Coronavirus

More on the Nuremberg Code from Dr. James H. Fetzer from his recent show on Bitchute.

https://static-3.bitchute.com/live/c...J7_320x180.jpg

Need to Know News (18 August 2022) with Carl Herman and Brian Davidson

TRANSCRIPT @ 33:53 - 34:50

Let me just say how fascinating and revealing that is. And of course they're suppressing it because the Nuremberg Code declares right off the bat that

no person may be subjected to an experimental medical procedure without informed consent which has been violated all over the world, grossly violated.

Individuals have informed consent and must know all the benefits and all the hazards, all the downsides, the risks associated with an experimental vaccine.

They must also be informed about viable available alternatives that are less intrusive like HCQ and Ivermectin, which were massively suppressed because the FDA could never have authorized an experimental vaccine if there were viable, readily available alternatives that were non-intrusive such as HCQ and Ivermectin.

So if you were to highlight the Nuremberg Code, you would expose that the entire American medical establishment has been grossly violating international law and established medical procedure.

So, of course, it's only going to be Crickets.

Carl, your thoughts.

More from Carl Herman on the recent Need to Know News show on Bitchute.

Need to Know News (18 August 2022) with Carl Herman and Brian Davidson

https://static-3.bitchute.com/live/c...J7_320x180.jpg

TRANSCRIPT @ 35:00 - 37:23

Yes, there are crimes against humanity. And the Nuremberg Code is reflected in U S CODE Title 21. Article 6 of the United States Constitution has federal law is supreme over any state mandate, order, requirement, whatever they want to do to frame it.

And in the two years that I have challenged Haywood Unified School District as a public school teacher that was one of the arguments that I gave. I said 'hey, you know I happen to know that you administer and defend the Constitution of the United States and of California. That's limited law.

Federal law Title 21 means that I can freely decline any types of EUA, Experimental Use Authorized medical product -- the masks the shots, the tests, but Haywood Unified School District, you tell me that I have to get paid unpaid leave if I refuse these medical experiments.

How can you violate Title 21?

And they didn't want to answer. And in the back-and-forth of over two years of obfuscation, but the official answer I finally got out of them is that they said 'look, we can locally in California, we can supplant Title 21 by giving you broader rights and more stringent compliance than federal law.'

So I said 'So, my forced paid leave is a broader right - that's the argument that you're making?' And then Crickets to that.

So, our opponents aren't able to articulate and defend any position. All they can do is bullshit, obfuscate and then when you really nail them with a sharp question, they have to go silent.

These are crimes against humanity. They have no authority. This issue has been not challenged since World War II that the Nuremberg Code means what it says. Federal Title 21 means what it says. And this is backed up in California laws, and I'm sure most laws in most states that the American public and the global public are free to decline any medical experimental product without any coercion.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...2-e24aab757cb7
video embedded in CHD article

12:31 video runtime

also on YouTube HERE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo


08/17/22
•

COVID › Views

Kim Iversen: What I Would Have Asked Fauci If I’d Been Allowed to Interview Him

In a recent interview with Russell Brand, Kim Iversen said she’s no longer co-host of The Hill’s “Rising” because she wasn’t allowed to interview Dr. Anthony Fauci.

By
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.


Political commentator Kim Iversen was excited when she learned the news show she co-hosted, The Hill’s “Rising,” had booked Dr. Anthony Fauci for an interview — until the night before the interview, she learned she wouldn’t be allowed to participate.

“I’m not on ‘The Hill’ because they would not allow me to interview Anthony Fauci,” Kim Iversen told Russell Brand during a recent interview about why she left The Hill.

Iversen said she doesn’t know for certain who was responsible for the decision — whether Fauci’s team said he wouldn’t come on the show if she did the interview, or if her producers didn’t present her name to Fauci’s team, for fear he’d back out.

All she knows is that the night before the interview was to take place, her producers said she wouldn’t be part of it.

Iversen told them, “That’s unacceptable,” because, after all, she’d been covering COVID-19 “at length” for the show.

When she joined The Hill, Iversen said she knew she was “joining corporate media” and therefore “part of the establishment to some degree,” she told Brand.

But she also told her producers, and her audience, that she wouldn’t remain on the show if she were “censored, held back or limited.”

“The minute that was to change was the minute that I would no longer be able to be there,” she said. “That would make me a liar to the audience.”

Download for Free: Robert F. Kennedy's New Book — ‘A Letter to Liberals’

‘Does Anthony Fauci refuse to answer difficult questions?’

Iversen said she was excited to interview Fauci because “he is the person who guided the pandemic that put us in these limitations and mandates.”

She added:

“Our lives have drastically changed since the pandemic in many ways, and Fauci was the guiding force on a lot of that.”

As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U.S. government authorities looked to him to manage the pandemic.

Initially an HIV/AIDS researcher — as discussed in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci” — Fauci has advised seven U.S. presidents and is now chief medical advisor to President Biden.

Fauci on Aug. 2 told Fox News he symbolizes “consistency,” “integrity” and “truth.”

Not everyone agrees.

“As the world watched,” Kennedy wrote in his book, “Tony Fauci dictated a series of policies that resulted in by far the most deaths, and one of the highest percentage COVID-19 body counts of any nation on the planet.”

Kennedy added:

“Only relentless propaganda and wall-to-wall censorship could conceal his disastrous mismanagement during COVID-19’s first year.”

Brand said he thinks high-paying public officials like Fauci, who wield great amounts of power, should be held up to public scrutiny.

Brand emphasized the need for “transparency between powerful people that make decisions and the media that report on the decisions that are being made, so that we — the ordinary people of the world — are able to be part of a conversation regarding how we are governed.”

“What interests me about this subject is, Does Anthony Fauci refuse to answer difficult questions?” Brand said.

Brand wondered whether Fauci was avoiding answering tough questions about “things like natural immunity, recommendation of vaccines for those under 5 [years of age], their clinical data and whether the clinical data underwrites the decision to extend the vaccine program to young people.”

What would Iversen have asked Fauci, had she been allowed to interview him?

“What is a ‘vaccine’ to Fauci?”
“How much protection do we get? How long does it last?”
“Why are we not doing comprehensive studies on natural immunity?”
“Why are we not doing studies on comprehensive therapeutics that are out there?”
“Why did you not separate those who are most vulnerable from those who are not, like school children, and why did you instead say, ‘no, everybody has to do this [i.e., wear a mask, get the vaccine]?’”

Iversen expressed frustration at the “narrative” around COVID-19 and the “lack of ability to ask questions.”

“They [Fauci and his team] were not interested, it seems,” Iversen told Brand, “in finding out any of those questions and getting answers for us. Instead, it was just: ‘No, take this,’ make Big Pharma a bunch of money and silence to any of us who actually questioned it.”

Iversen also would like to have asked Fauci if he, himself, could generate any critical questions to ask.

“Does he have any at all?” she asked. “Because it doesn’t feel like there are any coming from him.”

Watch the interview here:
____

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

Increasing Communist Tyranny and Totalitarianism for Canada

_________________

https://brownstone.org/articles/digi...tm_source=push

Digital ID in Canada. Is the US Next?

https://brownstone.org/wp-content/up...-1-800x469.jpg


Digital ID in Canada. Is the US Next?

By John Mac Ghlionn August 21, 2022

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is actively promoting digital IDs. The Known Traveler Digital Identity (KTDI) is a WEF initiative that, according to its website, “brings together a global consortium of individuals, governments, authorities and the travel industry to enhance security in world travel.”

As you can probably tell by the name of the initiative, digital IDs are a core component of the WEF’s desire to “enhance security.” Canada is KTDI’s most prominent member. Now, Canada, supposedly a country interested in advancing human rights, wants to introduce a federal “Digital Identity Program.”

According to a recent report released by the Canadian government, those in charge want “to make it easier for Canadians to interact with the Government of Canada.” For this to occur, though, “modern, integrated systems and an unwavering focus on the needs and experience of citizens” are required. In plain human language: this will require the introduction of digital IDs. The elites in Davos, one imagines, are excited by the developments in Canada.

Last year, in a rather revealing white paper, the WEF outlined the many ways in which digital IDs will turbocharge our digital future. The authors cite China’s use of digital IDs and biometric technologies; these, they insist, have “transformed consumer habits and delivered tangible benefits” to Chinese citizens. The fact that the WEF is using China as a shining example of why digital IDs work should worry anyone who cherishes the idea of freedom.

Should American citizens be concerned if Canada—the United States’ neighbor—is prepared to roll out digital IDs? The answer is yes. If it can happen in one of the most developed countries in the world, it can happen in the United States. In fact, some Democrats are actively pushing for digital IDs.

In a recent piece for The American Conservative, I asked the question, why are Democrats pushing digital IDs? Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) first introduced the “Improving Digital Identity Act” back in 2020, but his idea never gathered momentum. Foster decided to reintroduce the measure.

As the author Natalie Aims noted, the bill “would also set up a task force on digital identity and establish a grant program at the Department of Homeland Security to support the creation of interoperable identity credentialing systems for digital identity verification on the state and local level.”

Yes, the DHS, the very same federal executive department that was trying to introduce the Disinformation Governance Board earlier this year.

Foster, as I discussed in The American Conservative piece, is not the only Democrat pushing digital IDs. He’s just one of many. Which begs the question, why are a number of politicians on the left so interested in these problematic IDs? In short, they want to address identity fraud, a growing problem in the United States. In 2021, nearly 42 million Americans were victims of identity fraud. Tens of billions of dollars were lost to opportunistic fraudsters.

Now, only a fool would argue that identity fraud isn’t a problem in the United States; it is. Something must be done. However, we must ensure that the so-called cure is not worse than the disease.

You see, digital IDs are closely associated with social credit systems. When one reads the words “social credit system,” their minds automatically jump to communist China, where 1.4 billion people are constantly monitored and graded. Those who fall short are banned from booking flights and enrolling their children in certain schools. They become prisoners, unable to relocate elsewhere and unable to give their children a better life. Nothing good comes from a social credit system. People are forced to live in a constant state of fear, constantly checking their score to see if they are considered “good” or “bad” by those in charge.

With Canadian authorities creating the infrastructure required to implement a digital identification network, some are concerned that a social credit system similar to the one in China is just around the corner. Their concerns are warranted. Digital IDs lay the path for social credit systems. Without them, a credit system wouldn’t be impossible.

From a globalist takeover perspective, as the author Tim Hinchcliffe put it, digital identity schemes are a must. Although there will never be a good time to introduce digital IDs (at least for us, the citizens), they appear to be unavoidable and inescapable. They are coming. They will play a central role in this world—and the next one.

In the Metaverse—the next iteration of the internet that will see humans inhabit the digital unknown—digital identities will play a starring role. Do you know who else will play a starring role? The WEF. The elites in Davos appear very eager to govern the immersive virtual world, this 3D representation of the internet. The Metaverse includes the use of virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. And if the WEF has its way, it will also include the use of digital identities.

_________________________

Reprinted from Epoch Times

Author

John Mac Ghlionn

With a doctorate in psychosocial studies, John Mac Ghlionn works as both a researcher and essayist. His writing has been published by the likes of Newsweek, NY Post, and The American Conservative. He can be found on Twitter: @ghlionn, and on Gettr: @John_Mac_G

READ MORE

More self-incriminating CDC "cases" GIGO.

________________

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...2-e24aab757cb7


08/15/22

Hold On! CDC Says COVID No Longer Needs to Disrupt Our Daily Lives … But What Really Changed?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week said the agency “streamlined” its COVID-19 guidance so the public can better protect itself — but what really changed?

By
Madhava Setty, M.D.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...re-800x417.jpg

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a press release last week said the agency “streamlined” its COVID-19 guidance so the public can better protect itself.

Of note, the CDC did not mention any different recommendations for unvaccinated individuals than for those who got the jab. Why not?

“We’re in a stronger place today as a nation, with more tools — like vaccination, boosters and treatments — to protect ourselves, and our communities, from severe illness from COVID-19,” said Greta Massetti, Ph.D., MPH, a CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report author.

According to Massetti:

“We also have a better understanding of how to protect people from being exposed to the virus, like wearing high-quality masks, testing, and improved ventilation. This guidance acknowledges that the pandemic is not over, but also helps us move to a point where COVID-19 no longer severely disrupts our daily lives.

Hold on a moment — what new tools is she talking about? We’ve had vaccines for 20 months, boosters for over a year and “treatments” from very early on (if one considers those that the CDC never acknowledged).

Was the CDC against high-quality masks, testing and improved ventilation prior to this bulletin?

What exactly has changed? Are daily cases plummeting?

No, they aren’t much different than they were in the fall of 2021, and are significantly higher than the summer lulls over the past two years:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...t-1024x520.jpg
Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

But more importantly, why does the CDC now regard the unvaccinated in the same way as the jabbed?

Let’s look at the CDC’s COVID-19 death rates in age groups from 18 to 80 (there are too few deaths in people under the age of 18 to report):

18 to 29:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...9-1024x474.jpg
Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

30 to 49:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...9-1024x480.jpg

50 to 64:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...4-1024x475.jpg
Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

65 to 79:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...9-1024x486.jpg
Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

People over 80:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...0-1024x485.jpg
Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

COVID-19 death rates are nearly the same in all age groups reported whether or not a person is vaccinated.

It would be very hard for the CDC to have different guidelines based on vaccination status if there were no benefit to getting jabbed. Isn’t this the real reason for the “streamlined” guidance?

Oh, and one last question for you, Greta: These data are three months old — would you care to tell us how the vaccinated are faring compared to the unvaccinated now?

Or won’t this be necessary now that there are no longer any special impositions placed on the unvaccinated?

One thing is for sure: If this has become a “pandemic of the vaccinated,” we certainly don’t want to see the data that proves it.
_________________________
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.
_________________________

Author:

Madhava Setty, M.D.

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.

https://beckernews.com/new-nih-inspe...rements-46499/

NIH Inspector General Finds More Than Half of Clinical Trials During Covid ‘Did Not Comply’ with Federal Requirements

by Kyle Becker August 19, 2022


The National Institutes of Health’s Office of the Inspector General has found that more than half the clinical trials funded in response to the Covid-19 pandemic did not comply with federal guidelines.

The OIG report, which was released earlier this week, sheds light on the lax approach that the nation’s premier health institutes took to ensure that the clinical trials met the highest standards for transparency and timely reporting.

“We reviewed all 72 NIH-funded Intramural and Extramural clinical trials for which Federal law and NIH policy required the results to be reported in calendar year 2019 or 2020,” the NIH’s Inspector General stated. “To determine whether responsible parties complied with reporting requirements, we compared the date the results should have been submitted with the date they were submitted. We also determined whether NIH posted the clinical trial results submitted by the responsible parties to ClinicalTrials.gov within 30 days of the submission date.”

The NIH’s IG found that more than half the clinical trials did not meet the requisite federal reporting guidelines, either by failing to meet the deadline or by not reporting the results at all. The Table summarizes the number of clinical trials requiring results to be submitted in 2019 or 2020 that were submitted on time, late, or not submitted at all.

https://beckernews.com/wp-content/up...000-scaled.jpg

The IG’s striking report follows upon the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admitting that the agency failed to achieve its results during the Covid-19 pandemic and calling for sweeping reorganization.

Source: beckernews.com

BREAKING NEWS:

Whistleblower Report of Illegal DoD Activity The memorandum alleges Department of Defense (DoD) has unlawfully administered Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) products (i.e., products authorized but not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) as if they were fully licensed FDA approved products. Military members have not been allowed to exercise their legal right to refuse EUA products, despite the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) assertion that “Comirnaty-labeled” vaccines only became available for the DoD to order on 20 May 2022. Evidence also exists that the new “Comirnaty-labeled” products are not FDA approved in accordance with applicable laws.
https://www.truthforhealth.org/2022/...-dod-activity/

Source: newsletter from

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...KvTnsM4Teg--~D

New VAERS Data as of Aug.12, 2022 (posted Aug.19, 2022)

32,775 Total Deaths and 1,478,614 Total Adverse Events

30,347 Pfizer/Moderna and 2,631 J&J Deaths

1,385,401 Pfizer / Moderna and 93,213 J&J Adverse Events


https://drtenpenny.com/newsletter/#vaers
Source: https://drtenpenny.com/newsletter/#vaers

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...i3ckHDstfg--~D

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-co...m_source=email

☕️ Coffee & Covid ☙ Monday, August 22, 2022

More jab injury news makes corporate media; Epoch links cancer to jabs;

Jeff Childers
2 hr ago August 22, 2022

COVID NEWS AND COMMENTARY* ��

�� We’ve been watching the narrative over jab safety and efficacy pivoting for two months now, and then last week we saw the CDC pivoting to drop all its covid restrictions for unjabbed people, and announcing a “top to bottom” reorganization. Weird.

Then over the weekend, Tucker Carlson rounded up jab injury studies.
Twitter avatar for @JustTruthSleuth��Sapere Aude�� @JustTruthSleuth
Tucker SAYS IT about the forced vaccines.

Link to video
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1550466125879582720/pu/vid/1280x720/rY293Elualz5qxUe.mp4?tag=12

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...0zbiH1Xi.w--~D

The Lancet: “Risk of infection, hospitalization, and death up to nine months after second dose of Covid-19 vaccine.”

July 22nd 2022
296 Retweets370 Likes

Tucker’s first study was from the Lancet in February titled “Risk of infection, hospitalisation, and death up to 9 months after a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine: a retrospective, total population cohort study in Sweden - The Lancet”.

So it’s not that Tucker was breaking any new “news.” The real news was that Fox was giving prime-time coverage to direct vaccine injury studies. Tucker’s been warming up to this, I told you in July when he first referenced a study about the jab disrupting interferon signaling. But his tone in July was much more cautious than it was this weekend.

Twitter avatar for @TPostMillennialThe Post Millennial @TPostMillennial
Tucker Carlson takes a look at the effects the COVID vaccine is being shown to have on people.

link to video
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1551729043686531073/vid/642x360/uJvqa65_zzjLRk35.mp4?tag=14

July 26th 2022
5,975 Retweets12,605 Likes

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...9vNtcwlppA--~D

Tucker is getting aggressive about jab risks. The CDC and its allies MUST realize that it’s simply too late to screw a cap onto all the studies — the cat’s already out of the bag, as Dr. McCullough keenly observed yesterday:

Twitter avatar for @P_McCulloughMDPeter McCullough, MD MPH @P_McCulloughMD
Today PUBMED lists ~30K papers on Spike protein. I predict topping > 1M as S-protein drives disease on a mass scale never seen before. Billions have it loaded in their bodies with serial genetic administrations; it resides long-term in organs, tissues, monocytes, and exosomes.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/...hjWAAAbZBS.jpg

August 21st 2022
4,333 Retweets7,854 Likes



He’s right — there are more than 30,000 papers and studies now published on the harms caused by spike protein, which is the mRNA shots’ one and only effective by-product. And many of those papers specifically examine jab-induced spike protein rather than just spike generally.

Now Tucker needs to do excess deaths. That’s the government’s weakness, the reality that they won’t be able to dissemble away.

�� In another example, albeit not in corporate media, the Epoch Times ran a story Friday headlined, “New and Recurrent Cancers After mRNA Vaccines, Studies Suggest Immune Changes.”

The article starts with an alarming timeline for former cancer patient Bonnie Eisenberg. She recovered from breast cancer in 2012, and since then has been regularly testing for cancer markers every few months. They’ve always been low, averaging 0.4 ng/mL.

But after Bonnie took the first jab in January 2021, her next cancer marker test showed slightly elevated — but not alarming — levels at 3.7 ng/mL. After her second jab in February 2021, it bumped up again, to 5.2 ng/mL. But after she took the booster in October, her marker shot up to a red-hot 17.6 ng/mL and her doctor called her in for an immediate PET scan.

You guessed it; her breast cancer was back and not only that, it had already metastasized. Bonnie explained, “it went to all my bones … it didn’t go to any of my body organs, but it was over every bone you could think of. On the PET scan I lit up like a Christmas tree.”

She was suddenly and unexpectedly in stage 4. They immediately put her on chemo ($14,000 a month), which got the cancer under control. But Bonnie will remain on serious medication for the rest of her life, and is already experiencing side effects like hair loss, loss of bone mass, and so on.

Epoch quoted MIT’s Dr. Stephanie Seneff, who is apparently doing some great work in this area. Dr. Seneff explained in a recent study, “Impaired type I IFN signaling is linked to many disease risks, most notably cancer, as type 1 IFN signaling suppresses proliferation of both viruses and cancer cells by arresting the cell cycle.”

The paper then pointed out that “research on spike protein and mRNA vaccines suggests that IFN-alpha action may be impaired when exposed to spike protein.”

In other words, they’re saying the shots cause immune system problems, which pave the wave for cancer.

The immune system is what keeps cancer in check in healthy people. Epoch cited an analysis by The Expose on VAERS data that indicated a jab-linked explosion of cancers by 143,233 percent. That’s a lot.

The article cites more examples, like John Rolf, a healthy 68-year-old who suddenly developed stage 3 esophageal cancer after his jab in March 2021. Although doctors were optimistic, and started him on aggressive chemo, John died in his sleep in October. His wife Cheryl said, “I got up and he said ‘I want to sleep some more’ and he didn’t get up. I went and looked [later] and he had passed away.”

Is it possible we’ve finally reached the stage where the problems can no longer reasonably be hidden or denied, and that’s why the CDC is suddenly pivoting so hard, and why the U.S. is signaling that it will stop paying for jabs?

If so, it’s a fabulous development. We need a new Operation Warp Speed 2.0, to develop treatments for what the first Operation Warp Speed came up with. An all-hands-on-deck effort to treat vaccine injuries can’t happen until they admit there’s a problem.

Just admit it! Everybody already knows anyway.

____________________

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-...ent=08-22-2022

free video

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...Fn5UH7tKkQ--~D

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...y35u48vL7w--~D

President Donald Trump is suggesting he may be preparing a lawsuit following the raid on his Mar-A-Lago residence, which Attorney General Merrick Garland “personally approved.” Trump is alleging the raid was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, which forbids illegal searches and seizures.

In other news, Dr. Robert Malone is filing a defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post, alleging that the news outlet published false information about his career and the validity of his warnings over the COVID-19 vaccinations.