402 morts, soit un taux de létalité de 0,86%. C’est donc pour cette catégorie que le taux de létalité est le plus élevé.

On apprend aussi dans ce rapport que le taux de létalité du variant alpha, presque disparu en Angleterre comme en France, a été plus élevé: 4284 morts sur 226 446 cas, toujours du 1/2/2021 au 2/8/2021, soit un taux de létalité de 1,89%. Ainsi, le remplacement progressif d’alpha par delta a été une nouvelle plutôt bonne… même s’il aurait mieux valu, bien sûr, que le sars-cov 2 disparaisse totalement!

Alors, samedi, si vous avez des pancartes, écrivez dessus par exemple: M. Véran, les données officielles n’indiquent pas du tout que les non-vaccinés meurent plus du variant delta que les vaccinés!

Que Dieu protège la France.

Guy l’investisseur sans costume:L’arme de destruction massive de votre épargne

L’arme de destruction massive de votre épargne

Guy l’investisseur sans costume

)

Life Site:The world is witnessing the collapsing Liberal Utilitarian paradigm

The world is witnessing the collapsing Liberal Utilitarian paradigm

There is perhaps no greater example in our day than the hypocrisy surrounding the coronavirus and the associated measures and restrictions. Shutterstock

Kennedy
Hall

Fri Aug 27, 2021 – 9:14 pm EDT

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.

(LifeSiteNews) — Amid the continuing COVID-19 hysteria, the Paralympic Games are taking place in Japan. Like the regular Olympics, the Paralympic version of the esteemed sporting event is met with fanfare and interest. There is a difference, however, between the two; the Paralympic Games are not only a display of sporting excellence – which is laudable on its own – but are also a display of the force of will of people who have lived with physical handicaps. https://static.lifeserver.net/709b1e30a292a046243572436ad0600c/index.html?clickTag=https%3A%2F%2Fservedby.lifeserver.net%2Fcl.php%3Fbannerid%3D80884%26zoneid%3D8553%26sig%3D7a963ec7211d5cb7d678ac605ed0f50ff09fadf55108019445ee8f19cc286ebc%26oadest%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fbit.ly%252F3hm5Nxs

The combination of sporting excellence and overcoming physical obstacles makes for quite an affair that captures the hearts of many. This is, of course, a good thing, and it is heartening to know that people all over the world can appreciate the “feel good” stories of Paralympic athletes.

Nonetheless, one cannot help but think that there is a certain hypocrisy surrounding the popular admiration for the Paralympics. This is not to say that there should be less admiration for the athletes, but it is a bit ironic that our culture exalts the efforts of a population at a physical disadvantage while at the same time grave evils such as euthanasia are promoted the world over based on the justification that having severe physical obstacles renders quality of life less evident. We could even add that abortion for reasons of detected handicaps is also commonplace.

If we consider for a moment the popular justification for euthanasia, we will likely call to mind platitudes such as: “no one should have to live a life of suffering,” or “if someone’s quality of life is worsened, then they should have the right to ‘go on their own terms.’”

I distinctly remember sitting at a barbecue a couple of years ago and speaking with a distant family member about a friend of his who had “gone his own way.” He was referring to a man in his 50s who decided to access physician-assisted suicide, which is legal in Canada. Granted, the man was dying from a severe cancer, but was not a disabled man. In addition, various “dying with dignity” organizations and legal frameworks make it clear that disability on its own is not justification for medical assistance in dying.

Nonetheless, there is perhaps a strange contradiction that the popular culture simultaneously accepts assisted-suicide measures as a “progressive step forward” while at the same time thinks it’s laudable to rejoice in the accomplishments of disabled athletes.

I say this because there is an underlying similarity between the two that leads to a contradiction that goes unnoticed: Assisted suicide is accepted because the popular belief is that people ought not suffer unfairly. Meanwhile, disabled athletes are exalted because they push through unfair suffering in order to accomplish great physical feats.

This is representative, in my opinion, of the logical end of the Liberal Utilitarianism that plagues our world.

What is Liberal Utilitarianism?

A concise description of Liberalism in the form we see today can be found in the book Liberalism is a Sin, written by Father Felix Sarda. In chapter two, the author offers the following description of Liberalism: It is “to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private judgment.” In essence, this means that Liberalism is dependent on relativism; the idea that one can ascertain and define truth based on private opinion or judgment. This is partly true, as certain truths must be understood by experience and individual rational thought. But relativist and Liberal thinking when followed all the way through can easily reject divine authority or revelation, especially from the Church.

Of course, there is something laudable, at least in principle, about the Classic Liberalism present in the minds of the American founders. Erroneous as they may have been in their approach to religious indifferentism, the popular narrative of them standing on principle in the face of conflict is something recognized as courageous. This is a paradox of Liberalism, as there is something virtuous behind the actions of a man who stands for what he believes; however, it is the very Liberalism that a man adopts that may lead him to dangerous errors.

The poisonous fruits of Liberalism have given us the advent of today’s Marxist Leftism, wherein reality is defined by the mob of politically correct actors who control the narrative; they are in charge, their beliefs will become ours, whether we like it or not. It should be noted that since the advent of Liberalism in Europe in the post-Reformation era, we have seen constant political and cultural revolution, seemingly without ceasing. As unfair as parts of ancient society may have been in some cases, there was as stability and a consistency of truth that has long since eroded.

Utilitarianism is an outgrowth of Liberalism. Utilitarianism is not possible under the Christian framework that preceded the Liberal framework, because Biblical understanding tells us that all men are created in the image and likeness of God. Thus, we cannot trample the rights on an innocent person, because it is akin to trampling the rights of God’s image.

Utilitarianism is the view that society is akin to a mass of actors within a larger organism that can be organized for the “greater good.” A classic Utilitarian mindset is a Socialist mindset, where the rights of various classes of people are trampled with the intention of pursuing an undefined – and untenable – equality. If a Utilitarian believes it necessary to sacrifice a person or group of persons for the “greater good,” then there is nothing stopping him, unless he personally believes in his own Liberal convictions that he must not harm someone else.

There is perhaps no greater example of Liberal Utilitarianism in our day than the hypocrisy surrounding the coronavirus and the associated measures and restrictions. We have been told that we must protect the vulnerable of society by locking down the mass of society. We have been told we must protect those without a proper defense against an illness but subjugating children to isolation from friends and education. We have been told that in order to stay “healthy” we must stay home and not go to the gym, or spend time playing sports. We have been told that “we are all in this together,” yet it is the rich who have had the easiest time with adapting to a virtual world void of any financial uncertainty.

Furthermore, who are these supposed vulnerable people that we are to protect at all costs? They are the elderly and infirm, who have largely been sent off to pasture to rot away in nursing homes, and who are also the prime candidates for the medical assistance in dying that we are told is a basic human right.

So, we live in a time wherein the natural and divine law have been rejected in the name of a global Liberal Utilitarianism, where we applaud the disabled in sport while at the same time denying children a chance to play sports; while we send off our elderly and infirm to be cared for by strangers in a nursing home, where they are most vulnerable to disease; while we shut down the world to protect the elderly and infirm that we have placed in vulnerable places, because we believe we must protect the vulnerable; all while we believe that the disabled and elderly and infirm are prime candidates for a dignified death administered by the health-care system – a system that must be protected at all costs in order to care for those it seeks to euthanize.

Is there anything more absurd than the current state of affairs?

The moral and philosophical paradigm we see playing out before our very eyes is of course untenable, as it is based on contradiction. Perhaps, although painful to live through, we are now witnessing the collapse of the very framework that can only continue to devolve from here.

Life Site:A tool of control: How health officials weaponize language to manage public perception of COVID vaccines

A tool of control: How health officials weaponize language to manage public perception of COVID vaccines

The deployment of clever linguistic tricks has created a hostile upside-down universe, where even the vaccine-injured are tarnished as ‘anti-vaxxers’ or liars rather than acknowledged as ex-vaxxers who took risks that turned out to be life-changing.

Children’s
Health
Defense

Fri Aug 27, 2021 – 7:25 am EDT

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.

(Children’s Health Defense) – Psychological and linguistic manipulation are, for those in power, proven tools for building, consolidating and maintaining dominance — a reality keenly depicted in George Orwell’s never-more-relevant novel, “1984.”

As phrased by master propagandist Edward Bernays, an approximate contemporary of Orwell’s, the mind of the people “is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion.”

Recent events surrounding COVID vaccines have shown that medicine and public health — with the help of a complicit media — are particularly skilled at “pull[ing] the wires which control the public mind.”

The clever bag of linguistic tricks deployed by the medical cartel includes seeding evocative terms such as “vaccine hesitancy” and “lockdowns” (which is prison terminology) into popular and scientific discourse, forging slippery new definitions of words with formerly fixed meanings (such as “pandemic,” “herd immunity” and “vaccine”), and circling failed products back around by giving them the positive spin of “boosters.”

Ominously, medicine’s and public health’s verbal assaults encourage shaming of, or violence against, those who ask questions, while upholding the disingenuous pretense that vaccine mandates are compatible with freedom.

In this hostile upside-down universe, even the vaccine-injured are tarnished as “anti-vaxxers” or liars rather than acknowledged as ex-vaxxers who took risks that turned out to be life-changing.

‘Much like other stressors’

One of the more insulting recent examples of linguistic weaponization involves a dubious psychiatric cover term, “functional neurological disorder” (FND), that is suddenly being trumpeted as an explanation for the tsunami of adverse events — especially severe neurological reactions — being reported all over the world in the aftermath of COVID vaccination.

Psychiatrists conveniently define FND — which they also refer to as a “psychogenic” (originating in the mind) or “conversion” disorder — as “real” nervous system symptoms that “cause significant distress or problems functioning” but are “incompatible with” or “can’t be explained by” recognized neurological diseases or other medical conditions.

Lest members of the public derive a “simplistic impression of potential links between the [COVID] vaccine and major neurological symptoms,” neurologists pushing the FND story have hastened to reassure people that the “close development of functional motor symptoms after the vaccine does not implicate the vaccine as the cause of those symptoms.”

One of these individuals is National Institutes of Health-funded neurologist Alberto Espay, who implausibly adds that COVID vaccination (which entails injection with high-risk substances and technologies) is just “a stressor or precipitant, much like any other stressor … such as a motor vehicle accident or sleep deprivation.”

Officials and the media are audaciously trotting out the FND narrative on both sides of the pond, as evidenced by a recent Daily Mail headline that read, “Videos of people ‘struggling to walk’ after getting their COVID vaccine are NOT result of jab itself but a condition triggered by stress or trauma.”

Helping with the spin, a member of the U.K.’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization straight-facedly attributed this “stress” to coercion, stating: “If people begin to feel they are being kind of forced against their will to do something, then in a sense that’s quite a damaging thing to do because it gives people the impression vaccination is something being imposed on them.”

Hammering home the point that “there is nothing to see here,” Kings College London physician Matthew Butler solemnly (and without evidence) agrees that FND — though “serious and debilitating” — “does not implicate any vaccine constituents and should not hamper ongoing vaccination efforts.”

Butler is the lead author of a May 2020 paper proposing FND patients’ “abnormal body-focussed attention” be treated with psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin — never mind that psychedelics themselves, admit Butler and co-authors, “sometimes produce abnormal physical and motor effects,” including seizures.

An all-too-familiar game

To past victims of vaccine injury, the “it’s all in your mind” sleight-of-hand being summoned to dismiss COVID vaccine injuries is all too familiar.

Consider autism, which psychiatrists blamed, in its earliest days, on emotionally distant “refrigerator moms.”

In more recent decades, families affected by autism have experienced the double whammy of regulatory indifference to likely culprits (including not just neurotoxic vaccines but other probable environmental triggers) alongside brazen denial of autism’s escalating prevalence.

Young people injured by human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines tell similar stories of “denial and dismissal of reported harms and deaths.” Researchers who in 2017 reviewed the serious adverse events reported during two of the largest HPV vaccine clinical trials noted that “Practically, none of the serious adverse events occurring in any arm of both studies were judged [by the manufacturers] to have been vaccine-related.”

In the face of severe symptoms such as heart-attack-like chest pain, numbness and swelling of extremities, hair loss, whole-body aches and extreme fatigue, boys and girls injured by HPV vaccines have been repeatedly subjected to medical gaslighting — told they are “crazy” and just need to “slow down.”

In one incident in Australia, after “26 girls presented to the school’s sick bay with symptoms including dizziness, syncope [fainting] and neurological complaints” within two hours of receiving HPV vaccines at school, pharma-funded researchers had the chutzpah to dismiss the safety signal and characterize the episode as a “mass psychogenic event” — which they defined as “the collective occurrence of a constellation of symptoms suggestive of organic illness but without an identified cause in a group of people with shared beliefs about the cause.” — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Support Texas Dad risking everything to save his son from being « transitioned » into a girl 8696 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 9000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Recognize, question and reclaim

The medical-public health-pharma cartel, the “small cabal of wealthy countries, corporations and individuals” that support it, and their media mouthpieces are supremely confident in their ability to manage public perceptions through words and narratives, whether for the purpose of “mystifying” the public about key events, securing buy-in for oppressive policies or sowing discord to divide and conquer. (As journalists Caitlin Johnstone and Glenn Greenwald also remind us, many media personalities are intelligence agency veterans or assets, and the “sole owner of the Washington Post is a CIA contractor.”)

Thus, it pays to be attentive to how health authorities use language, for “the more you know about language, the more immune you become to its effects.”

Beyond noticing the manipulation, we must also stop ceding the linguistic terrain to our would-be manipulators — for example, by eschewing weaponized vocabulary such as the pejorative term “vaccine hesitancy.”

Catholic journalist Jane Stannus points out that the term “vaccine hesitant” portrays those who decline COVID (or other) vaccines as “‘trapped by irrational fears’ in a state of inaction or ignorantly opposed to science,” with the strong suggestion “that such backward and weak-minded persons are worthy of contempt, especially compared with the enlightened, confident people who signed up for the vaccine immediately.”

The unfortunate corollary of such language is the “witch hunt on the unvaccinated” that we are already witnessing, “an act of violence against the fabric of society,” says Stannus, that is “a greater evil … than the shared suffering of disease.”

We can and urgently need to see through these shenanigans and reclaim our humanity.

Fast-moving current events are proving those who have declined COVID injections are the wise ones, with science proving them correct in just about every way.

Whether we consider the many suspected dangers of products unleashed on the public less than a year ago, or the injuries and deaths occurring on a never-before-seen scale (including in teens who had their lives ahead of them), or the clear superiority of natural immunity, or the fact that the injections don’t even do the one thing the clinical trials alleged they could do (i.e., keep more severe illness at bay), it is clear that citizens who would rather think for themselves than swallow prefabricated lies are the ones who are going to come out ahead

© August 26, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts

Life Site:UK Public Health briefing shows 65% of Delta variant deaths are in the vaccinated

UK Public Health briefing shows 65% of Delta variant deaths are in the vaccinated

The UK will continue to push booster shots to fight Delta despite mounting evidence that those vaccinated still get infected with the variant.

Kenton
Biffert

Fri Aug 27, 2021 – 12:36 pm EDT

LONDON, England (LifeSiteNews) – Public Health England released a technical briefing this month reporting that two-thirds of those who have died with the Delta variant in the United Kingdom had received both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, yet the UK is moving forward with booster shots in September.

The August 6 brief, which focused on ten COVID variants and four variants of concern (VOC) in England, reported that out of total of 300,110 cases of the Delta variant there were 742 deaths. 481 or 65% of the deaths were with those who had received the COVID jab.https://static.lifeserver.net/709b1e30a292a046243572436ad0600c/index.html?clickTag=https%3A%2F%2Fservedby.lifeserver.net%2Fcl.php%3Fbannerid%3D80884%26zoneid%3D8553%26sig%3D7a963ec7211d5cb7d678ac605ed0f50ff09fadf55108019445ee8f19cc286ebc%26oadest%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fbit.ly%252F3hm5Nxs

The brief stated in summary that positive and negative cases from the PCR tests are routinely “similar between individuals who are unvaccinated and vaccinated.”

The UK is not the only nation seeing an increase in infection and deaths among those who have taken the COVID shots.

Israel has reported a similar pattern. In the Holy Land, the Delta variant is being found in over fifty percent of the population according to Science, 60% of whom have taken their Covid shot. Preliminary research recently released is suggesting that the efficacy of the mRNA vaccine is wearing off in Israel, and will do so in other countries as well.

Referencing three recent studies – two by the CDC and one by Oxford – Infection Control Today reported that “the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines wanes in the face of the delta variant.” The Oxford study published that “With Delta, infections occurring following two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden to those in unvaccinated individuals,” and the effectiveness of the vaccine is “reduced with Delta.” — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus 1060442 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1100000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Dr. Joseph Mercola, M.D., an award winning doctor writing for The Defender, explained that the those who are vaccinated for the Wuhan Virus, “serve as breeding ground for mutations.”

“Viruses mutate all the time,” Mercola said, “and if you have a vaccine that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person.” Vaccines actually propel viruses to mutate into more dangerous strains.

One distinct feature of the Covid shot is that “they’re not designed to block infection. They allow infection to occur and at best lessen the symptoms of that infection,” Mercola stated. “If SARS-CoV-2 does end up mutating into more lethal strains, then mass vaccination is the most likely driver.”

The narrative that the world is entering a “pandemic of the unvaccinated“ and that the unvaccinated are “viral factories for more dangerous variants is simply false,” Mercola argues.

Despite the waning effectiveness of the shot against the Delta variant and the number of both infections and deaths increasing in those who have received COVID shots, many are still recommending more COVID shots as the step forward.

Professor Sarah Walker, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and Chief Investigator and Academic Lead for the Oxford study, concluded that because those that are vaccinated are still getting the virus, they may transmit the virus to the unvaccinated. “This means it is essential for as many people as possible to get vaccinated – both in the UK and worldwide.”

The UK is set to roll out booster shots, Israel has already begun to give the booster shots, Canada is making them available to those deemed “high-risk,” and the United States has revealed plans to give the booster shot to as many as possible.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that booster shots should be used “only when there is a compelling public health reason,” as there is currently “limited evidence [] available to inform this decision.”

WHO chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan, speaking at a recent media briefing, stated that “we recently had an expert group meeting with scientists from around the world this included researchers, it included regulatory experts from different regulatory agencies, there was consensus that … the data around the need for boosters is not conclusive.”

“We also don’t know about the safety of boosters,” she continued, “because when we talk about vaccines, it’s not just the efficacy, what happens … when you give a third dose of an mRNA vaccine or any other kind of vaccine?”

“These need to be studied as well, so before we launch into full-scale booster programs for the whole population there are a number of questions that need to be answered.”

Life Site:BREAKING: Japanese medical association chairman tells doctors to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID

BREAKING: Japanese medical association chairman tells doctors to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID

‘While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments.’ IvermectinShutterstock

Kennedy
Hall

Fri Aug 27, 2021 – 2:48 pm EDT

TOKYO (LifeSiteNews) – The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, held a press conference this week announcing that the anti-parasite medicine Ivermectin seems to be effective at stopping COVID-19 and publicly recommending that all doctors in Japan immediately begin using Ivermectin to treat COVID.

Ivermectin has been a source of controversy amongst medical professionals regarding the possibility of therapeutic treatments for those diagnosed with COVID-19.https://static.lifeserver.net/709b1e30a292a046243572436ad0600c/index.html?clickTag=https%3A%2F%2Fservedby.lifeserver.net%2Fcl.php%3Fbannerid%3D80884%26zoneid%3D8553%26sig%3D7a963ec7211d5cb7d678ac605ed0f50ff09fadf55108019445ee8f19cc286ebc%26oadest%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fbit.ly%252F3hm5Nxs

In an article about the suppression of Ivermectin by health authorities, Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote: “While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments.”

Multiple reports and studies have shown evidence that Ivermectin is effective in combatting illness associated with COVID-19, and in some countries, like India, it is recommended for use even though the World Health Organization does not recommend it.

Dr. Ozaki cited evidence from African nations that have utilized Ivermectin during the pandemic. He stated: “In Africa, if we compare countries distributing Ivermectin once a year with countries who do not give Ivermectin… they don’t give Ivermectin to prevent COVID but to prevent parasitic disease… if we look at COVID numbers in countries that give Ivermectin, the number of cases is 134.4/100,000 and the number of deaths is 2.2/100,000.”

In 2019, Japan’s death rate from influenza amounted to 2.9 death cases per 100,000 inhabitants. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus 1060462 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1100000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

The Tokyo Medical Association chairman compared statistics from African countries that did use Ivermectin yearly with those that did not: “Now African countries which do not distribute Ivermectin: 950.6 cases per 100,000 and 29.3 deaths per 100,000.”

In his opinion, he believes that this shows a clear difference between the illness and fatality rates amongst nations that use Ivermectin and those that do not: “I believe the difference is clear. Of course one cannot conclude that Ivermectin is effective only on the basis of these figures, but when we have all of these elements, we cannot say that Ivermectin is absolutely not effective, at least not me.”

He added that, given the situation, other studies can be done to “confirm its efficacy,” insinuating that it is worth using as a treatment, given that in his estimation, Japan is “in a crisis situation.”

He said, “I think we are in a situation where we can afford to give [patients] this treatment.”

Another prominent Japanese physician, Dr. Kazuhiro Nagao, appeared on Japanese television proposing that COVID-19 should be treated as a Class 5 illness as opposed to its current classification as a Class 2. In Japan, illnesses are categorized by a classification system; approaching COVID as a Class 5 illness would mean that it could be treated like a seasonal flu.

Dr. Nagao said he has used Ivermectin as an early treatment for over 500 COVID patients with practically a 100% success rate, and that it should be used nationwide.

About the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating COVID patients, he said: “It starts being effective the very next day… My patients can reach me by message 24/7 and they tell me they feel better the next day.”

Nagao was asked by the TV anchor when patients should take Ivermectin if diagnosed with COVID-19. He replied: “The same day, I mean if you are infected today, you take it today… It is a medication that should be given for mildly ill patients. If you give it to hospital patients, it’s too late. This is also the case for the majority of drugs… So you have to give Ivermectin. I am asking our Prime Minister Suga to distribute this drug ‘made in Japan’ on a large scale in the country.”

He added that four pills should be distributed to everyone in the country, so that people can take them “as soon as you are infected.”

Ivermectin originates from a single microbe unearthed from soil in Japan, and in recent years has been called a “wonder” drug that continues to surprise and exceed expectations. It has shown “unexpected” potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent, according to a 2017 article from The Journal of Antibiotics.

The same article stated: “Ivermectin has also been demonstrated to be a potent broad-spectrum specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear transport and demonstrates antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins.”

Recently, pro-life activist Abby Johnson wrote about her experience with a COVID and her use of Ivermectin as an early treatment. She wrote that under the guidance of America’s Frontline Doctors, she took a combination of Ivermectin, Prednisone and Zithromax, and that she noticed results straight away, and by the fifth day felt fully cured.

Life site:Bulgaria and Romania have low vaccination rates – and low COVID rates

Bulgaria and Romania have low vaccination rates – and low COVID rates

The two Eastern European countries have the lowest vaccination rates in the European Union and few COVID infections.

Matt
Lamb

Fri Aug 27, 2021 – 4:58 pm EDT

(LifeSiteNews) – Contrary to the expectations heavily promoted by politicians, media, and public health establishment, Bulgarians and Romanians saw a low number of COVID-19 infections this summer as they continued to refuse to take the COVID vaccines.

In fact, Bulgaria and Romania have some of the lowest rates of COVID infections per 100,000 people in Europe, according to an August 22 statistical analysis of European countries.https://static.lifeserver.net/709b1e30a292a046243572436ad0600c/index.html?clickTag=https%3A%2F%2Fservedby.lifeserver.net%2Fcl.php%3Fbannerid%3D80884%26zoneid%3D8553%26sig%3D7a963ec7211d5cb7d678ac605ed0f50ff09fadf55108019445ee8f19cc286ebc%26oadest%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fbit.ly%252F3hm5Nxs

“The current vaccination rate in Romania is half compared to that of Bulgaria (0.13 vaccines per 100 inhabitants on average in the last seven days) and 7.5 times lower than the EU average (0.45 vaccines per 100 inhabitants),” according to Romania Insider. “On the opposite end, Denmark has administered 0.94 vaccine doses per 100 inhabitants on average over the last seven days.” Bulgaria and Romania’s vaccination rates since the 2020 release of the jab are not significantly different.

The two countries sandwich Denmark for lowest infection rates on the continent.

While the publication said that “the number of new COVID-19 cases has risen to the highest level since the end of May,” the article fails to provide the necessary context.

Romania’s reported COVID cases peaked at nearly 60,000 in November 2020, before a vaccine was made available. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus 1060466 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1100000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Through the summer, Romania’s 25 percent vaccination rate did not lead it to experience a surge in infections. “Officials say Romania has received more [than] 16 million doses of several western-made vaccines but less than 55 per cent have been used, as the number of vaccines administered daily has dropped to around 20,000 from 100,000 last month,” the Irish Times reported.

The publication admitted “a slowing infection rate has weakened the impetus for some in Romania to get vaccinated: only 31 new cases of Covid-19 and five deaths were reported on Thursday, adding to a national total of 1.08 million infections and 33,786 fatalities.”

For example, the week of July 5 saw a low of 285 confirmed cases. While the past several weeks of August have seen an increase to almost 4,000 cases in one week, it’s still much lower than pre-vaccination rates and the early months of 2021.

March 29 saw 38,000 confirmed cases of COVID, and infections continued to drop throughout the spring.

Romanians have continued to reject the COVID vaccines, leading the country to sell its surplus doses to Denmark and other countries.

Bulgarian political leaders have likewise not convinced their citizens to get the jab.

The country has also experienced a slow summer, with infections decreasing throughout the spring. Currently only 16 percent of its adult population is considered fully vaccinated.

“As of 14 August, 20.1% of the adult population in Bulgaria have received at least one dose of vaccine against Covid-19, 18.2% are double-vaccinated, Single Coronavirus Information Portal data show,” Radio Bulgaria reported.

Most months this summer saw fewer than 1,000 weekly confirmed cases of COVID.

High rates of vaccination do not necessarily translate to a decrease in COVID and potentially lead to a higher spread of the delta variant. Natural immunity, which comes from previous infections, has been proven to help Israelis more than the vaccine.

“Coronavirus patients who recovered from the virus were far less likely to become infected during the latest wave of the pandemic than people who were vaccinated against COVID, according to numbers presented to the Israeli Health Ministry,” Israel National News reported.

Europeans have other reasons to be hesitant about the vaccines.

“More than 2 million adverse events and 21,000 deaths have been reported to a European Union (EU) drug reaction database following the use of currently available COVID jabs,” an August 26 LifeSite analysis found.